DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 121126--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: Sm86
Date: June 8, 2026, 8:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
👍🏻
#Post#: 121149--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 8, 2026, 10:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You could send the following to POPLA;
****** Actually ***** STOP PRESS ***** Don't send yet. I was in
a hurry earlier - I have a few tweaks to make.
POPLA Complaint.
POPLA Code -
POPLA Assessor - Natalie Matthews
Dear Lead Assessor,
I am writing to formally complain about a recent POPLA Appeal
assessed by Natalie Matthews.
In her assessment she wrongly established PoFA liability when
the Notice to Keeper clearly excludes information which Schedule
4 Paragraph 9(2) requires.
In my appeal I clearly highlighted the missing information from
the parking operators NtK.
I will now run through the mistakes made.
In her assessment, when assessing the NtK for compliance,
Natalie runs through each section of paragraph 9(2) in an
attempt to demonstrate compliance - the Assessor's appeal
response states the following sentence;
"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." - this
is, of course, a clear reference to the statutory requirements
of 9(2)(b).
However, when examined, the operators NtK clearly deals with the
requirements of 9(2)(b) with the following sentence;
"You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor
vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full."
You will immediately notice that the legislation (correctly
quoted in Natalie's sentence) requires that 9(2)(b) set out two
specific pieces of information, namely; that the driver is
required to pay the parking charges, and; that the parking
charges have not been paid in full.
However, when you examine the operators version of 9(2)(b), you
will immediately notice that it only specifies the first
requirement of 9(2)(b) - the operators version of 9(2)(b) fails
to specify the second part of 9(2)(b), namely; "that the parking
charges have not been paid in full."
In her assessment, Natalie clearly states that the second
element of 9(2)(b) is present on the NtK when, clearly, it is
not - the NtK is not therefore compliant with 9(2)(b) as it does
not contain all the elements of information which 9(2)(b)
requires and, as such, it therefore fails the PoFA keeper
liability test as the requisite information is not provided to
the Keeper in the manner which the legislation demands.
I should point out that I never raised this as a specific appeal
point because my appeal points regarding 9(2)(e) are
demonstrably strong. However, it was Natalie who choose to raise
the subject of step by step compliance and, as such, it is
important that she demonstrates an adequate level of competence
when dealing with PoFA compliance.
In simple terms, the missing element of 9(2)(b) is immediately
fatal to the operators reliance of PoFA and this is a serious
error on the part of the POPLA assessor given that the wording
of paragraph 9(2)(b) is not complex and sets out only two
extremely simple drafting requirements.
Furthermore;
Natalie then states the following (when commenting on the NtK);
"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."
In simple terms, the NtK does not contain this statement - the
wording (paragraph) simply isn't present - if this paragraph is
present then feel free to highlight it on the operators Ntk?
Natalie's comments are a reference to the requirements of
9(2)(e) and were the basis of my appeal points.
It is important to note that I invited the parking operator to
specifically demonstrate compliance with term 9(2)(e) by
highlighting the required paragraph on their own NtK - they were
unable to rebut this appeal point - instead they stated that the
legislation did not require verbatim replication of mandatory
wording - the operator was unable to demonstrate how the
requirements of 9(2)(e) were being met by their own NtK.
It is not the POPLA Assessors job to provide a rebuttal on the
parking operator's behalf.
The POPLA Assessor appears to have broken with established POPLA
procedure in this respect.
It is clear from the operators own evidence that they were
unable to rebut my three appeal points.
However, the Assessor appears to take on the case for them in
that respect.
If the operator is unable to demonstrate compliance within their
own document then how can the NtK possibly be complaint?
When examined, the operators NtK moves directly from the
requirements of 9(2)(b) straight onto the requirements of
9(2)(f).
Paragraph 9(2)(e) is completely overlooked and it's requirements
are never met on the NtK.
9(2)(e) specifies 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.
We are therefore looking for a specific paragraph which sets out
the mandatory wording immediately followed by the two limbed
invitation to the keeper which the legislation specifies. Notice
the use of the word "and" which joins up the requirements of
9(2)(e) - that the notice must set out the mandatory wording AND
invite the keeper to either pay OR nominate another driver - the
legislation therefore sets out the format of the paragraph as
well as the specific wording - i.e. the mandatory wording
followed by the two limbed invitation to the keeper.
