DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 115191--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: jfollows
Date: April 3, 2026, 3:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You need to rebut any of the points they make with which you
disagree, otherwise they will claim that you agree with them.
If you post your draft response here before sending it, you will
get input.
#Post#: 115193--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: Sm86
Date: April 3, 2026, 3:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
To be honest it's all a bit confusing to me and I have just been
following [member=6750]InterCity125[/member] guidance
Hopefully he will see me through this 🙏🏻
#Post#: 115200--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: April 4, 2026, 2:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I can come up with something.
They're on the ropes with the PoFA compliance issue - we can now
exploit this.
#Post#: 115202--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: April 4, 2026, 3:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Comments on operator's evidence.
In the first instance, the operator has not rebutted any of my
appeal points using their provided NtK - this is because the NtK
is not compliant - providing their NtK would only prove
non-compliance and, as such, they have avoided this situation.
The parking operator states, "The NtK substantially complies
with PoFA requirements" - 'substantial compliance' is NOT
sufficient for PoFA Schedule 4 since the legislation states that
compliance occurs, "if ALL the applicable conditions under this
Schedule are met" - an admission of substantial compliance is an
admission that the notice is not totally compliant.
The operator states, "The legislation does not require verbatim
replication of statutory wording, but rather that the notice
conveys the required information clearly " - this is a totally
unsupported legal assertion - the wording used in the
legislation is totally objective in nature and the operator has
provided no legal evidence to support their claim - the operator
is deliberately trying to introduce subjectivity to term 9(2)(e)
when the wording is legally tight.
The operator attempts to show compliance with 9(2)(e) where they
state, "The NtK confirms that liability may be transferred to
the keeper in the absence of driver details, thereby fulfilling
the statutory intent" - This is not a correct interpretation of
9(2)(e) - The operator has fallen into the trap which I
mentioned in my initial appeal; namely, they are attempting to
use the wording from 9(2)(f) (the transfer of liability after 28
days) to satisfy the requirements of 9(2)(e) - the warning that
liability could be transferred bears no relevance to the
requirement set out in 9(2)(e) which specifies 'that the notice
must state that the creditor does not know the name and address
of the driver' - the 'statutory intent' is not therefore met
since the two sentences have totally different and unrelated
meanings - ultimately, the operator could easily show compliance
with 9(2)(e) by providing their NtK and marking the relevant
statement with an orange rectangle as I requested in my appeal
point - they avoid this request because the specific wording is
not present on their NtK.
9(2)(e) specifies;
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;
In this instance, the words MUST STATE can have no other
interpretation - importantly, the legislation does not say MUST
IMPLY or MUST SUGGEST - the wording couldn't be legally tighter
- in simple terms, the notice does not contain any sentence of
wording which reflects the requirements of 9(2)(e) and therefore
the notice is not compliant with Schedule 4.
Furthermore, there is no two limbed 'invitation to 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' - the suggestion
that other parts of the notice loosely satisfy those
requirements is nonsense since the legislation requires that the
invitation is presented in a clear fashion with the two limbed
choice directed at the keeper and that this two limbed
invitation must be given immediately after the statutory wording
specified by 9(2)(e).
The operator makes NO ATTEMPT to demonstrate the correct
presentation of the two limbed invitation and the method of
suggested compliance is demonstrably chaotic.
If both the sentence and two limbed choice is in fact present on
the NtK then I now invite the POPLA Assessor to clearly set out
the sentence and two limbed invitation? PLEASE DO NOT SKIP OVER
THIS POINT - Please use the numbered appeal points in my
original appeal as to ensure that all appeal points are
addressed.
Compliance is actually achieved with the following paragraph;
>>>>>>>>>>
At the present time the creditor does not know both the name of
the driver and a current address for service for the driver.
The Keeper is therefore invited to;
i) 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
Many thanks.
#Post#: 115212--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: Sm86
Date: April 4, 2026, 2:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I submitted this today. Thanks so much for all your help, it
really is appreciated. I will keep you updated on the outcome.
#Post#: 115272--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: April 7, 2026, 2:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Quick question; is it possible to either amend or add further
comments on the operators evidence?
I've noticed a couple of extra points which may add weight to
the non-compliant NtK.
#Post#: 115273--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: April 7, 2026, 3:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm fairly sure you can't once submitted.
#Post#: 115274--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: Sm86
Date: April 7, 2026, 3:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately not. It says once submitted that's it.
#Post#: 121036--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: Sm86
Date: June 7, 2026, 3:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Some bad news arrived today. Popla rejected the appeal.
This was their response -
Decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage
in place in the car park, which details the terms and conditions
of parking. The signs advise that the car park is an authorised
users only car park. The signage goes on to state that failure
to meet the above terms will result in a PCN being issued for
£100. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) is a law that allows
parking operators to transfer liability to the registered keeper
in the event the driver or hirer is not identified. In this
case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle
is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA)
2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to
the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a
copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have
reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of
PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I will
therefore be assessing the appellant’s liability as the keeper
of the vehicle. Furthermore, I acknowledge their comments about
the words on POFA being verbatim, however, this is not the case.
The requirements of 9(2)(a) to (i) must state the various
requirements. Whilst I concede that they have not followed the
exact format from (a) to (i), and possibly not the words to the
letter, they have covered all the requirements of POFA. The PCN
is issued within 14 days of the parking event. The PCN
stipulates the reason for the PCN and includes images of the
offending vehicle. The PCN informs the keeper that the driver is
required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified
period of parking and that the parking charges have not been
paid in full; and describe the parking charges due from the
driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which
the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which
the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the
other facts that made them payable. It goes on to specify the
total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a
time which is specified in the notice; and no later than the end
of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by
post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current
address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4)). It
also says 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— to 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. The PCN also
makes it clear that Secure Parking Solutions LTD is the
creditor. The PCN warns the keeper that if, after the period of
28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is
given— the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under
paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and the creditor does
not know both the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable
conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to
recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains
unpaid. The PCN also goes on to inform the keeper of any
discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the
resolution of disputes or complaints that are available,
identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or
notification to the creditor may be made specify the date on
which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in
any other case). Therefore, I am satisfied that the PCN meets
POFA. I acknowledge they feel the never rebutted their appeal
points during the initial appeal. If the appellant has any
issues surrounding the operator’s appeal process, they will need
to take this up with the operator directly. POPLA is an appeals
service; we are unable to comment on the operator’s appeal
process. Customer service issues should be directed to the
operator. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist
to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the car
park. In this instance, as the driver was not a authorised to
use the car park, they were not permitted to park in the car
park. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
#Post#: 121062--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 8, 2026, 1:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What was the assessors name?
There's a clear error in the assessment.
We can formulate a complaint.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page