DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 85828--------------------------------------------------
Re: Out of Bay Parking - NtK from MET Parking Services - Romford
Brewery
DIR By: imnotpaying
Date: August 15, 2025, 11:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> So, do a search of other POPLA appeals on the forum to get an
idea of how to put it together and the format. When you have
something you think is ready, show us here and we will advise.
You have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection to submit
your POPLA appeal.
>
> The main points will be the fact that the driver is not
identified and the NtK is not compliant with PoFA paragraph
9(2)(a) because there is no "period of parking" stated. Relevant
case law is Brenna v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) where the
judge stated that a single timestamp is not evidence of a
"period of parking" and therefore the NtK was not PoFA compliant
and the Keeper cannot be liable.
>
> You can then also include the fact that the ground markings
are ambiguous and cause confusion with the slightly faced line
on the right being visible. Also throw in a requirement that
puts them to strict proof that they have a valid contract
flowing from the landowner that authorises them to issue PCNs in
their own name at the location.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi [member=26]b789[/member],
I hope you are doing well. Can you please review my POPLA
Appeal text and let me know your thoughts:
MET Parking has failed to adequately rebut the points in my
appeal, particularly regarding the lack of compliance with PoFA,
failure to identify the driver, ambiguous parking ground
markings, and failure to provide proof that they are authorised
to issue Parking Charge Notices in their own name. the response
details how MET Parking has not addressed or satisfactorily
answered the following:
1.
In my appeal, I stated that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not
comply with PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a), which
requires a period of parking to be specified. MET Parking’s
response only provides a timestamp (16:57) but fails to specify
a parking period. A single timestamp does not meet the statutory
requirement for a "period of parking." MET Parking has not
addressed this key point and has failed to demonstrate
compliance with PoFA on this issue.
2.
Since I am appealing as the registered keeper, MET Parking must
provide strict proof of the driver’s identity to hold the driver
liable. MET Parking has failed to provide any evidence or
argument addressing the identity of the driver, yet continues to
assert liability. This is a critical failure, as without such
proof, MET Parking cannot hold me, as the keeper, liable under
PoFA.
As noted in the persuasive appellate court case of Brennan v
Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], without a defined
"period of parking", the notice is incapable of holding the
Keeper liable.
3.
The pictures provided by MET Parking for the alleged Parking
Charge Notice shows that the ground markings are ambiguous and
cause confusion with the slightly faced line on the right being
visible.
4.
There is no evidence to demonstrate any permission flowing from
the landowner to the operator, which is required to prove that
MET Parking has the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices on
this land. It is well established that a managing agent is not
necessarily the landowner, and without evidence of the
landowner’s explicit authorisation, the operator cannot prove
their right to enforce parking on this land.
On this basis, MET Parking have failed to demonstrate that they
have the legal standing required to issue and pursue Parking
Charge Notices at this location. Without clear evidence that MET
Parking has a valid and current contract with the landowner, the
parking charge must be cancelled.
Given these failures by MET Parking, the parking charge must be
cancelled.
#Post#: 85928--------------------------------------------------
Re: Out of Bay Parking - NtK from MET Parking Services - Romford
Brewery
DIR By: b789
Date: August 16, 2025, 7:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Your POPLA draft is on the right track and already covers the
essential points, but I’d recommend tightening the language a
little, so it reads more like a structured legal submission
rather than a complaint letter. POPLA assessors tend to prefer
clear, numbered grounds rather than commentary. Here’s a refined
version of what you’ve drafted:
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any
liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
> The operator bears the burden of proof. They must establish
that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed
between the operator and the driver, and that they have lawful
authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in
their own name.
>
> Accordingly, I put MET Parking Services to strict proof of the
following:
>
> [indent]1. Failure to Comply with PoFA 2012 – No Period of
Parking Specified
>
> The Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with Schedule 4 of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Paragraph 9(2)(a), which
requires that a “period of parking” be specified.
>
> MET Parking has only provided a single timestamp (16:57 on 21
June 2025) and vague wording about “the period of parking
immediately prior to that time”. A single timestamp is not a
period. This has been confirmed in the persuasive appellate case
of Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], where
the judge held that a single observation time cannot evidence a
“period of parking” and thus the NtK was not PoFA-compliant.
>
> Because the NtK is not compliant, MET cannot transfer
liability to the keeper. The operator’s repeated assertions that
their NtK is PoFA compliant do not make it so.
>
> 2. No Contract Could Have Been Formed – No Period of Parking
Evidenced
>
> The operator has failed to evidence any period of parking,
instead relying on a single timestamp to justify the charge.
This is completely inadequate and fails both the legal and
contractual standards.
