DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 112861--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: Sm86
Date: March 11, 2026, 10:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> No!
>
> I'd simply send the text that was suggested earlier.
>
> DO NOT USE AI
>
> Obviously you will add the PCN number etc.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi,
So they responded today and delcined unfortunately.
I have attached photos of the letter they sent.
Any help would be great.
Thanks
HTML https://ibb.co/GQt8RcDp
HTML https://ibb.co/DH3y8dSs
HTML https://ibb.co/b5hQFkkb
#Post#: 112882--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 11, 2026, 1:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No problem.
We expected this.
We'll come up with a POPLA appeal.
#Post#: 112889--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: Sm86
Date: March 11, 2026, 2:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks so much.
#Post#: 113482--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: Sm86
Date: March 16, 2026, 5:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
Any luck with this?
Thanks
#Post#: 113495--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 17, 2026, 3:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Sm86 link ---
>
> Hi
>
> Any luck with this?
>
> Thanks
>
--- End Quote ---
Will try and come up with something in the next 24 hours.
#Post#: 113496--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: Sm86
Date: March 17, 2026, 3:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks
#Post#: 113502--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 17, 2026, 6:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
POPLA Appeal.
POPLA CODE -
Dear POPLA Assessor,
I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question and, since
the driver is not known to the operator, I will be making my
representations purely as keeper.
I understand that, under 'POPLA Rules', I must set out my appeal
points and the parking operator must rebut them?
Non compliance with Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.
The parking operators NtK clearly fails to comply with PoFA and,
as a result, liability cannot be passed from driver to keeper.
In particular, the NtK fails to satisfy the legal requirements
of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and
9(2)(e)(ii).
This non compliance is immediately fatal to the operators
reliance on PoFA.
The operator claims, in their initial appeal response, that
their NtK is a, "POFA-compliant parking charge notice" - simply
stating that does not automatically make it compliant and close
examination is required - this is ignored in their appeal
response.
PoFA (2012) Schedule 4;
Paragraph 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) of the statute
sets out the following;
THE NOTICE MUST STATE that the creditor does not know both the
name of the driver and a current address for service for the
driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify
the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
So, in order to establish compliance, we must examine the
operators NtK.
A precise examination of the legislation surrounding 9(2)(e)
reveals that compliance is achieved by the STATING of the
statutory wording immediately followed by a two limbed
'invitation to the keeper' to either 'pay the unpaid parking
charges' or 'nominate another driver'.
So, to make this really easy, in the first instance, we are
looking for the specific statutory wording set out in 9(2)(e)
itself.
The legislation specifies that THE NOTICE MUST STATE, "that the
creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current
address for service for the driver"
An examination of the operators NtK reveals that the statutory
wording is not present and therefore it cannot be said that the
NtK 'STATES' the specified wording.
The wording, "THE NOTICE MUST STATE", is clearly and
deliberately 100% objective, legally very specific and
uninterpretable in any other fashion - there can be no argument
that subjectivity can be introduced in order to imply compliance
- the words "MUST STATE" cannot mean anything other than 'must
state'.
This is immediately fatal to the operators reliance on PoFA.
However, to demonstrate my appeal point further, the NtK is then
required to present a two limbed 'invitation to the keeper'
which 'invites the keeper' to either 'pay the unpaid parking
charges' or 'if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to
notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current
address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to
the driver'
Please again note the exact wording of the statute;
That the notice must state that the creditor does not know both
the name of the driver and a current address for service for the
driver AND invite the keeper— blah blah blah
I have capitalised the word AND for good reason since the word
AND demonstrates that compliance is only achieved if the
operator is able to demonstrate that both legs of the AND logic
have been satisfied.
Please note (and I apologise for sounding like a Junior School
Teacher) that a 'warning to the keeper' is not 'an invitation to
the keeper' - The words 'warn' and 'invite' have very different
meanings and it is important that the correct wording in
understood and applied when examining the NtK since other terms
of the legislation require that 'warnings to the keeper' be set
out on the NtK - I understand that some POPLA assessors have
become confused on this issue in the past and have inadvertently
applied the reversed meanings - to be clear, a warning is not an
invite and an invite is not a warning.
So, back to the two limbed invitation to the keeper - when the
NtK is examined the two limbed invitation is not present.
Nor is there an 'invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid
charges' - this is also the specific requirement of 9(2)(e)(i).
So, as I am sure you can see, there are multiple compliance
issues on the operators NtK.
So, back to the formal approach which POPLA demands;
APPEAL POINT ONE - That the operators NtK does not contain the
legally required mandatory wording set out by term 9(2)(e),
namely; "the creditor does not know both the name of the driver
and a current address for service for the driver" - I therefore
ask the operator to specifically rebut this appeal point by
supplying a copy of the relevant NTK, to the POPLA Assessor,
with an orange rectangle outlining the wording, "the creditor
does not know both the name of the driver and a current address
for service for the driver" - for total clarity, please do not
include any other notations on the provided NtK.
APPEAL POINT TWO - That, subsequent to the statutory wording
required by 9(2)(e), the operators NtK does not set out the
legally required two limbed invitation to the keeper to either
pay the unpaid parking charges or nominate another driver - Once
again, I ask the operator to specifically rebut this appeal
point by supplying a copy of the NtK which clearly sets out, in
an orange rectangle, the two limbed legal invitation to the
keeper which the legislation requires in order to be compliant.
