DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 82081--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN
DIR By: Sabab4321
Date: July 22, 2025, 6:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good morning all
I just received an email from POPLA and below is there response
to my appeal
"Thank you for your email, which was passed to me by the POPLA
team as I am responsible for responding to complaints.
I note from your correspondence that you are unhappy with the
decision reached by the assessor in your appeal against Smart
Parking - EW.
POPLA is an impartial and independent appeals service and we do
not act either for the parking operator or the appellant. It is
important to explain that POPLA is a one-stage process and we
would not change a decision because either party disputes the
assessor’s decision. However, we may consider an appeal if there
has been a procedural error, for example – if we failed to allow
a motorist to comment on a parking operator’s evidence pack.
My role as a complaints handler is not to determine if the
decision is correct, but to establish if the assessor has failed
to follow the correct POPLA process and identify whether a
procedural error has occurred.
I have summarised your complaint below and will respond
accordingly.
You are writing to express my utter outrage and disbelief at the
appalling standard of adjudication demonstrated by the assessor
during the handling of your appeal. You say the handling of a
breach under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA)
2012 was incoherent. You say the assessor concluded PoFA202 had
been met, yet the assessor’s own timeline confirms the PCN was
not issued to be delivered within the relevant 14-day period.
You say you wish for a review of the decision, an apology, an
explanation of the action taken and a commitment to retraining
on the statutory requirements of PoFA 2012.
Having reviewed your complaint, I have looked at the case
including the notice to keeper issued.
As can be seen the date of the event is 23 March 2025.
Day 1 of the relevant period is 24 March 2025.
Day 14 of the relevant period is 6 April 2025 and this day fell
on a Sunday.
To ensure the PCN was delivered within the 14 day relevant
period, the PCN would need to be posted by 2 April 2025 which
was a Wednesday.
As the PCN was posted on 3 April 2025 (a Thursday), this would
have been considered to be delivered on the second working day
after posting, which would have been Monday 7 April 2025. This
was day 15 and outside the relevant period.
You are correct that the assessor has not correctly considered
PoFA 2012 requirements and for this I do apologise as the notice
did not meet the requirements. With that being said, she has
considered PoFA 2012, albeit incorrectly. She has not made a
procedural error she has made a mis assessment, and due to this
it would not result in us revisiting the decision.
I will uphold your complaint and provide the relevant feedback
for coaching and decision-making improvement purposes in the
application of PoFA 2012.
As POPLA is a one-stage process, there is no opportunity for you
to appeal the decision. In closing, I am sorry that your
experience of using our service has not been positive. We have
reached the end of our process, and my response now concludes
our complaints procedure. I trust you will appreciate that there
will be no further review of your complaint, and it will not be
appropriate for us to respond to any further correspondence on
this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Amy Smith
POPLA Complaints Team"
That admitted making a mistake but won't change their decision.
Please what can I do next.
Thank you
#Post#: 82085--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 22, 2025, 6:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What a complete joke! Thank you for sharing.
“Apologies, your honour, but I did consider the concept of speed
limits properly, but I made a mis-assessment of their
application to me, so I can’t be found guilty of speeding.”
#Post#: 82093--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 22, 2025, 6:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
How failing to count up to 2 working days is not a procedural
error is beyond me, but there we go.
In terms of what to do next, keep hold of that response, and
wait to see what Smart Parking do next. Come back here if you
receive a Letter of Claim from a legal firm representing them.
You'll have a very strong defence.
#Post#: 82095--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN
DIR By: Sabab4321
Date: July 22, 2025, 6:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much
I will keep the house updated
#Post#: 82116--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: July 22, 2025, 8:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ignore everything unless it is a Letter of Claim (LoC). Keep the
POPLA response as evidence.
I strongly advise you to contact your MP and show them the
failures by POPLA and their weasel excuses. The response is a
false dichotomy. A misapplication of law is a procedural error
when it results in a decision contrary to statute. POPLA’s
refusal to revisit the decision despite acknowledging the breach
undermines its claim to impartiality and legal competence.