>
> The operator has ignored the minimum consideration period that
must be allowed under the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice, section 5.1. That section states that operators must
allow a reasonable consideration period for the driver to find
the terms, read them, and either decide to accept and park or
leave. This period is defined as a minimum of five minutes.
>
> By producing only a single timestamp and no proof of a parking
duration beyond the mandatory consideration period, the operator
has failed to evidence that a valid contract was ever formed
with the driver. The law requires that a motorist be given
sufficient time to read the terms, understand them, and make an
informed decision whether to accept. Without evidence that the
vehicle remained for longer than the minimum consideration
period, there is no basis to conclude that any contract was
entered into.
>
> The operator is attempting to have it both ways: they wish to
rely on PoFA to hold the keeper liable, which requires evidence
of a defined parking period, yet at the same time they are
relying on nothing more than a single instant in time to claim
that a contract was entered into and breached. That is legally
and logically unsustainable.
>
> This is not about whether the vehicle was briefly observed on
site. It is about whether the evidence demonstrates that the
driver had sufficient time to read and accept the terms, which
is essential for contract formation. A single timestamp does not
prove that a parking period took place.
>
> Therefore, even if every other element of the operator’s case
were accepted (which they are not), their failure to show that
the vehicle remained for longer than the minimum five-minute
consideration period fatally undermines any claim that a binding
contract was formed or that the PoFA requirements have been met.
>
> 3. No Evidence the Keeper was the Driver – Keeper Cannot Be
Held Liable
>
> MET has provided no evidence whatsoever that the appellant was
the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. The
identity of the driver has not been disclosed, and MET has not
disputed this or provided any evidence to the contrary.
>
> This leaves the operator with just one legal route: to pursue
the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). However, that mechanism only becomes
available if the operator fully complies with every single
mandatory condition set out in PoFA. As demonstrated earlier in
point #1 of this appeal, the Notice to Keeper does not comply
with a key requirements of PoFA, namely paragraph 9(2)(a), which
requires that a “period of parking” be specified.
>
> Therefore, by failing the overall test of absolute and
unambiguous compliance with the statutory scheme, an analogy
must be stated clearly: just as a person cannot be partially or
even mostly pregnant, a Notice to Keeper cannot be partially or
even mostly PoFA compliant. It is a binary point. It either is
or it isn't — and in this case, it isn’t. That is the law.
>
> This means MET cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to
the keeper. With PoFA compliance off the table, the only
remaining option would be to prove — with actual evidence — that
the keeper was also the driver. They have not done so.
>
> There is no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver.
In VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C], a persuasive County Court
judgment in which HHJ Gargan explained precisely why it is not
appropriate to infer driver identity from registered keeper
status. MET has not presented any evidence to support such an
inference.
>
> POPLA is not entitled to make assumptions in the operator’s
favour, nor is it permitted to apply a lower evidential
threshold than the law requires. Keeper liability only arises if
PoFA is complied with. It is not a default position, and it does
not arise by implication.
>
> Accordingly, the only lawful conclusion is that MET cannot
pursue the appellant as keeper. There is no PoFA compliance, no
driver identification, and therefore no legal basis for
continuing enforcement of this charge.
>
> 4. Inadequate and Ambiguous Signage
>
> The operator is put to strict proof of clear, prominent, and
adequate signage in situ on the material date.
>
> [indent]• MET must provide a detailed site plan showing the
placement of each sign and legible images of the actual signs.
> • They must prove that signage was visible, legible, and
compliant with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP), including font size, positioning, and the prominence
of key terms.
> • The photographs they have provided already show ambiguous
and faded bay markings. No contract can be formed where terms
such as “park only in marked bays” are not objectively
clear.[/indent]
>
> 5. Landowner Authority
>
> The operator is put to strict proof of a valid,
contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner
that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and
pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and
the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship
with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum
requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge
may be issued on controlled land.
>
> In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to
have in place written confirmation from the landowner which
includes:
>
> [indent]• the identity of the landowner,
> • a boundary map of the land to be managed,
> • applicable byelaws,
> • the duration and scope of authority granted,
> • detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific
permissions or exemptions,
> • the means of issuing PCNs,
> • responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising
consents,
> • and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under
the Code.[/indent]
>
> These requirements are not optional. They are a condition
precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance
with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that
contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The
document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons,
with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties
to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing
clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
>
> Conclusion
>
> For the reasons above:
> [indent]• The NtK fails PoFA 2012 and cannot create keeper
liability.
> • The driver has not been identified.
> • Signage and bay markings are inadequate and ambiguous.
> • The operator has not proven landowner authority.
