DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 101636--------------------------------------------------
Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
DIR By: Samo05
Date: December 9, 2025, 3:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with multiple
mandatory provisions of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”), and therefore no
keeper liability can arise. The operator may only pursue the
driver for payment, not the registered keeper. The deficiencies
are as follows:
1. Failure to specify the period of parking (Paragraph 9(2)(a))
PoFA requires the NtK to “specify the vehicle, the relevant land
on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the
notice relates.”
This NtK contains no “period of parking.” It merely states that
a parking charge was issued for “failed to make a valid payment”
and refers to a date of issue. ANPR systems record entry and
exit times, but those are not synonymous with a period of
parking because they do not show when the vehicle was
stationary. The vehicle may have spent time queuing,
manoeuvring, or exiting. The Department for Transport’s
statutory guidance and persuasive appeal decisions (e.g. Brennan
v Premier Parking (2023)) make clear that a period of parking
must refer to an actual time parked, not merely camera
timestamps. This omission renders the NtK non-compliant with
9(2)(a).
2. Failure to properly invite the keeper to pay or name the
driver (Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i))
PoFA requires the notice to “state that the creditor does not
know both the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver and invite the keeper—(i) to pay the
unpaid parking charges; or (ii) if the keeper was not the
driver, to provide the name of the driver and a current address
for service for the driver.”
The NtK does not invite the keeper to pay. Instead, it commands:
“If you were not the driver... please inform us of the name and
current postal address of the driver and pass this notice on to
them.”
This is a material deviation from the statutory wording.
Parliament intended the keeper to be given the option either to
pay or to name the driver. A command to “inform us” is not an
invitation to pay. The omission defeats one of PoFA’s key
procedural safeguards and invalidates keeper liability.
3. Defective warning of keeper liability (Paragraph 9(2)(f))
PoFA requires the warning to state that the keeper will become
liable if “after the period of 28 days beginning with the day
after that on which the notice is given” the charge remains
unpaid and the operator does not know the driver’s identity.
The NtK instead says liability will arise “after 28 days from
the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day
after the Date Issued).”
This re-wording changes the statutory time calculation. The Act
specifies that the 28-day period begins the day after the notice
is given, not “from the date issued.” The operator’s version
shortens the period by at least two days, thereby failing to
reproduce the mandatory wording prescribed by Parliament. This
departure is not a minor error: Schedule 4 imposes strict
conditions that must be met exactly before keeper liability can
be invoked.
4. Failure to unambiguously identify the creditor (Paragraph
9(2)(h))
PoFA requires the NtK to “identify the creditor and specify how
and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be
made.”
The NtK merely asserts that the land is “managed by Euro Car
Parks Ltd (the creditor).” It omits the full legal entity name,
company number and registered address. Without a full legal
identity, the keeper cannot know who the creditor actually is,
making the notice defective under 9(2)(h).
5. Ambiguous dating and delivery wording (Paragraphs 9(2)(i) and
9(4))
PoFA requires the notice to “specify the date on which the
notice is sent (given)” and defines when it is deemed “given.”
The NtK refers only to a “Date Issued” without confirming when
or how it was sent or delivered. This vagueness prevents a
reliable calculation of statutory deadlines and is another
failure to meet PoFA’s strict requirements.
Conclusion
PoFA Schedule 4 is a strict liability framework: every
requirement must be met before any right to recover a parking
charge from a vehicle’s keeper arises. The NtK in this case
fails to meet at least paragraphs 9(2)(a), 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(f),
and is further undermined by non-compliance with 9(2)(h) and
9(2)(i). As a result, CUP cannot transfer liability from the
unknown driver to the keeper. The operator may only pursue the
driver, whose identity has not been provided. The appeal should
therefore be allowed.
In Addition
I require 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:
• 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.
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."
#Post#: 101637--------------------------------------------------
Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
DIR By: Samo05
Date: December 9, 2025, 3:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hows this response to POPLA?
#Post#: 101686--------------------------------------------------
Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
DIR By: b789
Date: December 9, 2025, 7:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
11 days is NOT "very soon"!
#Post#: 101827--------------------------------------------------
Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
DIR By: Samo05
Date: December 10, 2025, 6:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok, thanks for pointing that out to me.
Is the POPLA appeal sufficient as it was wanted for checking
over before sending.
#Post#: 101873--------------------------------------------------
Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
DIR By: b789
Date: December 10, 2025, 9:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It’s basically there, but I’d tweak it before you hit “submit”.
Main points:
[indent]• Your paras 1–3 (PoFA 9(2)(a), 9(2)(e), 9(2)(f)) are
the strong ones – keep those.
• The “creditor not identified” and “ambiguous dating” points
are weaker here and I’d drop them rather than give POPLA easy
stuff to bat away.
• Add a short opening making it crystal clear you are appealing
as keeper only and there is no admission as to the driver.
• Slightly tidy the 9(2)(f) argument – the problem is that they
have not reproduced the statutory wording, not that they’ve
necessarily shortened the period.[/indent]
Here is how I’d send it to POPLA (you can paste this as your
main grounds of appeal):
--- Quote ---
> POPLA Appeal – CUP Enforcement – Trade City Romford
>
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I appeal this
Parking Charge Notice as keeper only. There will be no admission
as to the identity of the driver, and no assumptions or
inferences can be drawn. The operator has failed to comply with
the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”), so no keeper liability can arise.