Find your MP's email (
HTML https://members.parliament.uk/findyourmp)<br
/>and send the following:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Request for Referral to Parliamentary Ombudsman –
POPLA’s Refusal to Correct Statutory Breach
>
> Dear [MP’s Name],
>
> I am writing to request your assistance in referring a matter
to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman concerning the
Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) service, which operates
under the oversight of the British Parking Association (BPA).
>
> POPLA recently adjudicated an appeal I submitted regarding a
parking charge issued by Smart Parking. The appeal turned on a
clear statutory requirement under Paragraph 9(5) of Schedule 4
of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), which mandates
that a Notice to Keeper (NTK) must be delivered within 14 days
of the parking event to establish keeper liability.
>
> The facts were not in dispute:
>
> [indent]• The parking event occurred on Sunday, 23 March 2025.
> • Day 1 of the relevant period was Monday, 24 March 2025.
> • The NTK was posted on Thursday, 3 April 2025.
> • Presumed delivery (two working days later) was Monday, 7
April 2025—Day 15, outside the statutory limit.[/indent]
>
> Despite this, the POPLA assessor upheld the charge, wrongly
concluding that PoFA had been complied with. I submitted a
formal complaint, and POPLA’s own complaints handler admitted
that the NTK was delivered outside the relevant period and
therefore did not meet the statutory requirements. However, they
refused to overturn the decision, claiming that the error was a
“misassessment” rather than a “procedural error”, and that POPLA
is a “one-stage process” with no mechanism for correction.
>
> This is a textbook case of administrative injustice:
>
> [indent]• A statutory breach was acknowledged.
> • The decision was not corrected.
> • The complaints process was closed with no recourse.
> • The adjudication body continues to uphold legally defective
decisions.[/indent]
>
> POPLA presents itself as an independent appeals service, yet
it refuses to apply or enforce statutory law correctly. This
undermines public trust and leaves individuals with no remedy
when faced with unlawful enforcement.
>
> I am therefore requesting that you refer this matter to the
Parliamentary Ombudsman for investigation. I am happy to provide
all supporting documentation, including the original appeal, the
complaint, and POPLA’s written admission of error.
>
> Thank you for your time and assistance.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Full Name]
>
> [Your Address]
> [Your Email]
> [Your Phone Number]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 82117--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: July 22, 2025, 8:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can also send the following to the BPA, as POPLA operate
under BPA oversight, even though (not so) Smart Parking is no
longer a BPA member.
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Notification of POPLA Statutory Breach – Referral to
Parliamentary Ombudsman
>
> Dear BPA Complaints Team,
>
> I am writing to formally note a serious adjudication failure
by POPLA in relation to appeal reference [insert POPLA reference
number].
>
> POPLA has admitted that the Notice to Keeper issued by Smart
Parking was delivered outside the 14-day statutory period
required under Paragraph 9(5) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012. Despite this, the assessor upheld the charge,
and the complaints handler refused to correct the
decision—citing internal process limitations.
>
> This constitutes a clear breach of statutory requirements and
a failure of administrative justice. As POPLA operates under BPA
oversight, I am placing this on record.
>
> I am referring the matter to my MP for submission to the
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman for investigation. No
further correspondence is expected from the BPA unless you wish
to confirm receipt.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Full Name]
>
> PCN No.: [PCN number]
> POPLA Ref. No.: [POPLA reference number]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 82118--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN
DIR By: Sabab4321
Date: July 22, 2025, 8:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much I will write to my MP immediately and keep the
house updated
#Post#: 82286--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN
DIR By: Sabab4321
Date: July 23, 2025, 4:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good morning all
I sent an email to my MP and the BPA.
BPA acknowledged receiving my email while my MP replied with the
email below
Thank you for your email to Stephanie Peacock MP.
You would need to submit the complaint to the Parliamentary &
Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) yourself and Stephanie would
sign your completed complaint form, if this is something that
PHSO could look into.