In her assessment, Natalie totally ignores the specific
requirements of 9(2)(e) and implies that compliance can be
achieved subjectively by implying that the notice does, at
certain points, meet the requirements of 9(2)(e) / 9(2)(e)(i) /
9(2)(e)(ii) - this suggestion is clearly incorrect and totally
ignores the specific wording of the legislation.
Irrespective of Natalie's comments on 9(2)(e), the notice never
states, "that the creditor does not know both the name of the
driver and a current address for service for the driver" and the
notice never sets out the two limbed invitation to the keeper
which 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) requires.
As I said previously, the operators notice clearly moves from
9(2)(b) to 9(2)(f) without satisfying 9(2)(e).
It is also worth pointing out, that whilst 9(2)(f) does also
specify similar mandatory wording (set out as a warning to the
keeper), the wording of 9(2)(f) does not satisfy the
requirements of 9(2)(e) and, as such, the requirements of
9(2)(e) are completely separate to 9(2)(f) - if parliament meant
for 9(2)(f) to satisfy the requirements of 9(2)(e) then they
would have simply removed 9(2)(e) from the statute - the fact
that 9(2)(e) exists demonstrates that it has it's own
requirements.
In this instance the POPLA Assessor has ignored both the absent
statutory wording and the missing two limbed choice, separated
by the word 'or' which must be presented to the keeper - this is
a further serious error by Natalie.
I should also point out that I did not raise the issue of
'verbatim wording' - this subject was brought up by the parking
operator in response to my quoting of the legislative
requirement of 9(2)(e)
The legislation clearly 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."
It appears that the operator realised that their notice did not
contain the wording required by the legislation and therefore
had to make an excuse for its absence - that excuse was 'that
the legislation does not require verbatim wording' - the
operator was unable to support their assertion and I drew the
Assessors attention to that fact - the operator was also unable
to demonstrate any alternative wording which satisfied the
requirements of 9(2)(e) and, as such, my appeal point was left
un-rebutted.
The Assessor then also specified that verbatim wording was not
required but this is an irrelevant argument since the
legislation is so objectively clear in it's wording that there
can be no other interpretation of the requirements which can be
applied to the term, "The notice MUST STATE blah blah blah" -
the notice either 'STATES' something or it does not - in this
instance, the notice does not state the information which
paragraph 9(2)(e) requires and as such the notice can never be
PoFA compliant.
If the notice states that, "the creditor does not know both the
name of the driver and a current address for service for the
driver" then please highlight that statement - I think that it
is pretty obvious by now that if that statement were present,
followed by the two limbed choice, then someone would have
pointed it out by now.
Ultimately, the operators NtK fails to provide the information
required by 9(2)(b) and completely skips over the entire
requirements of 9(2)(e) / 9(2)(e)(i) / 9(2)(e)(ii) relating to
both wording and format.
I look forward to your considered response.
Best wishes,
xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx
#Post#: 121227--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 9, 2026, 12:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
2nd draft - It's good to go so feel free to submit.
Had to re-post in order to edit as I could no longer edit the
previous version.
POPLA Complaint.
POPLA Code -
POPLA Assessor - Natalie Matthews
Dear Lead Assessor,
I am writing to formally complain about a recent POPLA Appeal
assessed by Natalie Matthews.
In her assessment she wrongly established PoFA liability when
the Notice to Keeper clearly excludes information which Schedule
4 Paragraph 9(2) requires.
In my appeal I clearly highlighted the missing information from
the parking operators NtK.
I will now run through the mistakes made.
In her assessment, when assessing the NtK for compliance,
Natalie runs through each section of paragraph 9(2) in an
attempt to demonstrate compliance - the Assessor's appeal
response states the following sentence;
"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." - this
is, of course, a clear reference to the statutory requirements
of 9(2)(b).
However, when examined, the operators NtK deals with the
requirements of 9(2)(b) with the following sentence;
"You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor
vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full."
You will immediately notice that the legislation (correctly
quoted in Natalie's sentence) requires that 9(2)(b) set out two
specific pieces of information, namely; 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.
However, when you examine the operators version of 9(2)(b), you
will immediately notice that it only specifies the first
requirement of 9(2)(b) - the operators version of 9(2)(b) fails
to specify the second part of 9(2)(b), namely; "that the parking
charges have not been paid in full."
In her assessment, Natalie clearly states that the second
element of 9(2)(b) is present on the NtK when, clearly, it is
not - the NtK is not therefore compliant with 9(2)(b) as it does
not contain all the elements of information which 9(2)(b)
requires and, as such, it therefore fails the PoFA keeper
liability test as 50% of the requisite information is not
provided to the Keeper in the manner which the legislation
demands.