>
> 1. Failure to specify the period of parking (PoFA Paragraph
9(2)(a))
>
> PoFA requires the Notice to Keeper (NtK) to:
>
> “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked
and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
>
> This NtK contains no period of parking. It merely states that
a parking charge was issued for “failed to make a valid payment”
and refers to a date of issue.
>
> Even if CUP Enforcement rely on ANPR or timestamped photos,
entry/exit or snapshot times are not the same as “a period of
parking”. They do not show when (or for how long) the vehicle
was actually stationary. Persuasive decisions such as Brennan v
Premier Parking (2023) confirm that a period of parking must
refer to an actual period parked, not camera timestamps.
>
> Because no period of parking is specified, the NtK fails
9(2)(a). A defective NtK cannot transfer liability to the
keeper.
>
> 2. Failure to properly invite the keeper to pay or name the
driver (PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(e))
>
> PoFA 9(2)(e) requires the NtK to include a clear invitation to
the keeper:
>
> “to pay the unpaid parking charges; or, if the keeper was not
the driver, to provide the name and address of the driver.”
>
> The NtK does not invite the keeper to pay. Instead, it states
that the driver “is required to pay” and instructs the keeper to
“inform us of the name and current postal address of the
driver”.
>
> This removes the statutory choice that Parliament required. A
directive to provide the driver’s details is not an invitation
to the keeper to pay. This is a material failure to comply with
PoFA, and therefore keeper liability cannot arise.
>
> 3. Defective keeper liability warning (PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(f))
>
> PoFA requires the NtK to include the exact statutory warning
that:
>
> “after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that
on which the notice is given…”
>
> the keeper may become liable, but only if all other conditions
of Schedule 4 are met.
>
> The NtK instead uses its own formula:
>
> “after 29 days from the date given…”
>
> This is not the wording prescribed by Parliament and does not
explain that time runs from the day after the notice is “given”
(as defined in 9(6)). It also asserts a “right to recover”
without stating the statutory condition that this applies only
if all applicable conditions of Schedule 4 have been met.
>
> This is not a trivial miswording. PoFA is strict: the warning
must be exactly as prescribed. Because it is not, keeper
liability cannot arise.
>
> Conclusion on PoFA
>
> The NtK fails to comply with:
>
>
>
- 9(2)(a) – no period of parking
>
- 9(2)(e) – no lawful invitation to the keeper
>
- 9(2)(f) – incorrect statutory warning
>
>
> As PoFA liability arises only if *all* mandatory requirements
are met, CUP Enforcement cannot hold the keeper liable. They may
only pursue the driver, whose identity has not been provided.
>
> 4. No evidence of landowner authority (PPSCoP Section 14)
>
> I require strict proof of a contemporaneous contract or lease
from the landowner authorising CUP Enforcement to operate at
this site, issue PCNs, and pursue charges in its own name.
>
> Section 14 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice sets
mandatory requirements for landowner authority. The operator
must hold written authorisation covering, at minimum:
>
>
>
- The identity of the landowner or person entitled to grant
authority
>
- A site boundary map
>
- Duration and extent of authority
>
- All parking terms, including any exemptions
>
- Authority and processes for issuing PCNs
>
- Responsibility for any planning/advertising consents
>
- Confirmation that appeals and operational procedures comply
with the Code
>
>
> These points must be evidenced in full. Redacted contracts
that obscure any of the above do not satisfy the Code.
>
> CUP Enforcement is put to strict proof. If they cannot produce
unredacted, dated, signed authorisation showing landowner
authority for this exact site, POPLA must allow the appeal for
lack of standing.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 101888--------------------------------------------------
Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
DIR By: Samo05
Date: December 10, 2025, 11:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You star. Ill send this off and ill update the outcome.
#Post#: 102213--------------------------------------------------
Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
DIR By: Samo05
Date: December 12, 2025, 11:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have had the CUP Response to my Popla Appeal. Its a PDF how do
i post that please?
#Post#: 102218--------------------------------------------------
Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: December 12, 2025, 11:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Redact personal info, then use something like DropBox or Google
Drive.
#Post#: 102224--------------------------------------------------
Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
DIR By: Samo05
Date: December 12, 2025, 12:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please see link to drop box folder.
As you can see by all the evidence CUP Provided there is
multiple people parked the same way. So the signage is not clear
and obvious.
Where the vehicle was parked the nearest sign was on a bike rack
at the back of a the area. Which is not a clear an obvious
position for a sign. The walking route sign was also under the
car behind the vehicle in question and probably was not spotted.
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/yy37ixyeekcn8waa60g45/AF0pSxhDNRGCTYCGEYDqXSE?rlkey=jk4qx91yvdzhxvg87xru8qjbk&st=4zo6guoa&dl=0
#Post#: 102231--------------------------------------------------
Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: December 12, 2025, 1:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The mind boggles.
They say that they are submitting a PoFA compliant PCN and then
go on to attach a very non-compliant PCN to their evidence pack.
An incredible piece of work.
Do we have a name for the CUP employee involved?
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page