Further details on which complaints the ombudsman can deal with
and how to make a complaint can be found here:
HTML https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/making-complaint
If you require any further information please let us know.
What do you advise
Thank you
#Post#: 82298--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: July 23, 2025, 6:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, that was my bad. The I mistakenly believed that the
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman could investigate
concerns about POPLA’s conduct. However, I forgot that POPLA is
a private adjudication service, not a public body, and therefore
falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
POPLA was created at the request of the UK Government as part of
implementing the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), which
outlawed clamping on private land. The Government required an
independent appeals service to justify keeper liability under
Schedule 4 of PoFA.
In 2012, POPLA was launched and operated by London Councils
under a 3-year contract with the British Parking Association
(BPA). The BPA funded the service, but London Councils managed
it independently. POPLA was meant to mirror statutory tribunals
like PATAS and TPT, with legal adjudicators and annual reports.
It was always funded by the private parking sector via the BPA —
£27+VAT per appeal.
In 2015, The BPA transferred POPLA’s operation to Ombudsman
Services Ltd, a private dispute resolution company. This marked
the shift from quasi-public oversight to industry-appointed
private control.
POPLA is now industry-funded, industry-appointed, and not
subject to statutory oversight. The BPA claims POPLA is
“independent”, but it appoints the operator, pays for the
service and controls the Code of Practice.
The so-called “Independent Board” overseeing POPLA is appointed
by the BPA, with no public transparency or accountability. This
system is structurally rigged:
[indent]• POPLA pretends to be independent, but is funded and
appointed by the very industry it’s meant to regulate.
• The BPA is a trade body, not a regulator — its “oversight” is
performative.
• The ICO and DVLA routinely sidestep accountability, especially
when it comes to systemic failures rather than isolated data
breaches.[/indent]
And litigation, while winnable, puts the burden on the defendant
to clean up a mess that should never have existed.
This isn’t just about one flawed decision — it’s about a
deliberately opaque, self-serving framework designed to:
[indent]• Give the illusion of fairness
• Funnel motorists into a dead-end process
• Shield operators from real scrutiny[/indent]
POPLA was created to satisfy the Government’s need for
legitimacy under PoFA — but once the public-sector oversight
ended, it became a closed loop of industry self-interest.
You could try explaining this to your MP, to raise the
structural issue in Parliament, push for statutory oversight of
private adjudication services and demand transparency and
accountability in unregulated private parking enforcement.
For what it is worth, you could ask them to question the current
government as to when they are going to implement the Parking
(Code of Practice) Act 2019? In 2019 The Parking (Code of
Practice) Act 2019 received Royal Assent. It placed a legal duty
on the Secretary of State to create a statutory Code of Practice
for private parking operators.
In February 2022 the Government finally published the draft Code
of Practice, nearly three years after the Act was passed. This
delay was due to consultations and development work with the
British Standards Institution (BSI).
In June 2022 the draft Code was withdrawn following legal
challenges from parking firms and their trade bodies, the BPA
and IPC, who objected to lower charge caps and the ban on debt
recovery fees.
In 2023 and 2024 the Government conducted further impact
assessments and calls for evidence to address industry concerns.
No statutory Code is in force during this time.
However, whilst the Act was introduced to fix exactly the kind
of systemic failure we're dealing with here, its implementation
has been delayed, diluted, and derailed by the very parking
industry through their powerful lobbying. So, whilst the Act was
passed in 2019, the Code wasn’t even drafted until 2022.
The parking industry successfully lobbied to block its
implementation. As a result, the sector remains self-regulated,
with no statutory oversight or binding standards.
This month a new consultation was launched to revive the Code.
It closes on 5 September 2025. Please have your say here: Open
consultation-​Private parking code of practice​
HTML https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-of-practice
#Post#: 82302--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN
DIR By: Sabab4321
Date: July 23, 2025, 6:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much
I will re read thoroughly and draft a detailed email to my MP
As usual I will keep the forum updated
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page