DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 102264--------------------------------------------------
Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
DIR By: Samo05
Date: December 13, 2025, 2:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
client details have been obscured, but there is the contractor
details on the last page.
Is this relevant?
#Post#: 102280--------------------------------------------------
Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
DIR By: b789
Date: December 13, 2025, 5:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What a rubbish evidence pack. You can simply copy and paste the
following as your response to the operators evidence:
--- Quote ---
> Keeper rebuttal of CUP Enforcement evidence pack (PCN 114634,
Trade City Romford)
>
> 1. Keeper liability is not established because the Notice to
Keeper does not comply with PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a).
>
> PoFA 9(2)(a) requires the Notice to Keeper to “specify… the
period of parking to which the notice relates”. The Notice to
Keeper in this case does not specify any period of parking and
does not even use those words. The operator has not identified
any wording on the Notice to Keeper that states a "PERIOD OF
PARKING". Instead, they rely on later evidence (CCTV stills) and
assert “over 8 minutes”. That is not what the statute requires.
>
> PoFA is a strict conditions-based mechanism. If an operator
wants to transfer liability from an unknown driver to a keeper,
the Notice to Keeper itself MUST contain the mandatory
information. Evidence produced later cannot retrospectively make
a defective Notice to Keeper PoFA compliant. The legal notice
must be compliant on its face. It isn’t. Therefore, no keeper
liability can arise.
>
> 2. The operator’s reliance on CCTV stills and an asserted “8
minutes” does not cure the defective Notice to Keeper, and POPLA
must not treat tiny/illegible photographs as satisfying 9(2)(a).
>
> The operator says they have CCTV stills showing the vehicle at
the location for 8 minutes. Even if POPLA accepts those
timestamps, this does not address the failure in the Notice to
Keeper: PoFA 9(2)(a) requires the notice itself to “specify the
period of parking to which the notice relates”.
>
> In anticipation of a POPLA argument: “the Notice to Keeper
includes two CCTV stills with timestamps, therefore it specifies
the period”. That is wrong for two separate reasons:
>
> (a) A period of parking MUST be specified as a period, not
left to inference.
>
> A “period” means a stated duration or a stated start/end
period of parking set out in the body text of the Notice to
Keeper. Two images with times (even if readable) are not a
specified period of parking. At best they are raw data from
which someone might try to infer something. PoFA does not say
“provide information from which a period might be inferred”. It
says the Notice “MUST specify… the period of parking”.
>
> (b) The timestamps are not part of the mandatory statutory
wording and are illegible on the Notice to Keeper.
>
> There is no legal requirement to include photographs on a
Notice to Keeper at all. The operator chose to include small
images, but the timestamps are tiny and not reliably legible on
the Notice itself. A statutory requirement cannot be satisfied
by expecting a recipient (or POPLA) to magnify tiny images,
guess at the numbers, or infer a duration.
>
> Accordingly, even if two timed CCTV stills appear on the
Notice to Keeper, they do not satisfy PoFA 9(2)(a). The Notice
must specify the period of parking in the notice itself. It does
not. Later evidence cannot repair that statutory defect.
>
> 3. The operator’s “liability has been established because the
keeper confirmed keeper status” statement is a clear legal
error.
>
> The evidence pack states, in effect, “the keeper confirmed
they were the keeper, therefore liability has been established”.
That is wrong. Keeper status is not liability. Keeper liability
ONLY arises if the operator FULLY complies with ALL statutory
conditions. POPLA should give no weight to any conclusion of
“keeper liability established” that is based on that error.
>
> 4. Their Notice of Rejection is generic assertion and does not
evidence contract formation.
>
> The operator’s Notice of Rejection says (paraphrased) “there
was an offer brought to attention via signage; the driver had
opportunity to read; it is the motorist’s duty to seek out
signs; by parking they accept the consequences; terms were
undoubtedly displayed”. That is advocacy, not evidence.
>
> It does not evidence:
>
> (a) where the alleged offer was displayed on approach to the
site (they do not even evidence an entrance sign)
> (b) that terms were readable from a driver’s viewpoint before
stopping/parking where the vehicle is shown
> (c) that signage was in “prominent positions” as they claim
> (d) how a contract is formed for an area they label as “no
parking” / “no waiting” / “no obstruction”.
>
> 5. Consideration is not evidenced for a “no parking area”
allegation, and their own sign wording is only prohibitive.
>
> The operator’s sign wording (as they quote it) is only
prohibitions: “No parking on roads and footpaths”, “No waiting”,
“No loading/unloading”, “No parking on yellow lines”, etc., with
a threatened charge if a motorist fails to comply.
