DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 125830--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCNs recently received from UKPA / HOZAH
DIR By: littlebee
Date: July 27, 2026, 2:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: littlebee link ---
>
> [quote author=InterCity125
link=topic=10980.msg125756#msg125756 date=1785049761]
> I would just comment that they have not rebutted your appeal
point relating to the non provision of the additional documents
which must be served with the NtH.
>
--- End Quote ---
Is there a template response I should include
& is there any value in commenting on other aspect of the issues
(the fact they claim its pay on entry which clearly it is not)
as well as poor signage >
or is the above single line sufficient ?
Thanks
[/quote]
Morning,
Just want to check what the best response is to send back to
POPLA please ?
Do I respond to everything I disagree with or just focus on
''non provision of the additional documents which must be served
with the NtH'' ?
Thanks
#Post#: 125844--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCNs recently received from UKPA / HOZAH
DIR By: littlebee
Date: July 27, 2026, 4:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a draft response; what do you guys think - any changes
required ?
Thanks
I respectfully submit the following comments in response to the
operator's evidence.
1. The operator has failed to address the principal ground of my
appeal
The central issue in this appeal is not whether payment was
made, nor whether the signage was adequate. The issue is whether
the operator has established liability against me as the hirer
of the vehicle.
I made it clear in my appeal that I am the hirer of the vehicle,
I was not the driver, and that the operator had failed to comply
with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA") required to transfer liability
from the unknown driver to the hirer.
Rather than addressing this point, the operator has devoted
almost its entire evidence pack to discussing ANPR images,
payment, signage and contractual terms.
Those matters do not establish liability against me.
2. There is no legal obligation to identify the driver
The operator repeatedly states that I have not identified the
driver and appears to rely upon that fact as justification for
pursuing me.
This is a misstatement of the legal position.
There is no legal obligation requiring a hirer or keeper to
identify the driver.
Parliament enacted Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 to provide operators with a statutory mechanism to recover
unpaid parking charges from someone other than the driver, but
only where the operator has complied strictly with every
statutory requirement.
The operator cannot circumvent those statutory requirements
simply because I have exercised my legal right not to identify
the driver.
3. The operator has failed to establish hirer liability
This vehicle was supplied under a hire/lease arrangement.
Accordingly, the operator was required to comply with Paragraphs
13 and 14 of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The only document received by the hirer was the Parking Charge
Notice / Notice to Hirer.
The mandatory accompanying documents required by Schedule 4 were
not served, including the prescribed documentation necessary to
transfer liability from the driver to the hirer.
The operator's evidence before POPLA does not demonstrate that
these statutory requirements were ever complied with.
Instead, it merely asserts that liability transferred from xxxxx
to xxxxxx without producing evidence that the statutory
conditions for such transfer were satisfied.
An assertion is not evidence.
If the operator had complied with Schedule 4, it would have been
a straightforward matter to produce:
the Notice to Hirer as served;
evidence of the documents enclosed with that notice; and
evidence demonstrating compliance with the statutory
requirements.
The operator has failed to do so.
The burden of proof rests with the operator. It has failed to
discharge that burden.
4. The operator's evidence is largely irrelevant
The operator's evidence concentrates upon:
alleged non-payment;
ANPR records;
contractual terms;
signage; and
duration of stay.
Even if those matters were accepted (which is not admitted),
they concern only the conduct of the unknown driver.
They do not establish that I, as the hirer, have any legal
liability.
Accordingly, the evidence fails to address the principal issue
before POPLA.
5. Inconsistent evidence regarding the operation of the site
The operator's rejection correspondence described this location
as operating a "pay on entry" system.
That is factually incorrect.
The site operates as a pay-on-exit system.
This calls into question the accuracy of the operator's
consideration of my appeal and the reliability of the evidence
presented to POPLA.
If the operator cannot accurately describe the operation of its
own parking system, its conclusions regarding the alleged
contravention should be treated with caution.
6. Misleading operation of the exit barriers
Historically, the exit barriers at this location would only open
once payment had been made or where no payment was required.
The barriers now open automatically regardless of whether
payment has been made.
There is no clear or prominent signage informing motorists that
this significant operational change has occurred.
