DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 91713--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: b789
Date: September 27, 2025, 6:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If the appeal rejection letter was issued on 1st September, then
your POPLA code expires 33 days later, which would be 4th
October. They allow 5 days for service (28 + 5 = 33 days). So
you still have time to submit the appeal.
Use the original appeal as your primary structure. Your POPLA
appeal should include:
[indent]• Lack of landowner authority (no evidence that P4 can
override lease rights)
• Lease takes precedence (no permit or enforcement clause in
lease)
• No keeper liability under PoFA (if NtK was issued by TNC, a
third party)
• Signage no longer visible at the site (you couldn’t check what
was there)
• Potential unfairness due to changed signage (unbalanced and
prejudicial process)[/indent]
For evidence:
[indent]• Include a copy of the lease (even if it doesn’t show
your father’s name)
• Include a signed letter from your father confirming:
[indent]1. He is the leaseholder
2. You are allowed to live there and park the vehicle
3. He did not consent to third-party parking
enforcement[/indent][/indent]
DO NOT include insurance documents or anything that risks
revealing who was driving.
The fact that signage was replaced is relevant. Say that by the
time you received the NtK, the signs had already changed, so you
were unable to gather any contemporaneous evidence. Emphasise
that this makes the process unfair, as only the operator has
access to the original signage and you have no way to verify the
alleged terms.
Show us your POPLA appeal before you send it.
#Post#: 91718--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: beansprout
Date: September 27, 2025, 7:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks you so much! Will get something drafted and post here.
Is insurance information really an issue? I understand the
importance of not revealing the driver at the time of the
alleged whatever you want to call it, but an insurance document
surely just shows that certain people are allowed to drive the
vehicle. It would prove that my father has an "interest" in the
vehicle and therefor it would be reasonable for it to be parked
there under the terms of his lease.
#Post#: 91720--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: b789
Date: September 27, 2025, 7:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The insurance document proves nothing. My own insurance gives me
third party insurance and allows me to drive any other vehicle
with the owners permission. Anyone can drive any other vehicle
with the owners permission as long as they have a minimum of
third party cover for any vehicle.
I repeat, DO NOT send any copies of insurance documents. It is
irrelevant to the matter in hand. It proves nothing. All you are
doing is responding as the Keeper. The burden of proof is on the
operator to show that the Keeper was the driver and they cannot
do that unless the Keeper blabs that fact to them.
#Post#: 91721--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: jfollows
Date: September 27, 2025, 7:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You actually have 33 days to submit an appeal to POPLA, but they
don’t tell you this.
#Post#: 91894--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: beansprout
Date: September 28, 2025, 8:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
From looking at the PoFA it doesn't seem like there is a
requirement that the NtK be issued by the creditor, only that it
states who the creditor is? I left that out for now, but do let
me know if I misunderstood.
I instead added failure to specify period of parking, and
inflated demand amount in the NtK as PoFA non-compliance
reasons.
Also.. do they have to provide evidence with the NtK, and would
the lack of any such evidence render it non-compliant?
This is what I have drafted so far..
POPLA APPEAL
⸻
POPLA Verification Code: ...
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Reference: ...
Vehicle Registration Number: ...
Date of Alleged Contravention: ...
Parking Operator: P4Parking (UK) Ltd ("the Operator")
⸻
Grounds for Appeal:
This appeal is made on the following independent grounds, any
one of which is sufficient to cancel the PCN:
1. Lack of Landowner Authority: The Operator’s authority
cannot override a resident's pre-existing rights granted by
lease.
2. Primacy of the Lease: The lease is the supreme legal
instrument governing parking rights and does not permit the
issuance of a penalty charge for the alleged conduct.
3. No Keeper Liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (PoFA): Non-Compliant Notice to Keeper
a. Failure to specify the period of parking.
b. The amount demanded in the NtK exceeds that
permitted under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.
4. Removal of signage preventing a fair appeal: The keeper
has been unable to mount a full appeal as evidence was removed
before notice was received.
1 & 2. Lack of Landowner Authority & Primacy of the Lease
The Operator’s claim is predicated on authority it does not
possess. The landowner, Southern Housing, cannot grant authority
to a third party that it does not hold itself—namely, the power
to penalise a resident for exercising a right already conferred
by a legally binding lease.
The lease grants the resident the right "to use the Common Parts
for the purposes for which they were designed or intended," with
no clause requiring permit display or authorising financial
penalties for parking.
Any contract between the Operator and the landowner is
subordinate to this lease. Under the principle of non-derogation
from grant, the landowner cannot delegate powers that diminish
leaseholder rights. The Operator’s enforcement of a permit
scheme not contained within the lease interferes with the
resident's right to quiet enjoyment and is ultra vires.
The judgment in Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [EWCA Civ 2011] affirms
that a landlord cannot regulate in a way that extinguishes a
granted right.
Please find attached a copy of the lease, and a signed letter
from my father Paul Charman, the leaseholder, confirming that I
am allowed to live at the property and park the vehicle there,
and that he did not consent to third-party parking enforcement.
⸻
3. No Keeper Liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(PoFA)
a) Failure to specify the period of parking
Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 mandates that a compliant Notice
to Keeper must "specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which
it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice
relates."
The Notice to Keeper issued by the Operator only states a single
"parking charge date & time." This is not a "period." A period,
by definition, has a duration with a start and an end. A single
point in time fails to establish the duration of parking for
which the alleged contravention occurred.
