DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 56767--------------------------------------------------
Re: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
DIR By: BenD
Date: February 5, 2025, 11:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok. Thanks. I haven't raised it in my latest formal complaint so
let's see what they say to that first. Appreciate your input.
#Post#: 57085--------------------------------------------------
Re: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
DIR By: BenD
Date: February 7, 2025, 8:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So RK just received this final demand dated 06/02 on 07/02
(today).
They say POPLA appeal process is no longer available.
I did however appeal on 05/02 exactly as you advised by pdf
attachment to an email that evening of the 5th.
Wording exactly as you instructed. Presumably their letter of
6th crossed with my appeal by email of the 5th.
I presume there that RK appealed within time to preserve the
appeal ? Pls advise.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 57118--------------------------------------------------
Re: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
DIR By: b789
Date: February 7, 2025, 11:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
But that is not a response to the formal complaint. It is just a
reminder letter. Ignore that. Wait for the response to the
formal complaint.
You have not yet submitted a POPLA appeal. Go to the POPLA
website. The code should be valid until the 9th February. Just
use the code to send the following appeal to POPLA: (read it
carefully and edit the necessary parts, especially section #5)
--- Quote ---
> POPLA Verification Code: [Insert Code]
> Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Reference: 34141
> Vehicle Registration: BN02 FUG
> Date of Alleged Contravention: 5th November 2024
> Location: 481 Green Lanes
>
> Grounds for Appeal:
>
> [indent]1. No Keeper Liability – CUP Enforcement has
explicitly stated they are not relying on PoFA
> 2. Failure to Send a Notice to Keeper (NtK) – No Evidence
Provided
> 3. Breach of BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP) – Lack of Proof of Posting
> 4. Lack of Keeper Responsibility & No Obligation to Identify
the Driver
> 5. Unclear and Unenforceable Signage (if applicable)
> 6. No Landholder Authority[/indent]
>
> 1. No Keeper Liability – CUP Enforcement has explicitly stated
they are not relying on PoFA
>
> CUP Enforcement has confirmed in their appeal rejection letter
dated 9th January 2025 that they are not relying on the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) to hold the Registered
Keeper liable.
>
> Since the alleged contravention occurred on 5th November 2024,
the Notice to Keeper (NtK) would have needed to comply with
Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 to establish Keeper
liability. As CUP Enforcement has confirmed they are not relying
on PoFA, they have no legal basis to hold me, the Keeper,
liable.
>
> It is well established by POPLA and case law that in the
absence of PoFA compliance, only the driver can be held liable
for a private parking charge. I am the Registered Keeper and at
no point have I been identified as the driver. Therefore, as
Keeper, I cannot be held liable, and the charge must be
cancelled.
>
> POPLA must uphold this appeal on this basis alone.
>
> 2. Failure to Send a Notice to Keeper (NtK) – No Evidence
Provided
>
> I never received an initial Notice to Keeper (NtK) from CUP
Enforcement. The first correspondence I received was a reminder
dated 9th December 2024.
>
> I submitted a formal complaint to CUP Enforcement, requesting:
>
> [indent]• A copy of the original NtK
> • Documentary proof of the actual posting date
> • Confirmation of the postage method[/indent]
>
> To date, CUP Enforcement has not responded to this complaint.
The BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)
section 8.1.2 states that operators must retain proof of the
actual date of posting and that a notice is presumed delivered
only if it was correctly posted by a third-party mail provider
(e.g., Royal Mail, Mail Consolidator, etc.).
>
> Since no NtK was ever received, and CUP has failed to provide
any proof that it was actually posted, they cannot enforce this
charge against the Keeper.
>
> 3. Breach of BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP) – Lack of Proof of Posting
>
> CUP Enforcement has not provided any evidence that the
original NtK was ever sent. According to PPSCoP Section 8.1.2,
the burden of proof is on CUP Enforcement to show that the NtK
was:
>
> [indent]• Physically placed into the postal system, not merely
generated
> • Sent via a traceable method (e.g., Royal Mail, bulk mail
provider)
> • Presumed delivered under the correct legal
timeframe[/indent]
>
> Without proof of posting, no presumption of delivery can be
made. This is a clear breach of the PPSCoP, and the charge is
therefore invalid.