A motorist familiar with the previous operation of the site
could reasonably interpret the automatic opening of the exit
barrier as confirmation that no further action is required
before leaving.
If the operator has fundamentally altered the operation of the
site, it is incumbent upon it to ensure that this change is
communicated clearly and prominently.
The evidence supplied does not demonstrate that this has been
done.
7. Signage fails to provide adequate clarity
Should POPLA conclude that hirer liability has somehow been
established (which is denied), I submit in the alternative that
the operator has failed to demonstrate that a clear and
enforceable parking contract was formed.
The operator relies heavily upon photographs of signage.
However, the issue is not simply whether signs exist.
The question is whether the signage clearly communicates the
current operation of the site to a reasonable motorist.
The operator has failed to demonstrate that motorists are
clearly informed that:
the site operates on a pay-on-exit basis;
the automatic opening of the exit barriers is not confirmation
that payment has been made; and
the previous operation of the barriers has changed.
In the absence of clear and prominent information, any alleged
contractual terms are ambiguous and should be interpreted in
favour of the consumer.
Conclusion
The operator has failed to establish liability against me as the
hirer by demonstrating strict compliance with Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Instead, its evidence focuses almost entirely upon matters
relating to the unidentified driver, whilst failing to address
the principal legal issue raised in my appeal.
In the alternative, the operator has failed to demonstrate that
the operation of the site and its signage clearly communicated
the applicable parking terms to motorists, particularly
following the change to the operation of the exit barriers.
For all of the above reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA
allows this appeal and directs the operator to cancel the
Parking Charge Notice.
#Post#: 125845--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCNs recently received from UKPA / HOZAH
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 27, 2026, 4:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would personaly stop at point 3 or perhaps point 4.
The problem is that POPLA is not a court and will quite likely
pick the subset of points which it has an answer for, whereas it
will also simply ignore the ones it can’t answer. I would stick
to your central issue because it can’t then be ignored, and
leave the other points for a real court if POPLA does not uphold
your appeal.
#Post#: 125857--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCNs recently received from UKPA / HOZAH
DIR By: littlebee
Date: July 27, 2026, 6:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> I would personaly stop at point 3 or perhaps point 4.
>
> The problem is that POPLA is not a court and will quite likely
pick the subset of points which it has an answer for, whereas it
will also simply ignore the ones it can’t answer. I would stick
to your central issue because it can’t then be ignored, and
leave the other points for a real court if POPLA does not uphold
your appeal.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks very much for the feedback, I'll run with this.
I'll keep you guys updated.
Thanks very much for all your help.
#Post#: 126060--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCNs recently received from UKPA / HOZAH
DIR By: littlebee
Date: July 28, 2026, 11:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> I assume the debt collectors letter does not relate to the
PCN(s) for which you are still awaiting a POPLA response?
>
> Debt collectors can be ignored. You await a letter from
solicitors in the form of a Letter of Claim.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hello guys,
a letter of claim has been received and I enclosed attached.
What is the best way in dealing with this please ?
Thank you
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/173ddISYdaT-MvUDx0-QNfUKYvZ3G07JN/view?usp=sharing
#Post#: 126061--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCNs recently received from UKPA / HOZAH
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 28, 2026, 11:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you’re going to defend this, then see
HTML https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#6.1<br
/>and in particular
--- Quote ---
> the defendant responding within a reasonable time – 14 days in
a straight forward case and no more than 3 months in a very
complex one. The reply should include confirmation as to whether
the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the reasons
why, together with an explanation as to which facts and parts of
the claim are disputed
--- End Quote ---
.
No ned to go overboard, just make it clear that the claim isn’t
accepted and why, and then wait for them to raise a county court
claim.
Of course this whole thread is dreadfully confusing but I
believe this applies to 4xPCN for non-hire cars, and your
defence will be a modified version of your latest POPLA appeal
without the hire car bit.
#Post#: 126063--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCNs recently received from UKPA / HOZAH
DIR By: littlebee
Date: July 28, 2026, 11:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> If you’re going to defend this, then see
HTML https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#6.1<br
/>and in particular
> [quote]the defendant responding within a reasonable time – 14
days in a straight forward case and no more than 3 months in a
very complex one. The reply should include confirmation as to
whether the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the
reasons why, together with an explanation as to which facts and
parts of the claim are disputed
--- End Quote ---
.