> • The evidence fails to establish any parking event beyond the
permitted consideration period.[/indent]
>
> Accordingly, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this
appeal and direct that the charge be cancelled.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 85950--------------------------------------------------
Re: Out of Bay Parking - NtK from MET Parking Services - Romford
Brewery
DIR By: imnotpaying
Date: August 16, 2025, 10:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Your POPLA draft is on the right track and already covers the
essential points, but I’d recommend tightening the language a
little, so it reads more like a structured legal submission
rather than a complaint letter. POPLA assessors tend to prefer
clear, numbered grounds rather than commentary. Here’s a refined
version of what you’ve drafted:
>
> [quote]I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any
liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
> The operator bears the burden of proof. They must establish
that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed
between the operator and the driver, and that they have lawful
authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in
their own name.
>
> Accordingly, I put MET Parking Services to strict proof of the
following:
>
> [indent]1. Failure to Comply with PoFA 2012 – No Period of
Parking Specified
>
> The Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with Schedule 4 of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Paragraph 9(2)(a), which
requires that a “period of parking” be specified.
>
> MET Parking has only provided a single timestamp (16:57 on 21
June 2025) and vague wording about “the period of parking
immediately prior to that time”. A single timestamp is not a
period. This has been confirmed in the persuasive appellate case
of Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], where
the judge held that a single observation time cannot evidence a
“period of parking” and thus the NtK was not PoFA-compliant.
>
> Because the NtK is not compliant, MET cannot transfer
liability to the keeper. The operator’s repeated assertions that
their NtK is PoFA compliant do not make it so.
>
> 2. No Contract Could Have Been Formed – No Period of Parking
Evidenced
>
> The operator has failed to evidence any period of parking,
instead relying on a single timestamp to justify the charge.
This is completely inadequate and fails both the legal and
contractual standards.
>
> The operator has ignored the minimum consideration period that
must be allowed under the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice, section 5.1. That section states that operators must
allow a reasonable consideration period for the driver to find
the terms, read them, and either decide to accept and park or
leave. This period is defined as a minimum of five minutes.
>
> By producing only a single timestamp and no proof of a parking
duration beyond the mandatory consideration period, the operator
has failed to evidence that a valid contract was ever formed
with the driver. The law requires that a motorist be given
sufficient time to read the terms, understand them, and make an
informed decision whether to accept. Without evidence that the
vehicle remained for longer than the minimum consideration
period, there is no basis to conclude that any contract was
entered into.
>
> The operator is attempting to have it both ways: they wish to
rely on PoFA to hold the keeper liable, which requires evidence
of a defined parking period, yet at the same time they are
relying on nothing more than a single instant in time to claim
that a contract was entered into and breached. That is legally
and logically unsustainable.
>
> This is not about whether the vehicle was briefly observed on
site. It is about whether the evidence demonstrates that the
driver had sufficient time to read and accept the terms, which
is essential for contract formation. A single timestamp does not
prove that a parking period took place.
>
> Therefore, even if every other element of the operator’s case
were accepted (which they are not), their failure to show that
the vehicle remained for longer than the minimum five-minute
consideration period fatally undermines any claim that a binding
contract was formed or that the PoFA requirements have been met.
>
> 3. No Evidence the Keeper was the Driver – Keeper Cannot Be
Held Liable
>
> MET has provided no evidence whatsoever that the appellant was
the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. The
identity of the driver has not been disclosed, and MET has not
disputed this or provided any evidence to the contrary.
>
> This leaves the operator with just one legal route: to pursue
the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). However, that mechanism only becomes
available if the operator fully complies with every single
mandatory condition set out in PoFA. As demonstrated earlier in
point #1 of this appeal, the Notice to Keeper does not comply
with a key requirements of PoFA, namely paragraph 9(2)(a), which
requires that a “period of parking” be specified.
>
> Therefore, by failing the overall test of absolute and
unambiguous compliance with the statutory scheme, an analogy
must be stated clearly: just as a person cannot be partially or
even mostly pregnant, a Notice to Keeper cannot be partially or
even mostly PoFA compliant. It is a binary point. It either is
or it isn't — and in this case, it isn’t. That is the law.
>
> This means MET cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to
the keeper. With PoFA compliance off the table, the only
remaining option would be to prove — with actual evidence — that
the keeper was also the driver. They have not done so.
>
> There is no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver.
In VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C], a persuasive County Court
judgment in which HHJ Gargan explained precisely why it is not
appropriate to infer driver identity from registered keeper
status. MET has not presented any evidence to support such an
inference.
>
> POPLA is not entitled to make assumptions in the operator’s
favour, nor is it permitted to apply a lower evidential
threshold than the law requires. Keeper liability only arises if
PoFA is complied with. It is not a default position, and it does
not arise by implication.