>
> For a contract, there must be an OFFER capable of ACCEPTANCE
and CONSIDERATION (permission/benefit granted in exchange for
compliance/payment). For a location that is expressly prohibited
(“no parking”), there is no offer of parking to accept in that
prohibited area. The operator cannot logically argue both:
>
> (1) “parking for any amount of time is not allowed here” and
> (2) “a contract was offered and accepted to park here”.
>
> If their position is that stopping/parking on the
roadway/footpath/yellow line is forbidden, then the sign is not
offering parking in those areas. It is warning drivers not to do
it. A prohibition backed by a demand is not an offer of parking
at that place. The Notice of Rejection does not address this
contradiction at all, and it does not explain what consideration
the driver allegedly received for parking in a prohibited area.
>
> 6. They have not evidenced any entrance signage, despite
claiming that the terms were brought to attention on entry.
>
> They state “signage displayed at the entrance… and
throughout”. Yet the pack does not evidence an entrance sign in
situ in any way that shows a driver would see it on entry.
Close-up “sample” photos of a terms and conditions sign are not
the same thing as proving an entrance sign existed, was
positioned correctly, and was readable at the material time from
a driver’s approach. If the offer is allegedly made on arrival,
entrance signage is fundamental evidence. It is missing.
>
> 7. Their signage evidence does not demonstrate that the driver
was put on notice on entry, nor that any terms signage was
sufficiently prominent to be noticed and then read.
>
> The operator asserts that the driver had a duty “upon arrival”
to “seek out, read and comply” with terms. That presupposes that
the driver was first placed on clear notice at the point of
entry that this is private land subject to contractual terms and
that further terms signs exist which must be located and read.
The operator has not evidenced any entrance sign at all. Without
an entrance sign, a driver would have no reason to know that
they must actively search for other signs within the site, still
less that stopping in the area shown would purportedly trigger a
£100 charge.
>
> In the absence of any evidenced entrance signage, the operator
must at least prove that the on-site terms signage was
sufficiently prominent to be readily seen and recognised as a
terms sign from the place where the vehicle is shown, so that a
driver would know to go and read it. They have not done so.
>
> Their “contravention” photos show the vehicle partially on a
yellow-lined pedestrian pathway with a sign in the far
background. The sign is not prominent in the context images and
the terms are not readable from those shots. The operator then
relies on close-up “sample signage” photos (apparently from
other dates) to show the wording. Close-up photos prove only
that a sign exists somewhere when photographed up close; they do
not prove that a driver would have noticed it in real
conditions, from the route of entry and from the area where the
vehicle is shown.
>
> Further, the only sign they appear to rely upon is mounted on
a bike shed at the back of the area, not on a freestanding pole,
and their own close-up shows it positioned alongside other
worn/competing signage. That dilutes prominence and makes it
less likely to stand out as the key contractual notice. The
operator has not provided driver-eye photos showing how a
motorist would be alerted to the need to find and read that
particular sign, nor any evidence that it was the nearest or
most prominent sign in relation to the vehicle’s position.
>
> Accordingly, the operator has not shown (i) any entry-point
notification that contractual terms applied and must be sought,
or (ii) that the alleged terms signage was prominent enough to
be found and read by a motorist at the material time.
>
> 8. Their “opportunity to read due to duration” argument is
circular and assumes what they must prove.
>
> They argue the motorist had opportunity to read the terms
because of “the duration of parking” and “proximity of
signboards”. That is not evidence of communication of terms; it
is an assumption.
>
> If there is no evidenced entrance sign and the only sign they
rely on is at the back of the car park, then “time on site” does
not prove the driver ever saw, read, or accepted anything. POPLA
should require evidence that terms were reasonably brought to
attention, not accept a circular argument that “because they
were there for X minutes, they must have read it”.
>
> 9. “Multiple vehicles parked similarly” supports lack of
adequate notice, not the operator’s case.
>
> The operator’s own plan/photographs show multiple vehicles
parking on the same pathways/areas. That is consistent with
drivers not being given clear, prominent notice of any alleged
“no parking” contractual terms. If the location were clearly and
prominently signed, it is unlikely that multiple motorists would
independently choose to park in the same “prohibited” place.
>
> This reinforces the appeal point: signage is not prominent and
is not doing what the operator claims it does.
>
> 10. Standing/landowner authority: POPLA must not infer
authority from the mere presence of signs or the operator’s
say-so.
