DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 65844--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - Spring Parking - on car
DIR By: jfollows
Date: April 6, 2025, 8:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It’s actually valid for something like 33 days. As @b789 said
above.
EG
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/euro-car-parks-vehicle-parked-without-valid-payment-transaction/msg63990/#msg63990
--- Quote ---
> You initial appeal to ECP will be rejected no matter what is
in it. However, with that rejection will be a POPLA code that
will be valid for 33 days from the rejection date. It is at
POPLA that your appeal will succeed.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 65845--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - Spring Parking - on car
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: April 6, 2025, 8:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member], just to get clarity regarding the
challenge as keeper to Spring Parking
Whether a NTD is complaint with PoFA or not does not affect
whether the driver is liable for the parking charge. PoFA
doesn't engage with this issue other than in the context of
keeper/hirer liability. Therefore cancellation of the charge as
such is not something which the keeper can demand unless in the
context of driver liability. Therefore as I understand it, only
the issues of signage impact on the charge.
Also, as I read PoFA the creditor must access keeper data from
DVLA even when someone asserts, but without supporting proof,
that they were the keeper on the relevant date. I don't
understand the claim to the contrary in the challenge. Are there
legal authorities on this point?
OP, their response is standard i.e. no-one has really considered
what you submitted.
Anyway, IMO you're home and dry. They may not engage with POPLA
as part of their 'arrangements for the resolution of disputes or
complaints' without issuing a NTK, neither may they assert the
'Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle'.
So, register with POPLA and get them to tell SP to go away. I
don't see any benefit in delay.
Points:
The creditor has not issued a Notice to Keeper and therefore has
not satisfied the precedent condition at para. 6(1)(a)[and
therefore para. 4(2)] of Schedule 4 to the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 to As such the assessor is obliged to uphold
this appeal and direct the creditor that they do not have the
'Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle'.
Supporting rationale:
Notice to Driver issued on ******;
Keeper engaged with the creditor's internal disputes resolution
procedure by letter dated ****;
Creditor issued rejection dated **** in which they stated: 'You
have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and
therefore you now have two options can pay or appeal'.
#Post#: 65872--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - Spring Parking - on car
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: April 6, 2025, 3:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Also, as I read PoFA the creditor must access keeper data from
DVLA even when someone asserts, but without supporting proof,
that they were the keeper on the relevant date. I don't
understand the claim to the contrary in the challenge. Are there
legal authorities on this point?
>
--- End Quote ---
You are entirely correct that a parking company wishing to
recover the charges from the keeper under Schedule 4 of PoFA
must access the details from DVLA, even if they have already
been provided by someone claiming to be the same.
But, if the Notice to Driver was not compliant with PoFA, then
the PoFA-shaped ship has already sailed, so any subsequent
request for details couldn't claim to be accessing the details
for the purpose of holding the keeper liable under PoFA.
Whether a subsequent request for keeper data could be justified
on the basis that they wanted to make sure the person claiming
to be the keeper was indeed the keeper is another matter, but
one that I would discourage being debated on this thread, as it
would be hypothetical for now, and thus off-topic.
I think waiting to submit to POPLA is sensible to prevent any
shenanigans by the parking company, whereby they hastily issue
an NtK, which is the sort of thing POPLA might just be daft
enough to fall for.
#Post#: 65886--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - Spring Parking - on car
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: April 7, 2025, 2:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks.
Which is why I included what IMO is their position statement:
'you have reached the end...'.
IMO, they could not issue a NTK anyway and even if they did
would be doomed by virtue of them already having closed-off
their internal procedures.
I would engage with POPLA now.
#Post#: 65898--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - Spring Parking - on car
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: April 7, 2025, 3:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What material advantage is gained by appealing now as opposed to
the later date suggested?
The potential material downside has already been articulated.