>
> Accordingly, the only lawful conclusion is that MET cannot
pursue the appellant as keeper. There is no PoFA compliance, no
driver identification, and therefore no legal basis for
continuing enforcement of this charge.
>
> 4. Inadequate and Ambiguous Signage
>
> The operator is put to strict proof of clear, prominent, and
adequate signage in situ on the material date.
>
> [indent]• MET must provide a detailed site plan showing the
placement of each sign and legible images of the actual signs.
> • They must prove that signage was visible, legible, and
compliant with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP), including font size, positioning, and the prominence
of key terms.
> • The photographs they have provided already show ambiguous
and faded bay markings. No contract can be formed where terms
such as “park only in marked bays” are not objectively
clear.[/indent]
>
> 5. Landowner Authority
>
> The operator is put to strict proof of a valid,
contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner
that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and
pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and
the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship
with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum
requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge
may be issued on controlled land.
>
> In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to
have in place written confirmation from the landowner which
includes:
>
> [indent]• the identity of the landowner,
> • a boundary map of the land to be managed,
> • applicable byelaws,
> • the duration and scope of authority granted,
> • detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific
permissions or exemptions,
> • the means of issuing PCNs,
> • responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising
consents,
> • and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under
the Code.[/indent]
>
> These requirements are not optional. They are a condition
precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance
with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that
contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The
document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons,
with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties
to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing
clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
>
> Conclusion
>
> For the reasons above:
> [indent]• The NtK fails PoFA 2012 and cannot create keeper
liability.
> • The driver has not been identified.
> • Signage and bay markings are inadequate and ambiguous.
> • The operator has not proven landowner authority.
> • The evidence fails to establish any parking event beyond the
permitted consideration period.[/indent]
>
> Accordingly, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this
appeal and direct that the charge be cancelled.
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
Very nicely structured letter! Thanks a lot for your time
writing this.
I'll send this exactly as it is in my POPLA appeal.
Btw, question: Though the NTK does not mention a specific
period of parking, the pictures do show the car at different
times, specifically images of the car at 16:42 and then 16:47.
Can that undermine my appeal?
#Post#: 86128--------------------------------------------------
Re: Out of Bay Parking - NtK from MET Parking Services - Romford
Brewery
DIR By: imnotpaying
Date: August 18, 2025, 7:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Your POPLA draft is on the right track and already covers the
essential points, but I’d recommend tightening the language a
little, so it reads more like a structured legal submission
rather than a complaint letter. POPLA assessors tend to prefer
clear, numbered grounds rather than commentary. Here’s a refined
version of what you’ve drafted:
>
> [quote]I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any
liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
> The operator bears the burden of proof. They must establish
that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed
between the operator and the driver, and that they have lawful
authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in
their own name.
>
> Accordingly, I put MET Parking Services to strict proof of the
following:
>
> [indent]1. Failure to Comply with PoFA 2012 – No Period of
Parking Specified
>
> The Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with Schedule 4 of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Paragraph 9(2)(a), which
requires that a “period of parking” be specified.
>
> MET Parking has only provided a single timestamp (16:57 on 21
June 2025) and vague wording about “the period of parking
immediately prior to that time”. A single timestamp is not a
period. This has been confirmed in the persuasive appellate case
of Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], where
the judge held that a single observation time cannot evidence a
“period of parking” and thus the NtK was not PoFA-compliant.
>
> Because the NtK is not compliant, MET cannot transfer
liability to the keeper. The operator’s repeated assertions that
their NtK is PoFA compliant do not make it so.
>
> 2. No Contract Could Have Been Formed – No Period of Parking
Evidenced
>
> The operator has failed to evidence any period of parking,
instead relying on a single timestamp to justify the charge.
This is completely inadequate and fails both the legal and
contractual standards.
>
> The operator has ignored the minimum consideration period that
must be allowed under the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice, section 5.1. That section states that operators must
allow a reasonable consideration period for the driver to find
the terms, read them, and either decide to accept and park or
leave. This period is defined as a minimum of five minutes.
>
> By producing only a single timestamp and no proof of a parking
duration beyond the mandatory consideration period, the operator
has failed to evidence that a valid contract was ever formed
with the driver. The law requires that a motorist be given
sufficient time to read the terms, understand them, and make an
informed decision whether to accept. Without evidence that the
vehicle remained for longer than the minimum consideration
period, there is no basis to conclude that any contract was
entered into.
>
> The operator is attempting to have it both ways: they wish to
rely on PoFA to hold the keeper liable, which requires evidence
of a defined parking period, yet at the same time they are
relying on nothing more than a single instant in time to claim
that a contract was entered into and breached. That is legally
and logically unsustainable.
