DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 93933--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: b789
Date: October 13, 2025, 2:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That’s an excellent and well-structured POPLA rebuttal — it’s
clear, thorough, and framed in the precise evidential and legal
context POPLA expects. It hits every necessary point that
ParkingEye failed to address, including the core Jopson
principle, lack of PoFA reliance, absence of evidence of
parking, defective signage, lack of standing, and irrelevance of
Beavis.
Here are just a few light refinements to strengthen it before
submission:
--- Quote ---
> 1. Delivery/unloading is not “parking”
>
> The operator’s evidence fails to rebut the central issue: the
vehicle was engaged in legitimate parcel deliveries to
residents. This was brief unloading, not parking.
>
> In Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E (HHJ Harris
QC, Oxford County Court appeal), the court held that temporary
stopping for loading or unloading does not constitute parking.
The decision expressly refers to delivery vans and is binding
persuasive authority at this level.
>
> The operator relies only on ANPR entry and exit timestamps
(17:18 to 17:42). ANPR does not identify any stationary period
or unattended vehicle and cannot prove parking. The vehicle was
moving between buildings while deliveries were made. POPLA must
therefore find that no parking contract arose and no
contravention occurred.
>
> 2. Signage – no allowance for deliveries or visitors
>
> The operator’s photos confirm signage limited to “Residents
Only”. There is no wording accommodating deliveries,
tradespeople, or visitors. Such total prohibition is ambiguous
and unfair to lawful delivery drivers.
>
> Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 sections 62 to 68, terms
must be fair and transparent. No reasonable driver could have
understood that brief unloading for residents would incur a £100
penalty.
>
> Further, under Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, a
contract cannot be formed unless the terms are communicated
before entry. No evidence shows that the terms were legible or
even visible to a delivery driver entering the site. Hence, no
fair or transparent contract was formed.
>
> 3. Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) – breach
of fairness and grace requirements
>
> The operator claims compliance with the Single Code, but their
own evidence proves otherwise.
>
> Section 5.1 of the PPSCoP requires a consideration period to
allow drivers to read terms and decide whether to stay. Section
5.2 requires a minimum 10-minute grace period at the end of a
parking session.
>
> Here, the alleged “stay” was only 23 minutes and includes time
for arrival, unloading, and departure. The operator’s data table
lists “Time Allowed 0 hours 0 minutes”, demonstrating there was
no allowance at all, breaching both sections 5.1 and 5.2 and the
Code’s fairness principles.
>
> 4. No keeper liability – operator admits PoFA not used
> The operator’s own evidence states in their 'Additional
information' in their evidence pack: “PLEASE BE ADVISED, THIS
PARKING CHARGE WAS NOT ISSUED UNDER THE PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS
ACT 2012.” That statement ends the matter. If PoFA is not used,
only the driver could be liable. As the appellant is the
registered keeper and has not been identified as the driver,
POPLA must allow the appeal.
>
> 5. No standing / defective landowner authority
>
> The operator provides only a heavily redacted “Order Form”
rather than a full contemporaneous, site-specific agreement
compliant with PPSCoP section 14.1(a) to (j). The redacted
document omits:
>
> - the landowner’s full identity and signature;
> - the unredacted boundaries of the controlled land;
> - clear terms defining the operator’s authority to issue and
enforce PCNs.
>
> The PPSCoP makes these items mandatory. Without a complete and
dated agreement evidencing the landowner’s consent, ParkingEye
has no legal standing to issue or pursue this charge.
>
> 6. Beavis is distinguishable
>
> ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 concerned a retail park
where a charge served a commercial interest in space turnover.
Here, the site is a residential housing association estate and
the driver was conducting a necessary delivery. There is no
comparable commercial or deterrent interest, and the charge
serves no legitimate purpose beyond punishment.
>
> 7. Summary
>
> - No period of parking evidenced – only entry/exit timestamps.
> - Jopson v Homeguard confirms unloading is not parking.
> - Signage is prohibitive and fails Consumer Rights Act
standards.
> - Operator admits PoFA not invoked – keeper not liable.
> - Landowner authority not proven in accordance with PPSCoP.
> - Beavis distinguished – no legitimate interest in penalising
deliveries.
> - PPSCoP grace and fairness provisions breached.