#Post#: 67982--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - Spring Parking - on car
DIR By: purpleshadow
Date: April 22, 2025, 3:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello, I have started on my POPLA appeal and was hoping for some
feedback if this is sufficient, overkill or not enough. I
haven't figured out how to copy the contents nicely into here,
so have also attached the appeal as document.
POPLA Appeal
Appeal Reference: [xxxxxx]
Personal Details:
•
•
•
Parking Charge Details:
•
•
•
6TH
•
•
Grounds for Appeal:
I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Spring
Parking on the following grounds:
1. No Notice to Keeper (NtK) Issued - Creditor Cannot Establish
Keeper Liability
The creditor (Spring Parking) has not issued a Notice to Keeper
and therefore has not satisfied the precedent condition at
paragraph 6(1)(a) [and therefore paragraph 4(2)] of Schedule 4
to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, the assessor is
obliged to uphold this appeal and direct the creditor that they
do not have the "Right to claim unpaid parking charges from
keeper of vehicle."
The sequence of events clearly demonstrates this:
•
•
procedure on 31/03/2025
•
reached the end of our internal appeals procedure"
Having expressly stated that I have reached the end of their
internal appeals procedure without issuing a Notice to Keeper,
they cannot now attempt to establish keeper liability, as this
procedural sequence has closed.
2. The Notice to Driver (NtD) Fails to Comply with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
The NtD affixed to my vehicle does not comply with Schedule 4 of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in several critical
ways:
a) No Period of Parking Stated (Breach of PoFA Schedule 4,
Paragraph 7(2)(a)):
•
Issue" of 14:04.
•
of parking for establishing a contravention.
•
period required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP) for a driver to seek out, read, and understand
any terms and conditions before deciding whether to remain or
leave.
b) Failure to Identify the Creditor (Breach of PoFA Schedule 4,
Paragraph 7(2)(e)):
•
•
or merely as an agent for the landowner.
•
statutory requirements of PoFA.
3. Inadequate Signage and No Valid Contract
There was insufficient signage at the entrance to the location
to inform drivers they were entering private land with parking
restrictions. Without clear entry signage, no valid contract
could have been formed between the driver and the parking
operator.
This location appeared to be a public road with no clear
markings, lines, or signage indicating parking restrictions or
that it was private property subject to a parking scheme.
4. Failure to Allow Reasonable Grace Period
The extremely short time between observation (14:01) and ticket
issuance (14:04) - just 3 minutes - demonstrates that Spring
Parking failed to allow a reasonable grace period for the driver
to:
•
•
•
This practice contradicts the principles established in the
British Parking Association (BPA) and International Parking
Community (IPC) Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP), which requires operators to allow a reasonable
consideration period.
5. The Ticket Was Issued on What Appeared to Be a Public Road
The vehicle was parked at a location that had all the
characteristics of a public road, with no clear demarcation or
signage indicating it was private land subject to parking
restrictions. The driver had a reasonable belief they were
parking legally on a public road.
6. Breach of Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP)
There is no entrance sign at the location to indicate that
drivers are entering controlled private land subject to
contractual parking terms. This is a clear breach of the PPSCoP
section 3.1.1 which requires operators to display an entrance
sign that informs drivers that they are entering controlled
land.
This location is not a designated car park but rather appears to
be a residential street with no ground markings, making it
entirely unclear that any restrictions apply. The alleged
contravention is "not clearly displaying a valid permit," but
without proper signage indicating this requirement, no contract
could possibly have been formed.
Conclusion:
Given the multiple failures to comply with PoFA requirements,
the failure to issue a Notice to Keeper, the inadequate signage,
the breach of the PPSCoP, and the failure to allow a reasonable
grace period, I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel
the parking charge in its entirety.
Spring Parking has already expressly stated that I have "reached
the end of [their] internal appeals procedure" without issuing a
Notice to Keeper, and therefore they cannot now attempt to
establish keeper liability under PoFA. This procedural failure
alone is sufficient grounds for POPLA to uphold this appeal.
I confirm that the information provided in this appeal is true
to the best of my knowledge.