>
> This is not about whether the vehicle was briefly observed on
site. It is about whether the evidence demonstrates that the
driver had sufficient time to read and accept the terms, which
is essential for contract formation. A single timestamp does not
prove that a parking period took place.
>
> Therefore, even if every other element of the operator’s case
were accepted (which they are not), their failure to show that
the vehicle remained for longer than the minimum five-minute
consideration period fatally undermines any claim that a binding
contract was formed or that the PoFA requirements have been met.
>
> 3. No Evidence the Keeper was the Driver – Keeper Cannot Be
Held Liable
>
> MET has provided no evidence whatsoever that the appellant was
the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. The
identity of the driver has not been disclosed, and MET has not
disputed this or provided any evidence to the contrary.
>
> This leaves the operator with just one legal route: to pursue
the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). However, that mechanism only becomes
available if the operator fully complies with every single
mandatory condition set out in PoFA. As demonstrated earlier in
point #1 of this appeal, the Notice to Keeper does not comply
with a key requirements of PoFA, namely paragraph 9(2)(a), which
requires that a “period of parking” be specified.
>
> Therefore, by failing the overall test of absolute and
unambiguous compliance with the statutory scheme, an analogy
must be stated clearly: just as a person cannot be partially or
even mostly pregnant, a Notice to Keeper cannot be partially or
even mostly PoFA compliant. It is a binary point. It either is
or it isn't — and in this case, it isn’t. That is the law.
>
> This means MET cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to
the keeper. With PoFA compliance off the table, the only
remaining option would be to prove — with actual evidence — that
the keeper was also the driver. They have not done so.
>
> There is no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver.
In VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C], a persuasive County Court
judgment in which HHJ Gargan explained precisely why it is not
appropriate to infer driver identity from registered keeper
status. MET has not presented any evidence to support such an
inference.
>
> POPLA is not entitled to make assumptions in the operator’s
favour, nor is it permitted to apply a lower evidential
threshold than the law requires. Keeper liability only arises if
PoFA is complied with. It is not a default position, and it does
not arise by implication.
>
> Accordingly, the only lawful conclusion is that MET cannot
pursue the appellant as keeper. There is no PoFA compliance, no
driver identification, and therefore no legal basis for
continuing enforcement of this charge.
>
> 4. Inadequate and Ambiguous Signage
>
> The operator is put to strict proof of clear, prominent, and
adequate signage in situ on the material date.
>
> [indent]• MET must provide a detailed site plan showing the
placement of each sign and legible images of the actual signs.
> • They must prove that signage was visible, legible, and
compliant with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP), including font size, positioning, and the prominence
of key terms.
> • The photographs they have provided already show ambiguous
and faded bay markings. No contract can be formed where terms
such as “park only in marked bays” are not objectively
clear.[/indent]
>
> 5. Landowner Authority
>
> The operator is put to strict proof of a valid,
contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner
that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and
pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and
the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship
with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum
requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge
may be issued on controlled land.
>
> In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to
have in place written confirmation from the landowner which
includes:
>
> [indent]• the identity of the landowner,
> • a boundary map of the land to be managed,
> • applicable byelaws,
> • the duration and scope of authority granted,
> • detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific
permissions or exemptions,
> • the means of issuing PCNs,
> • responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising
consents,
> • and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under
the Code.[/indent]
>
> These requirements are not optional. They are a condition
precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance
with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that
contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The
document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons,
with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties
to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing
clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
>
> Conclusion
>
> For the reasons above:
> [indent]• The NtK fails PoFA 2012 and cannot create keeper
liability.
> • The driver has not been identified.
> • Signage and bay markings are inadequate and ambiguous.
> • The operator has not proven landowner authority.
> • The evidence fails to establish any parking event beyond the
permitted consideration period.[/indent]
>
> Accordingly, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this
appeal and direct that the charge be cancelled.
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
I have now sent my appeal to POPLA copying exactly the above
into my appeal details.
#Post#: 88220--------------------------------------------------
Re: Out of Bay Parking - NtK from MET Parking Services - Romford
Brewery
DIR By: imnotpaying
Date: September 3, 2025, 5:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Your POPLA draft is on the right track and already covers the
essential points, but I’d recommend tightening the language a
little, so it reads more like a structured legal submission
rather than a complaint letter. POPLA assessors tend to prefer
clear, numbered grounds rather than commentary. Here’s a refined
version of what you’ve drafted:
>
> [quote]I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any
liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
> The operator bears the burden of proof. They must establish
that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed
between the operator and the driver, and that they have lawful
authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in
their own name.