>
> For all these reasons, the appeal should be upheld and the
Parking Charge cancelled.
--- End Quote ---
That version reads fluently, tracks POPLA’s reasoning flow, and
keeps every statutory and case citation relevant. It’s ready to
paste directly into the POPLA comment box.
#Post#: 93985--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: ahsan
Date: October 14, 2025, 4:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks all for your suggestions, [member=26]b789[/member] thanks
to you for reviewing and polishing the draft, much appreciated.
I have submitted the rebuttal, Ill keep you all informed when I
receive the outcome.
#Post#: 99044--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: ahsan
Date: November 20, 2025, 12:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
POPLA rejected the appeal :(, here is the link to decision:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OfBwOhF2H7OJjucw1VgPspAm_GF2e-da/view?usp=drive_link
What should be our next step?
Thanks in advance.
#Post#: 99097--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: b789
Date: November 21, 2025, 12:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Typical of a moronic and intellectually malnourished, poorly
trained POPLA assessors. Do not pay. The decision is not binding
on you.
This will never reach a hearing in court if you follow the
advice. This will be farmed out to DCBL for debt recovery and
DCB Legsl to issue a claim.
You can safely ignore all debt recovery letters. They are
powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the
low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of
ignorance and fear.
Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC). In the
meantime. You should send a formal complaint to POPLA for this
obvious failure to address the appeal properly. Not that they
will ever reverse a decision, even when they acknowledge they
were wrong, but for the record.
Send the following to POPLA:
--- Quote ---
> FORMAL COMPLAINT – REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO ASSESSOR
MISCONDUCT, GROSS INCOMPETENCE, AND PROCEDURAL FAILURE
>
> POPLA Verification Code: 6062555711
> Assessor: Nazia Mohammed
> Decision Date: 20/11/2025
>
> To the POPLA Complaints Team,
>
> I am submitting this formal complaint regarding the conduct
and competence of POPLA assessor Nazia Mohammed. After reviewing
her decision in full, it is clear that the assessor failed to
apply even the most basic principles of evidence assessment,
failed to engage with the statutory framework, and made findings
that are factually and legally impossible. The standard
displayed in this assessment is so poor that it raises serious
questions about the integrity and reliability of POPLA’s
decision-making process.
>
> This complaint is not about the outcome. I am fully aware
POPLA does not overturn decisions. This complaint is about the
assessor’s fundamental inability to correctly interpret
evidence, apply the law, or demonstrate even minimal
professional competence. The response to this complaint will be
forwarded in full to my Member of Parliament and the Ministry of
Housing, Communities and Local Government, as this level of
failure requires external scrutiny.
>
> 1. The assessor misapplied PoFA against the operator’s own
evidence
> The operator explicitly stated in its evidence pack: “Please
be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.”
> This is an unequivocal statement. It means there is no keeper
liability. It means only the driver could be pursued. It means
POPLA should have allowed the appeal immediately.
>
> However, the assessor instead wrote:
>
> [indent]“In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary
information, and the parking operator has therefore successfully
transferred the liability onto the registered keeper.”[/indent]
>
> This is not a misunderstanding. It is a direct contradiction
of the operator’s own position. The assessor invented legal
applicability where none existed and declared keeper liability
where it was legally impossible. This alone demonstrates a
complete collapse of the decision-making process.
>
> 2. The assessor failed to evaluate PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph
9(2)(e)(i)
> I raised that the Notice to Keeper did not include the
statutory requirement to “invite the keeper to pay the unpaid
parking charges”. The operator did not dispute this. The
assessor ignored it entirely. Instead, she relied on the fiction
that PoFA applied at all, which the operator had already
disavowed.
>
> 3. The assessor failed to evaluate PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph
9(2)(a)
> The Notice to Keeper does not specify any period of parking.
It only contains ANPR timestamps, which PoFA expressly rejects
as insufficient. This was a central point of appeal, and the
assessor again ignored it.
>
> 4. The assessor disregarded Jopson v Homeguard
> I cited binding persuasive authority confirming that unloading
is not parking. The assessor did not distinguish it, apply it,
acknowledge it, or appear even to recognise it. This omission
indicates either a lack of legal understanding or a refusal to
engage with relevant authorities. Neither is acceptable in an
adjudicative role.
