DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 52304--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked on private land on mistaken advice of resident
DIR By: eyalmms
Date: January 7, 2025, 12:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Continue to only appeal as the Registered Keeper (RK). They
have no idea who the driver is and you are under no legal
obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private
parking company.
>
> If we put it together, PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a) states:
>
> [quote]9 (1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to
keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in
accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are
met.
>
> (2) The notice must—
>
> (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was
parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
--- End Quote ---
So, is there anything in the NtK you received that "specifies"
the "period of parking"? You tell me.
Unless ALL the requirements of PoFA are fully complied with,
then they cannot hold the Keeper liable. So, don't identify the
driver.
[/quote]
Are they wrong about the clear implication of the period? Am I
being pedantic, or are they taking liberties?
#Post#: 52377--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked on private land on mistaken advice of resident
DIR By: b789
Date: January 8, 2025, 5:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a rebuttal you can use by simply copying and pasting
into the POPLA response webform. I tis under 10,000 characters
but only covers 3 points they haven't fully answered but may be
enough to make the assessor take note:
--- Quote ---
> POPLA Rebuttal:
>
> 1. The operator claims their Notice to Keeper (NtK) is
compliant with Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) by stating:
>
> "If after 29 days we have not received full payment or driver
details, we may seek to recover the parking charge from the
registered keeper."
>
> This statement does not comply with the requirements set out
in PoFA 9(2)(f)2. PoFA requires strict compliance, and the
operator's failure to use the prescribed wording renders the NtK
invalid for the purpose of transferring liability to the
registered keeper.
>
> What Does PoFA 9(2)(f) Actually Require?
>
> Paragraph 9(2)(f) states that the NtK must:
>
> "Warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days
beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
> (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under
paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
> (ii) 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."
>
> This wording is legally significant and must be included in
the NtK in its entirety and without alteration. The operator’s
paraphrasing fails to meet this requirement.
>
> Why the Operator’s Wording Fails to Comply:
>
> The operator's NtK incorrectly states:
>
> "If after 29 days we have not received full payment or driver
details, we may seek to recover the parking charge from the
registered keeper."
>
> This wording is inadequate for the following reasons:
>
> The operator has incorrectly altered the statutory timeline.
PoFA requires the notice to state that liability may be
transferred if payment or driver details are not received "after
the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which
the notice is given." The operator’s version simply says "29
days," which is not the same thing and is legally incorrect.
>
> The operator’s wording fails to clearly convey the legal
consequences of failing to identify the driver. PoFA requires a
clear warning that the creditor will have the right to recover
the unpaid parking charges from the keeper if the conditions are
met. The operator’s statement is vague and fails to adequately
communicate this point.
>
> The operator’s wording removes essential context. PoFA
specifies that liability only transfers if the creditor does not
know both the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver. The operator has omitted this critical
information from their NtK.
>
> Strict Compliance with PoFA is Required
>
> PoFA is clear that parking operators must follow its
requirements strictly in order to hold a registered keeper
liable. The courts have consistently upheld that strict
compliance is mandatory. The operator’s failure to comply with
Paragraph 9(2)(f) means they have not met the legal requirements
necessary to transfer liability to the registered keeper.
>
> This failure renders the NtK invalid. The operator cannot
pursue the registered keeper for the parking charge when their
notice does not comply with the law.
>
> Conclusion
>
> The operator’s NtK does not comply with PoFA Paragraph
9(2)(f). The operator’s attempt to paraphrase and simplify the
required wording has resulted in a material failure to meet the
statutory requirements. As a result, liability cannot be
transferred to the registered keeper.
>
> 2. The operator also claims that the NtK is compliant with
PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(a) because it includes a date and time of
the alleged contravention and photographs of the vehicle. The
operator states:
>
> "The PCN states the location, the date and time of the
contravention and also contains images of the vehicle parked at
the site, which is sufficient to identify the period of parking
to which the notice relates. The PCN is therefore PoFA
compliant."
>
> This is incorrect and misleading. The operator is attempting
to brush off a mandatory legal requirement by arguing that a
single timestamp is sufficient to meet the requirement to
specify the “period of parking.” This is not what PoFA requires.
>
> What Does PoFA 9(2)(a) Actually Require?
>
> PoFA 9(2)(a) clearly states:
>
> "The notice must— (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land
on which it was parked, and the period of parking to which the
notice relates."
>
> The key requirement here is that the NtK must specify the
“period of parking” — this refers to a duration of time during
which the vehicle was parked.
>
> This is a fundamental requirement under PoFA because the
length of time the vehicle was parked is critical to determining
whether any contravention actually occurred. A single timestamp
(e.g., "12:30 PM") is not the same as a period of parking and
does not meet the legal requirement to specify the vehicle’s
presence on the land for a defined period of time.