>
> 4. Lack of Keeper Responsibility & No Obligation to Identify
the Driver
>
> As the Registered Keeper, I am under no legal obligation to
identify the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged
contravention. Given that CUP Enforcement has chosen not to use
PoFA, they can only pursue the driver. Since they have no
evidence of who was driving, the charge is unenforceable.
>
> POPLA has ruled in numerous appeals that in the absence of
PoFA compliance, the Keeper cannot be assumed or inferred to be
the driver. There is persuasive case law that also confirms that
there can be no presumption of liability.
>
> Since I have not identified the driver and CUP Enforcement has
no means to do so, they have no lawful claim against me.
>
> 5. Unclear and Unenforceable Signage (if applicable)
>
> (Include this section if you believe the signage was unclear,
misleading, or inadequate. If the signage was small, poorly
positioned, or lacked clear terms, state that it fails the
BPA/IPC requirements on signage clarity and transparency.)
>
> If the signage fails to clearly communicate contractual terms,
then any alleged contract is unenforceable. CUP Enforcement must
prove that:
>
> [indent]• The signage was clearly visible and legible from the
parking location
> • The terms were unambiguous and prominently displayed
> • The driver had a reasonable opportunity to review the terms
before entering into any agreement[/indent]
>
> Without such proof, the alleged contract is not valid, and the
charge must be cancelled.
>
> 6. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
>
> The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of
contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority
flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the
operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to
the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of
operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to
complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises
this operator to issue parking charges or what the land
enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether
this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own
name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf
of’ the landowner.
>
> The operator is also put to strict proof of full compliance
with the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice. As
this operator does not have proprietary interest in the
“relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted
copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any
'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including
exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine
resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto'
charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this
operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the
landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of
a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is
contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge
Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts
with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce
the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding
land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner
only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above,
often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying
the case in hand or even the site rules.
>
> A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA
but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently
evidence the definition of the services provided by each party
to the agreement.
>
> Conclusion – The Parking Charge Must Be Cancelled
>
> [indent]• CUP Enforcement has confirmed they are not relying
on PoFA, meaning I, as the Registered Keeper, cannot be held
liable.
> • The original NtK was never received, and no evidence of
posting has been provided.
> • The BPA/IPC PPSCoP requires operators to provide proof of
actual postal dispatch, which CUP has failed to do.
> • The Keeper is under no obligation to name the driver, and
CUP cannot assume liability.
> • The signage (if applicable) is unclear and does not form a
valid contract.
> • The operator does not have a valid contract with the
landholder that authorises them to issue PCNs at this
location.[/indent]
>
> Given the overwhelming evidence that the charge is legally
unenforceable, I request that POPLA upholds my appeal and orders
the cancellation of this Parking Charge Notice.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 57131--------------------------------------------------
Re: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
DIR By: BenD
Date: February 7, 2025, 1:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have this evening 07/02 submitted my POPLA appeal, thanks you
again. You've been wonderful
#Post#: 57440--------------------------------------------------
Re: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
DIR By: BenD
Date: February 10, 2025, 7:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So in response to the email appeal I sent by pdf attachment on
05/02 headed Formal Complaint which you kindly drafted, they
have sent RK the attached email, screenshot below, confirming
the right to appeal.
Slightly confused are they not saying that is not an appeal
period se?
Does RK just have to resend the same Complaint letter as an
Appeal now?
Or are they talking about the POPLA appeal which is different?
Surely if i just change the subject heading to Appeal and resend
the same letter which was the Complaint that you drafted that
should be enough right?
I mean I can't send evidence of not having received the original
NtK, other than swearing an affidavit.
But surely the onus is on them know to prove that they posted it
once I appeal, no ?