>
> 5. The assessor demonstrated a complete failure to apply the
Private Parking Single Code of Practice
> I raised breaches of the consideration period requirement, the
grace period requirement, and the landowner authority
requirements. The assessor failed to meaningfully address any of
these. Her reasoning shows no understanding of the Code beyond
quoting generalities. She failed to assess the site’s “0 hours 0
minutes allowed” condition against mandatory provisions.
>
> 6. The assessor accepted defective and incomplete landowner
authority without scrutiny
> The operator submitted redacted documents lacking several
mandatory elements required by PPSCoP section 14. The assessor
declared herself “satisfied” without performing any analysis or
referencing the requirements. This is not assessment; it is
rubber-stamping.
>
> 7. The assessor’s reasoning is illogical and internally
inconsistent
> The assessor claimed the appellant “entered into a contract”
by “remaining on site for 23 minutes”, ignoring the fact that
contract formation cannot occur until terms are communicated,
and that contractual terms cannot be enforced where PoFA is not
engaged and the identity of the driver is unknown. She
contradicted her own quoted Code sections and ignored the
prohibition-based nature of the signage.
>
> 8. The decision demonstrates a level of incompetence that
undermines POPLA’s credibility
> The decision displays:
> [indent]• Failure to consider evidence
> • Failure to consider statutory requirements
> • Misapplication of PoFA
> • Refusal to engage with case law
> • No evaluation of contractual formation
> • No evaluation of landowner authority
> • No evaluation of grace or consideration periods
> • Internal contradictions
> • Incorrect statements of law
> • Incorrect statements of fact[/indent]
>
> This is not the work of a competent assessor. It brings
POPLA’s process into disrepute.
>
> Requested action
> Given the seriousness of these failures, I request:
> [indent]1. A formal investigation into the competence and
conduct of assessor Nazia Mohammed.
> 2. Confirmation of what legal training assessors receive
before ruling on PoFA matters.
> 3. A detailed explanation of how an assessor can apply PoFA
where the operator expressly stated it was not used.
> 4. A full review of this assessor’s decisions for similar
errors.
> Confirmation that this complaint will be retained for audit
and provided to MHCLG if requested.[/indent]
>
> Next steps
> Your response will be forwarded to my MP and the Ministry of
Housing, Communities and Local Government as evidence of
systemic inadequacy within the POPLA adjudication process.
>
> I expect a full, detailed reply addressing each point above.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 99614--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: ahsan
Date: November 24, 2025, 12:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member], I have submitted the complaint using
the form on this page:
HTML https://popla.pages.dev/contact
The van was an electric one and my brother was fed up due to
repeated theft of charging cables (London you can expect
anything and everything) and we have sold the Van over weekend,
does the sale of Van play any role going forward? or we still
wait for Letter of Claim (LoC)?
Thanks in advance.
#Post#: 99616--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: jfollows
Date: November 24, 2025, 12:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The LoC will be sent to the registered keeper using the details
obtained from the DVLA by the claimant parking company
originally. They’re actually not allowed to ask for this
information more than once anyway.
#Post#: 99619--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: b789
Date: November 24, 2025, 12:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Having subsequently sold the vehicle has no effect on anything.
They have the Keeper details and that is all they need.
#Post#: 104445--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: ahsan
Date: January 3, 2026, 2:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
Happy new year, I hope all of you had good break.
I have received a letter today, I'm not able to figure out if
it's a Letter of Claim or not.
Front:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dHSMD_Z55_N27woCi8IfRO3bNCd6xHlC/view?usp=drive_link
Back:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cfqdcoGsimiNMW5L0QBv0tjAZ8J3KtFB/view?usp=drive_link
They have referred in the letter to read paragraph 8 which talks
about a supreme court case of Mr Beavis which they think is the
basis for them to get a verdict in county court?
I thought I get input from wise and not just simply ignore it
Also if it's not Letter of Claim, will it come from court or
some nominated agency of Parkingeye?
Thanks in advance.
#Post#: 104460--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 4, 2026, 2:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is the Letter of Claim you have been waiting for.
Wait for further advice as the LoC is totally inadequate.
#Post#: 104486--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 4, 2026, 7:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You might want to hide your home address from that document.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page