No ned to go overboard, just make it clear that the claim isn’t
accepted and why, and then wait for them to raise a county court
claim.
Of course this whole thread is dreadfully confusing but I
believe this applies to 4xPCN for non-hire cars.
[/quote]
Hi there,
yes, this is in regards to the multiple PCNs.
OK, let me review that and I'll update accordingly.
You mentioned this thread is confusing (I agree and apologies if
I have not been clear or not structured it in a better way) - is
there anything I should do to help make it more easier to follow
?
Thanks
#Post#: 126087--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCNs recently received from UKPA / HOZAH
DIR By: littlebee
Date: July 28, 2026, 1:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> If you’re going to defend this, then see
HTML https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#6.1<br
/>and in particular
> [quote]the defendant responding within a reasonable time – 14
days in a straight forward case and no more than 3 months in a
very complex one. The reply should include confirmation as to
whether the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the
reasons why, together with an explanation as to which facts and
parts of the claim are disputed
--- End Quote ---
.
No ned to go overboard, just make it clear that the claim isn’t
accepted and why, and then wait for them to raise a county court
claim.
Of course this whole thread is dreadfully confusing but I
believe this applies to 4xPCN for non-hire cars, and your
defence will be a modified version of your latest POPLA appeal
without the hire car bit.
[/quote]
Hi there,
Can I please check and clarify that the defence is they have not
identified the driver and it is their obligation to do so and
present this information ?
And is it worth adding any other points including the entire
payment system has changed (with no notification or signage to
suggest it has done so) the barriers automatically lifting at
exit suggesting no payment is required (previously the exit
barriers would not lift if a payment was required),
un-operational exit barriers, etc etc ?
And is it likely this will be taken all the way to county ?
Thanks
#Post#: 126094--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCNs recently received from UKPA / HOZAH
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 28, 2026, 2:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Not identifying the driver is necessary but not sufficient; if
the claimant has used PoFA 2012 correctly then the registered
keeper can be held liable in place of the unknown driver. So
PoFA 2012 lack of compliance has to be part of the defence also,
and I can’t recall where this was discussed in the thread and
the conclusion.
At this stage, no, just use your primary defence point, whatever
that is. It won’t make any difference so I simply wouldn’t waste
the effort now and give them early sight of your full defence.
You should assume a county court claim will follow. It doesn’t
cost them anything to raise one.
You could also add that their letter does not comply with the
protocols:
--- Quote ---
> the claimant writing to the defendant with concise details of
the claim. The letter should include the basis on which the
claim is made, a summary of the facts, what the claimant wants
from the defendant, and if money, how the amount is calculated;
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 127516--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCNs recently received from UKPA / HOZAH
DIR By: littlebee
Date: August 11, 2026, 10:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> Not identifying the driver is necessary but not sufficient; if
the claimant has used PoFA 2012 correctly then the registered
keeper can be held liable in place of the unknown driver. So
PoFA 2012 lack of compliance has to be part of the defence also,
and I can’t recall where this was discussed in the thread and
the conclusion.
>
> At this stage, no, just use your primary defence point,
whatever that is. It won’t make any difference so I simply
wouldn’t waste the effort now and give them early sight of your
full defence.
> You should assume a county court claim will follow. It doesn’t
cost them anything to raise one.
>
> You could also add that their letter does not comply with the
protocols:
> [quote]the claimant writing to the defendant with concise
details of the claim. The letter should include the basis on
which the claim is made, a summary of the facts, what the
claimant wants from the defendant, and if money, how the amount
is calculated;
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
Hello there,
Just to update.
The Hire Vehicle PCN is still pending update from POPLA.
The other vehicle PCNs:
1. Letter of Claim was issued and responded too - pending a
response.
2. 2nd Letter of Claim has been issued - I assume I can respond
to this in the same way (as the 1.) ?
Generally, what is the time period to wait before a response is
issued ?
And is responding electronically best or must the paperwork be
filled and returned ? (earlier response was electronic).
Thanks
*****************************************************
Page 7 of 8
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page