Yours faithfully,
Name, Date
Supporting Evidence:
1.
2.
April 2025
3.
signage
4.
parked
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 68020--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - Spring Parking - on car
DIR By: b789
Date: April 22, 2025, 5:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Very good. I have adjusted it slightly because there was an
inference that could possibly be made that the appellant was the
driver. Also, the consideration period was wrongly referred to
as a grace period:
--- Quote ---
> POPLA Appeal
>
> Appeal Reference: [xxxxxx]
>
> Parking Charge Notice Number: [PCN NUMBER]
> Vehicle Registration: [YOUR VEHICLE REGISTRATION]
> Operator: Spring Parking
> Location: Mill Parc, White Lodge Close, Isleworth, London TW7
6TH
> Date of Incident: 05/03/2025
>
> Grounds for Appeal:
>
> 1. No Notice to Keeper (NtK) Issued – No Keeper Liability Can
Be Established
>
> Spring Parking has failed to issue a Notice to Keeper (NtK) as
required under Schedule 4, Paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Consequently, the operator cannot
establish liability against the registered keeper. The sequence
of correspondence demonstrates the procedural gap:
>
> • A Notice to Driver (NtD) was issued on 05/03/2025.
> • A representation was submitted on 31/03/2025 using the
operator’s internal appeals process.
> • Spring Parking issued a rejection on 03/04/2025 stating,
“You have now reached the end of our internal appeals
procedure.”
>
> By concluding the internal appeals process without issuing a
NtK, Spring Parking has precluded itself from seeking keeper
liability. It cannot retrospectively serve a NtK or rely on PoFA
provisions once this procedural path has ended.
>
> 2. The NtD Fails to Comply with PoFA Schedule 4 Requirements
>
> a) No Valid Period of Parking Specified (PoFA Paragraph
7(2)(a)):
>
> • The NtD refers only to an “Observed Time” of 14:01 and a
“Time of Issue” of 14:04.
> • This 3-minute span does not constitute a verifiable period
of parking.
> • It is within the minimum 5-minute consideration period
required under Section 8.3.2 of the Private Parking Sector Code
of Practice (PPSCoP), during which the driver is permitted time
to consider terms and conditions before deciding whether to stay
or leave.
>
> b) Failure to Identify the Creditor (PoFA Paragraph 7(2)(e)):
>
> • The NtD does not specify who the actual creditor is.
> • It is unclear whether Spring Parking is the creditor or
acting as an agent.
> • The omission of this information renders the NtD
non-compliant with PoFA requirements.
>
> 3. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed
>
> There was insufficient signage at the location entrance to
inform a driver that they were entering private land subject to
parking controls. The absence of clear, prominent signage means
no contract could have been offered or accepted. The location
presents as a residential road with no obvious demarcation,
lines, or visible restrictions, reinforcing the appearance of a
public street.
>
> 4. No Reasonable Consideration Period Allowed
>
> The interval between observation and issue (14:01 to 14:04) is
unreasonably short and fails to comply with the required
consideration period under the PPSCoP. The vehicle was present
for only three minutes—an insufficient time for any motorist to:
>
> • Locate signage
> • Read and understand the terms
> • Decide whether to stay or leave
>
> Issuing a PCN during this period is premature and contrary to
industry standards of fair practice.
>
> 5. Location Appears to Be a Public Road
>
> The vehicle was situated at a location that, by appearance and
configuration, resembles a public highway. No signage or road
markings indicated that private parking controls were in place.
Any reasonable observer would have assumed the area was part of
the public highway network.
>
> 6. Breach of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP)
>
> The operator has breached PPSCoP Section 3.1.1 by failing to
install an entrance sign informing motorists they are entering
controlled land. This omission is particularly relevant as the
location is not a car park but an open road without bay markings
or restriction indicators. The allegation of “not clearly
displaying a valid permit” lacks merit in the absence of
adequate signage or any visible instruction that such a permit
was required.
