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)
By: Sm86 Date: March 11, 2026, 10:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=InterCity125 link=topic=10010.msg110993#msg110993
date=1771949827]
No!
I'd simply send the text that was suggested earlier.
DO NOT USE AI
Obviously you will add the PCN number etc.
[/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)
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)
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)
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)
By: InterCity125 Date: March 17, 2026, 3:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Sm86 link=topic=10010.msg113482#msg113482
date=1773701682]
Hi
Any luck with this?
Thanks
[/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)
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)
By: InterCity125 Date: March 17, 2026, 6:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=Serif]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[/font]
#Post#: 113503--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
By: Sm86 Date: March 17, 2026, 6:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much. Will send it now.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page