Operator compliance can only be met with a sentence which
reflects the two demands of 9(2)(b) connected by the word 'and'.
Therefore the complaint sentence should read something like;
"You are informed under paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 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"
I should point out that I never raised this as a specific appeal
point because my appeal points regarding 9(2)(e) are
demonstrably stronger given that a whole paragraph is obviously
missing from the NtK. However, it was Natalie who choose to
raise the subject of step by step compliance and, as such, it is
important that she demonstrates an adequate level of competence
when dealing with PoFA compliance wording and format.
I do however accept that all Assessors should check each NtK for
compliance in each instance where PoFA compliance is raised in
an appeal and therefore I accept that Natalie was following a
correct process.
In simple terms, the missing element of 9(2)(b) is immediately
fatal to the operators reliance of PoFA and this is a serious
error on the part of the POPLA assessor given that the wording
of paragraph 9(2)(b) is not complex and sets out only two
extremely simple drafting requirements.
Furthermore;
Natalie then states the following (when commenting on the NtK);
"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."
In simple terms, the NtK does not contain this statement - the
wording (paragraph) simply isn't present - if this paragraph is
present then feel free to highlight it on the operators Ntk?
Natalie's comments are a reference to the requirements of
9(2)(e) and were the basis of my appeal points.
It is important to note that I invited the parking operator to
specifically demonstrate compliance with term 9(2)(e) by
highlighting the required paragraph on their own NtK - they were
unable to rebut this appeal point - instead they stated that the
legislation did not require verbatim replication of mandatory
wording - the operator was unable to demonstrate how the
requirements of 9(2)(e) were being met by their own NtK.
I would also add, that it is not the POPLA Assessors job to
provide a rebuttal on the parking operator's behalf.
The POPLA Assessor appears to have broken with established POPLA
procedure in this respect.
It is clear from the operators own evidence that they were
unable to rebut my three appeal points.
However, the Assessor appears to take on the case for them in
that respect.
If the operator is unable to demonstrate compliance within their
own document then how can the NtK possibly be complaint?
When examined, the operators NtK moves directly from the
requirements of 9(2)(b) straight onto the requirements of
9(2)(f).
Paragraph 9(2)(e) is completely overlooked and it's requirements
are never met on the NtK.
9(2)(e) specifies 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.
We are therefore looking for a specific paragraph which sets out
the mandatory wording immediately followed by the two limbed
invitation to the keeper which the legislation specifies. Notice
the use of the word "and" which joins up the requirements of
9(2)(e) - that the notice must set out the mandatory wording AND
invite the keeper to either pay OR nominate another driver - the
legislation therefore sets out the format of the paragraph as
well as the specific wording - i.e. the mandatory wording
followed by the two limbed invitation to the keeper.
In her assessment, Natalie totally ignores the specific
objective requirements of 9(2)(e) and implies that compliance
can be achieved subjectively by implying that the notice does,
at certain points, meet the requirements of 9(2)(e) / 9(2)(e)(i)
/ 9(2)(e)(ii) - this suggestion is clearly incorrect and totally
ignores the specific wording and structure of the legislation -
Natalie appears to pay no regard to the format which the
legislation requires when presenting the wording and the two
limbed choice - this gives the impression that she is skipping
over awkward appeal points which demonstrate non-compliance.
Irrespective of Natalie's comments on 9(2)(e), the notice never
states, "that the creditor does not know both the name of the
driver and a current address for service for the driver" and the
notice never sets out the two limbed invitation to the keeper
which 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) requires.
As I said previously, the operators notice clearly moves from
9(2)(b) to 9(2)(f) without satisfying 9(2)(e).
In order to be compliant, the operator would need to insert a
paragraph (in their NtK) between 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(f) which sets
out the following;
"You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(e) of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that 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 (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."
I am happy that the operators version of 9(2)(f) does meet the
statutory requirements but this is irrelevant in the absence of
the paragraph required by 9(2)(e) - the presence of 9(2)(f) does
not negate the requirements of other paragraph since each
paragraph has it's own specific requirements / wording / choices
etc.
In the instance of 9(2)(e), the POPLA Assessor has ignored both
the absent statutory wording and the missing two limbed choice,
separated by the word 'or' which must be presented to the keeper
- this is a further serious error by Natalie.