As the Operator has failed to meet this mandatory condition of
PoFA, the Notice to Keeper is invalid.
b) Inflated Sum Demanded in Notice to Keeper
The Notice to Keeper is invalid as it demands a sum exceeding
that permitted by PoFA 2012. The original charge was £100, but
the Notice to Keeper demands £125.
Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) of PoFA 2012 states:
"The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by
virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount
specified in the notice to driver..."
By demanding more than the original charge, the Operator has
failed to comply with PoFA 2012, rendering the Notice to Keeper
non-compliant and thus the keeper cannot be held liable.
⸻
4. Removal of signage preventing a fair appeal
A fair appeal has been made impossible due to the removal of
signage before the Notice to Keeper was received:
• Evidence Removed: On 29/07/2025, all P4Parking signage was
permanently removed from the site.
• Notice Issued Post-Removal: The Notice to Keeper was received
on 08/08/2025, ten days after the signage—the basis of the
alleged contract—was removed.
This sequence prejudiced the keeper’s position. It is impossible
to inspect or photograph the signage to challenge its adequacy,
placement, or compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. This
obstructs the right to a fair appeal and is further grounds for
the PCN to be cancelled.
⸻
Conclusion
The PCN is unenforceable for multiple reasons:
• The Operator acted without authority, violating the primacy of
the resident's lease.
• Clear defects under PoFA 2012 regarding the NtK issuer and the
sum demanded.
• Procedural unfairness preventing a fair defence.
For all these reasons I respectfully request that this appeal be
allowed.
#Post#: 91927--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: beansprout
Date: September 29, 2025, 4:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Also, how's this as a letter to get my father to sign?
[Father's Full Name]
[Father's Address]
[Date]
Subject: Confirmation of Residency and Parking Rights at [Your
Address]
To Whom It May Concern,
I, [name], am the leaseholder of the property located at [Your
Address].
I am writing to confirm that [Your Name] is my son and resides
at the above address with my full permission.
Furthermore, I confirm that as a resident, [Your Name] is
entitled to park their vehicle, registration number [Vehicle
Registration Number], at the property in accordance with the
terms of my lease.
The lease grants residents the right to use the common areas for
their intended purposes, which includes parking. I have not at
any point consented to or authorised the parking enforcement
scheme managed by P4Parking (UK) Ltd, nor have I agreed to any
variation of the lease that would permit a third party to issue
penalty charges to my permitted residents.
This letter is provided to support the POPLA appeal against
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Reference: [...].
Yours faithfully,
#Post#: 91942--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: b789
Date: September 29, 2025, 5:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For point 3 of your appeal, you may want to reference the
persuasive appellate decision in Brennan v Premier Parking
Solutions (2023)
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=0tpfeya0&dl=0<br
/>to the OPLA assessor which definitively pointed out that a
single timestamp is not a "period of parking" so, does not
comply with the requirements of PoFA.
As for the LoA, that should be good to go, but I've tweaked is
slightly:
--- Quote ---
> [Father’s Full Name]
> [Full Address]
>
> [Date]
>
> Subject: Confirmation of Residency and Parking Rights – [Your
Full Name], [Vehicle Registration]
>
> To Whom It May Concern,
>
> I am the leaseholder of the property at [full address] and
confirm that my son, [Your Full Name], resides at this address
with my full permission.
>
> I also confirm that he is entitled to park the vehicle with
registration [VRN] on the premises in accordance with the terms
of my lease.
>
> The lease permits residents to use the common parts, including
access roads and parking areas, for their intended purposes. It
contains no requirement for permits, nor does it authorise
third-party enforcement. I have not consented to the imposition
of any parking enforcement scheme, nor agreed to any lease
variation enabling third-party operators such as P4Parking (UK)
Ltd to issue parking charges to authorised residents.
>
> This letter is provided in support of a POPLA appeal relating
to PCN reference: [insert PCN number].
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Full name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 92097--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: beansprout
Date: September 29, 2025, 3:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok, after spending far to much time labouring over it, appeal
has now been submitted.
Thanks again for all your help, will update with outcome.
#Post#: 93460--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: beansprout
Date: October 9, 2025, 6:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Housing association finally responded to my request to help with
cancelling the PCN..
--- Quote ---
> Hi xxxxx
>
> Our car park management company has responded.
>
> They have advised that you have submitted an appeal to the
independent regulator, POPLA and advice that you withdraw the
appeal with POPLA. Then send them confirmation that the case
has been withdrawn, and they we will proceed with cancelling the
parking charge.
--- End Quote ---
Umm.. sounds like a trap to me :D
#Post#: 93463--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: jfollows
Date: October 9, 2025, 6:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes.
It seems to me that P4 Parking had the opportunity to drop this
much earlier, but decided that it would play the odds of denying
your appeal and having you pay up.
Now that you’ve got a much better POPLA appeal they realise
they’re going to lose and have to pay a fee to POPLA (£27.50
unless it’s increased again since 2023).
So if you withdraw your appeal they won’t have to pay the fee.
But, firstly, I wouldn’t trust them and, secondly, its a problem
of their own making.
Even if POPLA finds against you, it’s still not binding and most
courts will uphold your arguments, which will cost you some
effort but cost P4 Parking more.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page