>
> Why a Single Timestamp Fails to Meet the Requirement:
>
> The operator’s NtK only provides a single point in time (the
moment their ANPR system captured an image of the vehicle).
However, the law requires them to specify a continuous period of
time that the vehicle was allegedly parked.
>
> For example:
>
> A compliant NtK would state, "The vehicle was parked from
12:00 PM to 12:45 PM."
>
> A non-compliant NtK (like the one provided by the operator)
simply states, "The vehicle was photographed at 12:30 PM."
>
> A single point in time (such as the moment the vehicle was
photographed) does not indicate how long the vehicle was parked
or whether it was parked at all. The vehicle could have simply
been passing through the site, briefly stopping, or momentarily
idling.
>
> Without a period of parking being specified, the NtK fails to
establish whether a parking contravention occurred at all.
>
> What the Courts Have Said About This:
>
> The requirement to specify a period of parking has been tested
in court. In ParkingEye Ltd v Ms X (Altrincham County Court,
2017), the judge confirmed that a single timestamp does not meet
the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a). The judge held that:
>
> "A single timestamp does not constitute a 'period of parking.'
The law requires a duration of time to be specified in order to
transfer liability to the keeper."
>
> The judge further stated that:
>
> "The Protection of Freedoms Act is a statute that must be
adhered to strictly by parking operators in order to transfer
liability to the registered keeper. Deviating from the
requirements, even slightly, renders the notice invalid."
>
> Why This Failure Renders the NtK Invalid:
>
> Because the operator has failed to specify the period of
parking as required by Paragraph 9(2)(a), the NtK does not
comply with PoFA. As such, the operator cannot hold the
registered keeper liable for this parking charge.
>
> In the absence of PoFA compliance, the only person liable
would be the driver. However, the operator has not identified
the driver and therefore cannot pursue the registered keeper.
>
> The Operator’s Attempt to Brush This Off Must Be Rejected:
>
> The operator is trying to gloss over a clear and significant
failure in their NtK by claiming that a single timestamp is
sufficient. It is not.
>
> They have no basis in law to support this claim, and their
interpretation of Paragraph 9(2)(a) is entirely incorrect. PoFA
compliance is not a matter of opinion or "close enough" — the
law requires strict compliance.
>
> Example of How a Compliant NtK Should Look:
>
> To further illustrate this point to the assessor, here’s an
example of what a compliant NtK should specify:
>
> Compliant NtK: "The vehicle was parked from 12:00 PM to 12:45
PM on 21st December 2024."
>
> Non-Compliant NtK (What the operator provided): "The vehicle
was photographed at 12:30 PM on 21st December 2024."
>
> As shown, the operator’s NtK only specifies a single moment in
time. This does not meet the legal requirement to specify a
period of parking as required by PoFA.
>
> POPLA Must Dismiss This Parking Charge
>
> Given the operator’s clear failure to comply with PoFA, this
NtK is invalid, and the operator cannot lawfully pursue the
registered keeper for this charge.
>
> 3. One of my original grounds for appeal was that the operator
had failed to demonstrate that they have the necessary
contractual authority to issue parking charges on behalf of the
landowner at this site. The operator has not adequately
responded to this point.
>
> The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice requires
parking operators to have a valid written contract with the
landowner or person entitled to grant such authority. This
contract must provide clear authorisation to manage parking on
the land and issue parking charges. It is also a requirement
that this authority must be produced in the event of a dispute.
>
> The operator has not provided any evidence of such a contract.
It is not sufficient for the operator to claim that they are
authorised by the landowner. They must produce a copy of the
contract or agreement, even in a redacted form, to prove they
have this authority.
>
> The necessity for the operator to provide this evidence is
further supported by case law. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015]
UKSC 67, the Supreme Court confirmed that a parking operator
must be able to demonstrate that they have a valid contract with
the landowner to enforce parking charges. Without this, the
parking charge is not valid.
>
> I request that the POPLA assessor requires the operator to
submit a copy of their contract with the landowner, redacted
only for commercially sensitive information. If the operator is
unable to provide this evidence, the appeal must be upheld.
>
> It is important to note that the operator has not even claimed
to have provided such evidence. This is a critical omission.
Their failure to demonstrate landowner authority must be taken
seriously, as it calls into question the legality of the entire
parking charge.
>
> In summary, the operator’s failure to provide evidence of
landowner authority is a fundamental failure. I request that the
appeal be upheld on this point alone.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 52389--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked on private land on mistaken advice of resident
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 8, 2025, 5:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> The operator’s version simply says "29 days," which is not the
same thing and is legally incorrect.