>
> Accordingly, I put MET Parking Services to strict proof of the
following:
>
> [indent]1. Failure to Comply with PoFA 2012 – No Period of
Parking Specified
>
> The Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with Schedule 4 of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Paragraph 9(2)(a), which
requires that a “period of parking” be specified.
>
> MET Parking has only provided a single timestamp (16:57 on 21
June 2025) and vague wording about “the period of parking
immediately prior to that time”. A single timestamp is not a
period. This has been confirmed in the persuasive appellate case
of Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], where
the judge held that a single observation time cannot evidence a
“period of parking” and thus the NtK was not PoFA-compliant.
>
> Because the NtK is not compliant, MET cannot transfer
liability to the keeper. The operator’s repeated assertions that
their NtK is PoFA compliant do not make it so.
>
> 2. No Contract Could Have Been Formed – No Period of Parking
Evidenced
>
> The operator has failed to evidence any period of parking,
instead relying on a single timestamp to justify the charge.
This is completely inadequate and fails both the legal and
contractual standards.
>
> The operator has ignored the minimum consideration period that
must be allowed under the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice, section 5.1. That section states that operators must
allow a reasonable consideration period for the driver to find
the terms, read them, and either decide to accept and park or
leave. This period is defined as a minimum of five minutes.
>
> By producing only a single timestamp and no proof of a parking
duration beyond the mandatory consideration period, the operator
has failed to evidence that a valid contract was ever formed
with the driver. The law requires that a motorist be given
sufficient time to read the terms, understand them, and make an
informed decision whether to accept. Without evidence that the
vehicle remained for longer than the minimum consideration
period, there is no basis to conclude that any contract was
entered into.
>
> The operator is attempting to have it both ways: they wish to
rely on PoFA to hold the keeper liable, which requires evidence
of a defined parking period, yet at the same time they are
relying on nothing more than a single instant in time to claim
that a contract was entered into and breached. That is legally
and logically unsustainable.
>
> This is not about whether the vehicle was briefly observed on
site. It is about whether the evidence demonstrates that the
driver had sufficient time to read and accept the terms, which
is essential for contract formation. A single timestamp does not
prove that a parking period took place.
>
> Therefore, even if every other element of the operator’s case
were accepted (which they are not), their failure to show that
the vehicle remained for longer than the minimum five-minute
consideration period fatally undermines any claim that a binding
contract was formed or that the PoFA requirements have been met.
>
> 3. No Evidence the Keeper was the Driver – Keeper Cannot Be
Held Liable
>
> MET has provided no evidence whatsoever that the appellant was
the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. The
identity of the driver has not been disclosed, and MET has not
disputed this or provided any evidence to the contrary.
>
> This leaves the operator with just one legal route: to pursue
the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). However, that mechanism only becomes
available if the operator fully complies with every single
mandatory condition set out in PoFA. As demonstrated earlier in
point #1 of this appeal, the Notice to Keeper does not comply
with a key requirements of PoFA, namely paragraph 9(2)(a), which
requires that a “period of parking” be specified.
>
> Therefore, by failing the overall test of absolute and
unambiguous compliance with the statutory scheme, an analogy
must be stated clearly: just as a person cannot be partially or
even mostly pregnant, a Notice to Keeper cannot be partially or
even mostly PoFA compliant. It is a binary point. It either is
or it isn't — and in this case, it isn’t. That is the law.
>
> This means MET cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to
the keeper. With PoFA compliance off the table, the only
remaining option would be to prove — with actual evidence — that
the keeper was also the driver. They have not done so.
>
> There is no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver.
In VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C], a persuasive County Court
judgment in which HHJ Gargan explained precisely why it is not
appropriate to infer driver identity from registered keeper
status. MET has not presented any evidence to support such an
inference.
>
> POPLA is not entitled to make assumptions in the operator’s
favour, nor is it permitted to apply a lower evidential
threshold than the law requires. Keeper liability only arises if
PoFA is complied with. It is not a default position, and it does
not arise by implication.
>
> Accordingly, the only lawful conclusion is that MET cannot
pursue the appellant as keeper. There is no PoFA compliance, no
driver identification, and therefore no legal basis for
continuing enforcement of this charge.
>
> 4. Inadequate and Ambiguous Signage
>
> The operator is put to strict proof of clear, prominent, and
adequate signage in situ on the material date.
>
> [indent]• MET must provide a detailed site plan showing the
placement of each sign and legible images of the actual signs.
> • They must prove that signage was visible, legible, and
compliant with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP), including font size, positioning, and the prominence
of key terms.
> • The photographs they have provided already show ambiguous
and faded bay markings. No contract can be formed where terms
such as “park only in marked bays” are not objectively
clear.[/indent]
>
> 5. Landowner Authority
>
> The operator is put to strict proof of a valid,
contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner
that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and
pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and
the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship
with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum
requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge
may be issued on controlled land.