I should also additionally point out that I did not raise the
issue of 'verbatim wording' - this subject was brought up by the
parking operator in response to my quoting of the legislative
requirement of 9(2)(e) in my initial appeal.
The legislation clearly 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."
It appears that the operator realised that their notice did not
contain the wording required by the legislation and therefore
had to make an excuse for its absence - that excuse was 'that
the legislation does not require verbatim wording' - the
operator was unable to support their assertion and I drew the
Assessors attention to that fact - under POPLA rules the
appellant and the operator are both required to provide evidence
to support legal assertions in each appeal - in this instance
the operator made an assertion but provided no evidence for the
Assessor to review in order to support that assertion.
I should also point out that the operator was also unable to
demonstrate any alternative wording which satisfied the
requirements of 9(2)(e) and, as such, my appeal point was left
un-rebutted.
The Assessor then also specified that verbatim wording was not
required but she also provided no evidence to support her
assertion and I'm struggling to find any legal precedent to
support her position.
However, this is an irrelevant argument since the legislation is
so objectively clear in it's wording that there can be no other
interpretation of the requirements which can be applied to the
term, "The notice MUST STATE blah blah blah" - the notice either
'STATES' the required sentence or it does not - in this
instance, the notice does not state the information which
paragraph 9(2)(e) requires and as such the notice can never be
PoFA compliant.
If the notice states that, "the creditor does not know both the
name of the driver and a current address for service for the
driver" then please highlight that statement - I think that it
is pretty obvious by now that if that statement were present,
followed by the two limbed choice, then someone would have
pointed it out by now!
Ultimately, the operators NtK fails to provide the information
required by 9(2)(b) and completely skips over the entire
requirements of 9(2)(e) / 9(2)(e)(i) / 9(2)(e)(ii) relating to
both wording and format.
Irrespective of the verbatim wording argument, what this case
demonstrates is the problems which an operator can find
themselves in when they vary their wording and format away from
the wording and format set out in the statute.
In this instance, that variation has left areas of the
legislation uncovered and made the notice non-compliant.
I look forward to your considered response.
Best wishes,
xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx
#Post#: 121412--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: Sm86
Date: June 10, 2026, 8:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Done 👍🏻
#Post#: 122822--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: Sm86
Date: June 24, 2026, 7:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What a waste of time that was... The complaint response is
probably worse than the initial decision. I genuinely had no
idea Popla was so bad.
Anyway, the response -
Dear XXXXXX
Your complaint about POPLA decision XXXXXXX
Thank you for your email outlining the reasons why you’re
unhappy with the decision that has been reached by the assessor
in your appeal. This was passed to me by the POPLA team as I’m
responsible for investigating complaints.
It’s worth pointing out that before submitting an appeal, our
website informs appellants that POPLA is a one-stage appeal
service and we cannot reconsider your appeal if you disagree
with our decision.
Having reviewed your correspondence, I’ve noted the crux of your
complaint is that you are unhappy with the outcome reached in
the assessment of your appeal. You believe that the assessor has
made mistakes when considering the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012.
Having reviewed both the appeal and your complaint, I’m
satisfied the decision reached is appropriate based on the
evidence presented.
In closing, I’m sorry that your experience of using our service
has not been positive. However, POPLA’s involvement in your
appeal has now ended and this response concludes our complaints
process. It will not be appropriate for us to correspond further
on this matter and all further correspondence will be noted on
your case, but not responded to.
You are of course, free to pursue this matter further through
other means, such as the Courts. For independent advice, you may
wish to contact Citizens Advice at: www.citizensadvice.org.uk or
call 0345 404 05 06 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh).
Yours sincerely,
Alex Roby
POPLA Complaints Team
#Post#: 122844--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 24, 2026, 9:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, it looks like your complaint backed Alex Roby into such a
tight corner that the Complaints Assessor was not able to engage
with any of your evidence points as such engagement would only
show both non-compliance with PoFA requirements and serious
errors made by Natalie Matthews.
That is the shortest complaint response I've seen yet.
It is clear that the original PCN is not compliant so I would
not worry.
If the operator progresses this further then it will be very
easy to defend.
You also have the operators own POPLA evidence - within in it
they appear to acknowledge that wording is missing.
Just sit back and play the game.
#Post#: 123075--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: Sm86
Date: June 26, 2026, 9:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Will do.
Shocked Popla are so useless. Won't give people confidence to
challenge tickets when the assessors are so incompetent.
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 5
DIR Previous Page