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 57450--------------------------------------------------
Re: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
DIR By: b789
Date: February 10, 2025, 8:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have you not yet clicked that you are dealing with a firm
staffed by morons with less IQ than these Lego examples:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/DnncxEY.jpeg
You have already sent your POPLA appeal. They will now have to
decide whether they want to pay the ~£35 POPLA fee for it to be
assessed or simply cancel the PCN. No need to appeal to CUP now.
The ball is in their court.
However, they have not responded to these points that were made
in the formal complaint where they were required to provide:
--- Quote ---
> 1. A copy of the original NtK issued for this charge.
> 2. Documentary evidence confirming the actual date of posting,
including proof from any third-party mail provider (such as a
Mail Consolidator) that the NtK was physically placed into the
postal system.
> 3. A clear explanation of the method of postage used (e.g.
Royal Mail first-class, bulk mail, etc.).
--- End Quote ---
You can now wind them up a bit more by requiring the to respond
to the demands or face further escalation:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Re: Formal Complaint – Failure to Address Raised
Concerns
>
> Dear CUP Enforcement Complaints Team,
>
> Your response is nothing short of embarrassing. Either you
failed to read my complaint, or you lack even the most basic
comprehension skills. I did not ask whether I was 'eligible to
appeal'. That ship has not only long since sailed, but an appeal
to POPLA has already been submitted. You now have only two
options: pay the POPLA fee and have the appeal independently
assessed or cancel the Parking Charge Notice outright.
>
> More importantly, your response completely ignores the fact
that you have failed to address a formal complaint, which you
are required to do under the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code
of Practice (PPSCoP), Section 11.3. This is yet another breach
to add to the growing list of CUP Enforcement’s failures, and
one that will be escalated to the DVLA alongside your blatant
disregard for compliance. Given that breaches of the PPSCoP form
part of the criteria for maintaining a KADOE contract, you may
wish to reflect on whether CUP Enforcement is in a position to
withstand a full compliance review once this is raised with the
relevant authorities.
>
> Just to ensure there is no further room for your obvious
ignorance, I will repeat the request you have so conveniently
ignored:
>
> [indent]1. Provide a copy of the original NtK you claim was
issued.
> 2. Provide documentary proof of the actual date of posting,
including confirmation from any third-party mail provider (e.g.,
a Mail Consolidator) proving that it was physically placed into
the postal system.
> 3. Confirm the method of postage used (Royal Mail first-class,
bulk mail, etc.).[/indent]
>
> If this documentation does not exist (which seems increasingly
likely), then CUP Enforcement has issued a Parking Charge Notice
without ever following the required legal process. That would
constitute malpractice, a breach of the PPSCoP, and a clear
violation of DVLA data access rules.
>
> I am now giving you one final opportunity to address this
complaint properly. Either provide the requested proof or
confirm in writing that you have no evidence that an NtK was
ever posted. If you fail to do so, this matter will be escalated
not just to the BPA, but to the DVLA for a full compliance
review of your KADOE access.
>
> Choose wisely.
>
> Yours sincerely,
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 57499--------------------------------------------------
Re: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
DIR By: BenD
Date: February 10, 2025, 12:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
All well noted. Thank you. I will revert
#Post#: 60375--------------------------------------------------
Re: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
DIR By: BenD
Date: March 3, 2025, 9:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As advised RK appealed to POPLA on 7th February , which they
acknowledged.
As far as RK can see no response from the Opertor since then .
Are they now officially time barred , given it's 3rd March now ?
Screenshot of POPLA status page below.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 60455--------------------------------------------------
Re: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
DIR By: b789
Date: March 3, 2025, 6:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No, they’re not time barred. You are waiting for the operators
evidence/response pack which you will be able to respond/rebut.
It can take many weeks before you get this and then after
responding it can take more weeks for a final decision. At the
moment, it is taking over 8 weeks for POPLA appeals to be
adjudicated.
#Post#: 60458--------------------------------------------------
Re: 481 Green Lanes CUP Enforcement
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 3, 2025, 6:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
POPLA say the operator has up to 21 days to respond to your
appeal after you submit it, but I don't know if they actually
bother to enforce that. Don't assume anything, and keep checking
the portal and your emails (including spam folders) regularly.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page