--- End Quote ---
It might be worth adding at least a sentence in here to set out
why it is vague - it doesn't state when the 29 days begins,
unlike PoFA's wording, which states exactly when the relevant
period begins.
Some POPLA adjudicators take the view that if the same date is
communicated but with different wording, that's fine (whether
that should be the case is a different matter, but it is what it
is) - here, that clearly isn't the case, without an obvious date
from when the "29 days" they refer to should begin, it's
impossible to know what time period they're referring to.
#Post#: 52395--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked on private land on mistaken advice of resident
DIR By: b789
Date: January 8, 2025, 6:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You'd need to be careful not to exceed the 10,000 character
limit. The text I provided is 9,974 characters. You can easily
remove some of the waffle I've included, just to make the
assessor earn their pay.
#Post#: 52495--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked on private land on mistaken advice of resident
DIR By: eyalmms
Date: January 8, 2025, 12:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> [quote]The operator’s version simply says "29 days," which is
not the same thing and is legally incorrect.
--- End Quote ---
It might be worth adding at least a sentence in here to set out
why it is vague - it doesn't state when the 29 days begins,
unlike PoFA's wording, which states exactly when the relevant
period begins.
Some POPLA adjudicators take the view that if the same date is
communicated but with different wording, that's fine (whether
that should be the case is a different matter, but it is what it
is) - here, that clearly isn't the case, without an obvious date
from when the "29 days" they refer to should begin, it's
impossible to know what time period they're referring to.
[/quote]
Have amended and sent off. Can't tell you how grateful I am for
the input. Will be back with an answer in 6-8 weeks I suppose...
#Post#: 64941--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked on private land on mistaken advice of resident
DIR By: eyalmms
Date: March 31, 2025, 5:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hey I'm back
Popla just messaged rejecting my appeal
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because
the vehicle was parked on the site and failed to display a valid
permit.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • As
the registered keeper they are not responsible for the requested
fee. • Due to improper signage and lack of compliance with PoFA
paragraph 9(2)(a), they neither believe that any contract was
entered into, nor that there is any burden on them to identify
the driver or pay on their behalf. • The signage is not
illuminated. • The operator does not have authority to issue
charges on the site. In the comments the appellant reiterates
and expands on their grounds of appeal in that the PCN does not
comply with PoFA 2012. They say that in their original appeal
that the operator had failed to demonstrate that they have the
necessary contractual authority to issue parking charges on
behalf of the landowner at this site. They say that the PCN does
not clarify the period of parking and the single timestamp is
not sufficient. The appellant has provided a document detailing
their appeal which includes images of signage.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has
issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has
complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car
park. The operator has provided evidence of the vehicle parked
on the site on the day in question. The Private Parking Sector
Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its
parking operators are required to comply with. The sector Code
of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking
Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC).
It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of
Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently
withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1
October 2024. It is stipulated in the Code that the parking
operator needs to comply with all elements relating to signage
by 31 December 2026. Therefore, for any aspects of this case
relating to signage, I will be referring to version 9 of the BPA
Code of Practice. This is applicable for parking events that
occurred from 1 February 2024. The British Parking Association
(BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking
operators need to comply with. The appellant advises that the
signage is inadequate and not illuminated. Section 19.2 advises
that entrance signs play an important part in establishing a
parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well
as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and
conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of
entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance
signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that
there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Section
19.3 of the code states that signs must be placed throughout the
car park so that drivers have the chance to review the terms and
conditions. The code confirms that these signs must be
conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so
that they are easy to see read and understand. The operator has
provided a site map and multiple images of the signs within the
car park and after reviewing these, I am satisfied that there
are plenty of signs located within the car park and that these
signs meet the requirements of section 19.2 and 19.3 of the Code
of Practice. The signage on the site clearly advises that
failing to display a valid permit in the windscreen will result
in a PCN being issued. I note that the appellant has advised
that the signage is not illuminated however as they had parked
on the site during daylight hours I am satisfied that the
operator is not required to rebut this The images of the vehicle
provided by the operator show that the permit on view is not the
relevant permit for the site. The appellant states that the PCN
Is not PoFA compliant. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA)
2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the
liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver
or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow
certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they
will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the
name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in
question has the necessary information and the parking operator
has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the
registered keeper. The appellant questions whether the operator
has authority to issue PCNs on the site. Section 14.1 of the
Code states that where controlled land is being managed on
behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained
before a parking charge can be issued. The operator has provided
a contract and I am satisfied that the operator has the
authority to issue and pursue PCN’s on this site. The operator
does not need to provide a full copy of the full contract as it
may contain commercially sensitive information. After
considering the evidence from both parties the vehicle was
parked on the site and failed to display a valid permit and
therefore the driver did not comply with the terms and
conditions of the site. Based on the evidence provided, I am
satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly
therefore, I must refuse the appeal. This means the appellant is
required to pay the full parking charge to the operator.