>
> In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to
have in place written confirmation from the landowner which
includes:
>
> [indent]• the identity of the landowner,
> • a boundary map of the land to be managed,
> • applicable byelaws,
> • the duration and scope of authority granted,
> • detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific
permissions or exemptions,
> • the means of issuing PCNs,
> • responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising
consents,
> • and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under
the Code.[/indent]
>
> These requirements are not optional. They are a condition
precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance
with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that
contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The
document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons,
with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties
to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing
clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
>
> Conclusion
>
> For the reasons above:
> [indent]• The NtK fails PoFA 2012 and cannot create keeper
liability.
> • The driver has not been identified.
> • Signage and bay markings are inadequate and ambiguous.
> • The operator has not proven landowner authority.
> • The evidence fails to establish any parking event beyond the
permitted consideration period.[/indent]
>
> Accordingly, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this
appeal and direct that the charge be cancelled.
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
Hi [member=26]b789[/member],
MET Parking have provided their Evidence to the appeal on POPLA.
Please see their comments below:
In the appeal to POPLA Mr xxx raises the following grounds for
appeal: • No keeper liability As we have not been provided with
the name and address of the driver of the vehicle, we are
pursuing the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of The
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Please see our compliant Notice
to Keeper in Section B of our evidence pack. Please also see a
full explanation of why we may pursue the registered keeper
under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 in Section C of our evidence pack.
• Consideration period not granted As demonstrated in section E,
the vehicle was observed for over 5 minutes. As such, the
required consideration period was granted. • Inadequate and
ambiguous signage We are confident that there are sufficient
signs in place in this car park, that the signs are prominently
displayed and clearly state the terms and conditions, and that
our signage complies with all relevant legislation and
regulations. In the attached appendix we have included images of
the signs in place and a site plan of the location. A motorist
does not have to have read the terms and conditions of parking
to enter into a parking contract, there is only the requirement
that the parking operator affords them the opportunity to do so.
As stated, we are confident that there is sufficient signage at
the site in order to afford motorists the chance to read the
terms and conditions that are in place. Upon entry to the site,
it is the motorist’s obligation to seek out any terms and
conditions that may be in place before choosing to park or
remain on site. • Marked bays not clear As the photographic
evidence in section E demonstrates, the bay markings are clear.
The vehicle was parked over the boundary of the bay and was
obstructing the pedestrian walkway. • Landowner authority We
have included a copy of our contract with the landowner in
Section E of our evidence pack. We have redacted commercially
sensitive details and highlighted relevant clauses for ease of
reading. Our contract with the landowner grants us authority to
form contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices
for contractual breach. We refer you to the Supreme Court ruling
on ParkingEye v Beavis for the judges’ determination on whether
a parking operator is acting as an agent or principal. The
ruling may be found at
HTML https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf.darl<br
/>The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly
stated on the signs prominently displayed around the car park.
These include that vehicles must park within marked bays and not
park in such a way as to cause obstruction to others. As
demonstrated by the evidence we have provided in this evidence
pack, the vehicle was not parked within a marked bay and was
parked in a way that was obstructing the pedestrian walkway. It
remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where
they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. In
light of the above we believe the charge notice was issued
correctly and the appeal should be refused.
This is from Section C of their uploaded document. This is
their explanation for chasing the Keeper:
We believe we can pursue the registered keeper for payment of
the charge notice as:
1. The land on which the vehicle was parked was private land and
falls within the
definition of relevant land under Schedule 4 of The Protection
of Freedoms Act.
2. The driver of the vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant
obligation to pay parking
charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant
land and the charges have
not been paid in full.
3. We have the right to enforce against the driver of the
vehicle the requirement to
pay the unpaid charges but are unable to take steps to enforce
that requirement
because we do not know the name and current address for service
of the driver.
4. We have given a notice to the keeper in accordance with
paragraph 9 of Schedule
4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act, this notice:
a) Specifies the vehicle, the relevant land on whit it was
parked and the period of
parking to which the notice relates;
b) Informs the keeper that the driver is required to pay the
charges and they have
not been paid in full;
c) Describes the charges due, the circumstances and other facts
that made them
payable;
d) Specifies the amount unpaid;
e) States that we do not know the name and address of the driver
and invites the
keeper to either pay the charges or advise us of the name and
address of the
driver;
f) Warns the keeper that if we after the specified time the
charges are not paid in
full and we still do not know the name and address of the driver
we may (subject
to having met all the criteria) have the right to recover the
outstanding sums
from the registered keeper;
g) Informs the registered keeper of the prompt payment discount
and
arrangements for dispute resolution;
h) Identifies ourselves as the creditor and specifies how to
make to payment to us
or correspond with us;
i) Specifies the date of sending the notice;
j) Specifies the Creditor.