APPEAL POINT THREE - That, in accordance with 9(2)(e) and
subsequently the sub-term 9(2)(e)(i), the NtK must 'invite the
keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges' - Once I again, I ask
the parking operator to prove that the NtK complies with this
requirement - please demonstrate the 'invitation to the keeper
to pay the unpaid charges' - Please do not confuse this
'invitation' with any 'warning to keeper' contained in the
requirements of 9(2)(f) - additionally, please do not confuse
this 'invitation to the keeper to paid the unpaid charges' with
the statement required by 9(2)(b) which states that the DRIVER
is required to pay the parking charges.
If both the Parking Operator and the POPLA Assessor could use my
numbered points then this would be very useful and should ensure
that all appeal points are correctly addressed / rebutted / left
unchallenged.
Best wishes,
xxxxxx xxxxxxxx
#Post#: 113503--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: Sm86
Date: March 17, 2026, 6:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much. Will send it now.
#Post#: 115188--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: Sm86
Date: April 3, 2026, 1:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They responded with the following -
Summary
1. Introduction Secure Parking Solutions Ltd (the “Operator”)
respectfully submits this response to the appeal made by the
registered keeper. The Parking Charge has been issued correctly
following a clear breach of the advertised Terms and Conditions
at the site. The site operates as a private land customer-only
parking facility, strictly limited to patrons whilst they are
physically present on the premises. The contravention occurred
when the vehicle remained on site without meeting this
requirement. 2. Keeper Liability – Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (PoFA) The appellant’s primary argument relates to alleged
non-compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (PoFA), specifically Paragraph 9(2)(e). The Operator
confirms: A Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued on 04/02/2026,
within the statutory timeframe required under PoFA. The NtK
includes all mandatory statutory elements, including:
Identification of the creditor; Details of the parking event;
The outstanding Parking Charge; The period of parking; The
circumstances under which the charge became payable. Response to
Appellant’s Specific PoFA Arguments: Appeal Point 1 – “NtK does
not state the creditor does not know the driver details” The NtK
substantially complies with PoFA requirements. The legislation
does not require verbatim replication of statutory wording, but
rather that the notice conveys the required information clearly.
The NtK confirms that liability may be transferred to the keeper
in the absence of driver details, thereby fulfilling the
statutory intent. Appeal Point 2 – “No valid invitation to
keeper” The NtK provides the keeper with: The option to pay the
outstanding Parking Charge, or The ability to identify the
driver and provide a serviceable address This satisfies the
requirement of Paragraph 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(e)(ii). Appeal Point 3
– “No invitation to pay” The NtK clearly states that the Parking
Charge is payable and provides instructions on how to make
payment. This constitutes a valid and compliant invitation to
the keeper. Accordingly, full compliance with PoFA has been
achieved, and keeper liability has been correctly established.
3. Nature of the Site and Contractual Position This is not a pay
& display or public parking facility. The signage clearly
states: “Patrons only whilst on the premises.” This constitutes
a conditional licence to park, forming a legally binding
contract when a driver enters and remains on the land. The
driver is permitted to park only if they are a genuine customer
and remain on-site. Any deviation from this condition results in
a contractual breach. By leaving the premises or failing to meet
the patron requirement, the driver breaches the contractual
terms, thereby triggering the Parking Charge. This position is
supported by established case law, including: ParkingEye Ltd v
Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 – confirming that parking charges on
private land are enforceable where terms are clear and
prominently displayed. 4. BPA Code of Practice Compliance The
Operator is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA)
and fully complies with the BPA Code of Practice. Signage
(Section 19 & 21 of BPA Code) The site has: 1 entrance sign 2
Terms and Conditions signs Signage is: Clearly visible upon
entry; Positioned to be readable before parking; Written in
clear and intelligible language. The signage explicitly states
the restriction to patrons only, ensuring transparency and
compliance with: Consumer Rights Act 2015 (fairness and
transparency of terms) Grace Periods (Section 13 of BPA Code)
The appellant has not raised grace periods, however for
completeness: Grace periods apply only where a permitted parking
session exists (e.g., paid parking or maximum stay). In this
case: The vehicle was not authorised to park at all, as the
driver was not a patron. Therefore, no grace period applies. 5.
Evidence of Breach The Operator relies on: MNPR camera evidence,
confirming: Entry time: 13:31:03 Exit time: 13:37:10 Duration: 6
minutes 7 seconds No evidence of patron activity or
authorisation. The duration is sufficient to establish that: The
driver entered, Parked, And remained without complying with site
conditions. 6. On the Appellant’s Interpretation of Contract Law
The appellant attempts to argue technical deficiencies in
statutory wording. However: POPLA assesses substantive
compliance, not hyper-technical drafting arguments. The Operator
has met: Statutory requirements under PoFA Contractual
transparency requirements under Consumer Rights Act 2015
Operational standards under BPA Code of Practice The contractual
terms were: Clearly displayed, Reasonable, And enforceable. 7.
Conclusion The vehicle was parked in breach of clearly displayed
Terms and Conditions. The Parking Charge was issued in
accordance with: Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 BPA Code of
Practice Established case law (ParkingEye v Beavis) Keeper
liability has been correctly established. The appellant’s
arguments regarding PoFA non-compliance are unfounded. 8.
Request to POPLA In light of the above, Secure Parking Solutions
Ltd respectfully requests that POPLA: Reject the appeal, and
Uphold the Parking Charge in full.
#Post#: 115190--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: Sm86
Date: April 3, 2026, 3:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They have given me 7 days to respond.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page