Thoughts on where to go from here?
Thanks as always
E
#Post#: 64949--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked on private land on mistaken advice of resident
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: March 31, 2025, 6:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you read whatever authoritative texts you can find on
the distinction between 'mandatory' and 'directory' as these
terms apply to statutes.
IMO, you'll find that the use of '29 days' in this context it's
used in the NTK is permitted as it is a reasonable and IMO
successful attempt to convey the meaning of the law into
understandable language. If you can show that in the context
used it has a different outcome than the form of words used in
statute, fine. But if not, then IMO no court would attach any
weight to this point.
As regards this comment in the decision, 'This means the
appellant is required to pay the full parking charge to the
operator'. What f***ing nonsense.
The DRIVER remains liable until, where PoFA is engaged, legal
proceedings are commenced against the keeper.
If the creditor wants the keeper to pay then they must say so in
writing and demand payment. A requirement to pay does NOT arise
from a POPLA decision.
This won't necessarily help you, but it's worrying when they
can't get this right.
#Post#: 64981--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked on private land on mistaken advice of resident
DIR By: b789
Date: March 31, 2025, 9:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It means that you now move on to the next phase. You are not
bound by a POPLA appeal rejection. Do not pay anything.
Before we move on, I agree with the comments in the post above.
What is the name of the POPLA assessor. It is in the public
domain so no need to withhold it. I keep a record of POPLA
assessors who are quite clearly in need to further education on
the law and their use of language.
In this case, that closing sentence needs a formal complaint
about the assessor to the POPLA management:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Formal Complaint – Misleading and Legally Inaccurate
Language in POPLA Decision
>
> Dear POPLA,
>
> I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding the final
sentence of the decision issued in my appeal reference [INSERT
POPLA REFERENCE], which reads:
>
> [indent]“This means the appellant is required to pay the full
parking charge to the operator.”[/indent]
>
> This statement is legally inaccurate, misleading, and beyond
the remit of POPLA’s powers. POPLA is not a court of law and
cannot impose a legal requirement to pay. The Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 provides a statutory route for a parking
operator to pursue a keeper in court, but no legal requirement
to pay arises from a POPLA decision. At best, a POPLA rejection
simply removes the operator’s obligation to offer the reduced
payment amount and leaves them the option to pursue the matter
through civil proceedings.
>
> The phrase “required to pay” implies a binding obligation
resulting from the POPLA outcome, which grossly misrepresents
the legal position and may mislead vulnerable or uninformed
appellants into believing they no longer have the right to
challenge or dispute the parking charge.
>
> I request that this matter be reviewed, and that:
>
> [indent]1. The language used in future decisions be corrected
to reflect the actual legal implications of a POPLA outcome.
> 2. POPLA issue clarification on the non-binding nature of its
decisions.
> 3. The assessor responsible for this decision receives
appropriate feedback or retraining.[/indent]
>
> I look forward to your response confirming that this complaint
has been logged and investigated.
>
> Yours faithfully,
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
As for the rest of this moronic assessment by an obviously
incompetent assessor, just ignore it. There are so many other
flaws in their assessment and failures to fully address the
points raised in the initial appeal and the subsequent rebuttal,
that I am not going to waste more time on this.
You can now expect a flurry of powerless debt recovery letters
which you can safely ignore. We don't need to know about them
and you can shred them into hamster bedding for all anyone
cares.
If/when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) or an N1SDT Claim
Form from the CNCB, come back and show us so that we can advise
on how to deal with it.
When you receive a response to the formal complaint to POPLA,
please show us their response.
#Post#: 65030--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked on private land on mistaken advice of resident
DIR By: eyalmms
Date: March 31, 2025, 12:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
>
> Before we move on, I agree with the comments in the post
above. What is the name of the POPLA assessor. It is in the
public domain so no need to withhold it. I keep a record of
POPLA assessors who are quite clearly in need to further
education on the law and their use of language.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Gayle Stanton
Will act as above and update accordingly.
One annoying thing is they're saying that the visibility of the
sign at night is irrelevant as the car was parked in the day.
How do they know when the car was actually parked - they just
know the time it was discovered!..
#Post#: 65073--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked on private land on mistaken advice of resident
DIR By: FaeLLe
Date: March 31, 2025, 4:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I find it so annoying that we cannot do anything to hold
ridiculous individuals and (apparently) independent adjudication
forums like POPLA and IAS accountable.
*****************************************************
Page 6 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page