5. The notice contains appropriate evidence by way of date
stamped photographs
6. The notice was given in accordance with sub-paragraph 9(4),
11 and 12 in all
relevant respects.
7. The timetable of events is listed below:
a) The parking event took place on 21/06/2025
b) The registered keeper details were received from the DVLA
24/06/2025 and the
Notice to Keeper was sent on 25/06/2025.
The full details of the Notice to Keeper can be viewed in
Section B above.
As we have not been provided with the name and current address
for service of the
driver of the vehicle, we may pursue the registered keeper for
payment of the
outstanding parking charge notice.
#Post#: 88225--------------------------------------------------
Re: Out of Bay Parking - NtK from MET Parking Services - Romford
Brewery
DIR By: b789
Date: September 3, 2025, 5:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Host their evidence, especially the landowner contract, on
Google Drive or similar so we can review it.
#Post#: 88231--------------------------------------------------
Re: Out of Bay Parking - NtK from MET Parking Services - Romford
Brewery
DIR By: b789
Date: September 3, 2025, 6:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just copy and paste the following into the POPLA postal as your
response:
--- Quote ---
> Response to MET’s “keeper liability / 5-minute observation”
claims:
>
> 1. Keeper liability rises or falls on the NtK itself
> Keeper liability is a narrow statutory exception (PoFA Sch 4
para 4). It applies only if the operator has given a fully
compliant NtK. PoFA para 9(2) uses mandatory language (“must”)
and the assessment is confined to the NtK as given. Later
materials (portal images, extra timestamps, Section C narratives
or “evidence packs”) cannot retrospectively supply a missing
statutory element or cure a defect.
>
> 2. PoFA 9(2)(a) failure on the face of the NtK
> PoFA 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to “specify the period of
parking”. MET’s NtK cites a single time and vague wording about
“immediately prior”. A single timestamp is not a “period of
parking” and does not meet para 9(2)(a). See Brennan v Premier
Parking Solutions (2023) (appeal) confirming that an instant in
time cannot evidence a “period of parking”. If the period is not
specified in the NtK, keeper liability cannot arise.
>
> 3. “Observed over 5 minutes” does not prove contract formation
or cure PoFA
> MET’s Section E claim that the vehicle was “observed for over
5 minutes” is (a) not part of the NtK and (b) does not evidence
a parking duration beyond the mandatory consideration period.
The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (17 Feb 2025) s5.1
requires a minimum five-minute consideration period to find,
read and decide on the terms. An observation of ~5 minutes
cannot exclude time spent reading signage or choosing to leave;
it does not prove that a contract was accepted or that any
charge became payable.
>
> 4. Statutory content must be in the NtK; assertion is not
evidence
> PoFA 9(2) also requires the NtK to describe “the
circumstances… that made [the charges] payable” (para 9(2)(d)).
If MET wished to rely on keeper liability, the NtK itself had to
set out the parking period and the facts said to constitute
breach. Post-hoc photos and narratives in Section B/C/E are not
the NtK and cannot be imported to fix omissions.
>
> Conclusion
> The NtK fails PoFA 9(2)(a) on its face. Keeper liability
therefore does not arise. The driver has not been identified.
MET’s later “evidence pack” and portal material cannot cure a
defective NtK or prove contract formation beyond the
consideration period. On keeper liability alone, this appeal
must be allowed.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 88235--------------------------------------------------
Re: Out of Bay Parking - NtK from MET Parking Services - Romford
Brewery
DIR By: jfollows
Date: September 3, 2025, 6:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For postal read portal I think.
#Post#: 88278--------------------------------------------------
Re: Out of Bay Parking - NtK from MET Parking Services - Romford
Brewery
DIR By: imnotpaying
Date: September 3, 2025, 11:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Host their evidence, especially the landowner contract, on
Google Drive or similar so we can review it.
>
--- End Quote ---
Link to the documents uploaded:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F7JZILbpvLocb-dBig2HpS606jv8RdXE/view?usp=sharing
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/19hsrA-7_ka_RH98BtcRA1X40jf170q0o/view
#Post#: 88282--------------------------------------------------
Re: Out of Bay Parking - NtK from MET Parking Services - Romford
Brewery
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 3, 2025, 11:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> For the avoidance of doubt: This is not one bay with three
lines, this is one
> standard-size parking bay with a pedestrian walkway next to
it.
--- End Quote ---
The fact that they feel the need to state this "for the
avoidance of doubt", and to use bold, red underlined text to do
so, might suggest there is considerable room for doubt...
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page