>
> Conclusion:
>
> Spring Parking has failed to comply with several legal and
procedural requirements:
>
> • No NtK has been issued, precluding keeper liability
> • The NtD is PoFA non-compliant
> • Signage is inadequate or absent
> • No valid contract could have been formed
> • The PPSCoP has been breached
> • The alleged contravention occurred in a location resembling
a public road
> • The operator’s own rejection letter confirms that no further
correspondence is forthcoming, and yet no NtK has been served.
>
> As such, the appeal must be upheld and the PCN cancelled.
>
> I confirm that the information provided is accurate to the
best of my knowledge.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
> [Date]
>
> Supporting Evidence:
>
> • Copy of the Parking Charge Notice (front and back)
> • Spring Parking’s appeal rejection dated 03/04/2025
> • Photographs of the location showing lack of signage
> • Google Maps screenshot of the location
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 68705--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - Spring Parking - on car
DIR By: purpleshadow
Date: April 25, 2025, 3:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm preparing my Popla appeal under the 'Other' category. Should
I include my email to Spring Parking where I told them not to
contact DVLA due to GDPR concerns? I'm now arguing they failed
to send a Notice to Keeper (NTK) - would including this email
undermine my case? Many thanks for the clarification.
#Post#: 68745--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - Spring Parking - on car
DIR By: b789
Date: April 26, 2025, 4:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No, you should not include that email. Your appeal argument
relies on Spring Parking's procedural failure — specifically,
that they did not issue a Notice to Keeper (NtK) and therefore
cannot rely on PoFA to pursue the Keeper.
Including that email could undermine that argument. By telling
them not to contact the DVLA, you could be seen as having caused
or contributed to the absence of a NtK. The operator (or the
assessor) might argue that the NtK was not issued because of
your instruction, rather than through any procedural failure by
them.
POPLA assessors are not judges; they are not legally trained and
in many cases, it is very clear that some of them even lack the
most basic contract law knowledge. You must keep your appeal
simple and based on objective failures by the operator — not
introduce facts that allow POPLA to invent excuses for the
operator.
#Post#: 71519--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - Spring Parking - on car
DIR By: purpleshadow
Date: May 14, 2025, 12:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Good evening. I have now received the "evidence" from Spring
Parking. This included the Contract they have with the property
management company. It also contains a
Case Summary
Actions Taken:
- The vehicle was observed parked at Mill Parc, Isleworth,
London, TW7 6TH, without Clearly Displaying a Valid Permit.
On 5th March 2025 at 14:04
- As the vehicle was parked in breach of the parking terms and
conditions, a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued.
- An email appeal was received from the driver.
- No proof that they were authorised to park was provided and
the appeal was rejected. The account was held for 14 days at the
reduced amount of £55.00, then at £95.00 for a further 14 days.
There is a contract in place at the above location.
There are multiple contractual agreement signs at the site the
PCN was issued, 1 of which was near the vehicle.
Please find enclosed a copy of the signage that is located at
the entrance to the car park and within.
____
It also includes the parking charge notice and then Registered
Keeper's Details and Liability Trail It states that "The
Registered Keeper's details were obtained from the DVLA under a
reasonable cause request. Once the details were obtained, a
reminder Notice to Keeper was issued by post." It shows
underneath the name and address of the registered keeper. But
they have not provided proof of postage or anything, nor a date
when it was requested.
I need to point out, that at no point did we receive a letter at
this address from Spring Parking.
The evidence pack then includes the Original Representation and
Rejection which also includes the information that no Registered
Keeper details should be requested, since they were provided.
The evidence pack then continues with a number of images showing
the Signs around this area and also an image of the parking
permit and its features. It does not show any entrance sign. It
also shows the signage around some parking bays. One could argue
that a driver was under the impression that these signs are for
the parking bays and not for on the road parking?
I now have 7 days to respond to the evidence and would
appreciate your suggestions and feedback. Do let me know if you
need any further info.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page