>
> The operator has not produced proper evidence of landowner
authority meeting the mandatory requirements set out in PPSCoP
section 14.1 (a–j). What they provide is essentially an
operator-produced “permission” document / redacted site
agreement. That is not adequate proof of standing.
>
> It is not open to POPLA to assume “they must have permission
because the signs are there” or “no reasonable landowner would
allow it otherwise”. That is speculation and it reverses the
burden of proof. The burden is on the operator to prove
authority, not on an appellant to disprove it.
>
> There are many real-world reasons why signage might be present
even where authority is absent or deficient, including:
>
> (a) authority expired or was terminated but signs remain in
place
> (b) authority is limited to certain bays/areas but the
operator is ticketing outside that scope
> (c) authority is held by a different entity than the one
pursuing the charge
> (d) a managing agent or contractor installed signs without the
landowner’s informed consent or without a compliant written
confirmation
> (e) authority exists in some form, but not in the form
required by the Code (missing mandatory items).
>
> Because the operator relies on its alleged standing to issue
and pursue charges, POPLA should require the operator to
actually prove it with a contemporaneous, verifiable, dated,
signed agreement and supporting confirmation that covers all
mandatory elements. If they do not, POPLA cannot be satisfied
they have standing for this site and this specific area.
>
> 11. Net result: the operator’s pack does not rebut the appeal.
>
> It does not show PoFA compliance because the Notice to Keeper
does not specify the period of parking (PoFA 9(2)(a)), and later
CCTV stills cannot cure that defect. It does not evidence a
contract because it does not evidence an entrance sign, does not
evidence prominence/readability from the driver’s position, and
relies on prohibitive “no parking” wording without explaining
what offer and consideration supposedly created a contract in a
prohibited area. It does not properly evidence landowner
authority meeting the mandatory PPSCoP requirements and POPLA
must not fill that evidential gap by making assumptions.
>
> For those reasons, the appeal should be allowed and the charge
cancelled.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 102368--------------------------------------------------
Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
DIR By: Samo05
Date: December 14, 2025, 1:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Wow, what a response. Appreciate this. Thank you.
#Post#: 102369--------------------------------------------------
Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
DIR By: Samo05
Date: December 14, 2025, 1:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
its only a 10000 word response. So i cant fit this in part in if
i remove the first line sentence of the appeal.
The burden is on the operator to prove authority, not on an
appellant to disprove it.
There are many real-world reasons why signage might be present
even where authority is absent or deficient, including:
(a) authority expired or was terminated but signs remain in
place
(b) authority is limited to certain bays/areas but the operator
is ticketing outside that scope
(c) authority is held by a different entity than the one
pursuing the charge
(d) a managing agent or contractor installed signs without the
landowner’s informed consent or without a compliant written
confirmation
(e) authority exists in some form, but not in the form required
by the Code (missing mandatory items).
Because the operator relies on its alleged standing to issue and
pursue charges, POPLA should require the operator to actually
prove it with a contemporaneous, verifiable, dated, signed
agreement and supporting confirmation that covers all mandatory
elements. If they do not, POPLA cannot be satisfied they have
standing for this site and this specific area.
11. Net result: the operator’s pack does not rebut the appeal.
It does not show PoFA compliance because the Notice to Keeper
does not specify the period of parking (PoFA 9(2)(a)), and later
CCTV stills cannot cure that defect. It does not evidence a
contract because it does not evidence an entrance sign, does not
evidence prominence/readability from the driver’s position, and
relies on prohibitive “no parking” wording without explaining
what offer and consideration supposedly created a contract in a
prohibited area. It does not properly evidence landowner
authority meeting the mandatory PPSCoP requirements and POPLA
must not fill that evidential gap by making assumptions.
For those reasons, the appeal should be allowed and the charge
cancelled.
#Post#: 102390--------------------------------------------------
Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
DIR By: b789
Date: December 14, 2025, 8:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just upload it as a PDF file. Put "See attached PDF file for
appeal" in the text box. It is certainly less than 10,000
"words". Did you mean "characters"?
Otherwise, paste the following which is definitely under 10,000
characters (including punctuation and spaces):
--- Quote ---
> 1. Keeper liability is not established because the Notice to
Keeper (NtK) does not comply with PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph
9(2)(a).
>
> PoFA 9(2)(a) requires an NtK to “specify… the period of
parking to which the notice relates”. This NtK does not specify
any period of parking and does not even use those words. The
operator has not identified any wording on the NtK that states a
“period of parking”. Instead, they rely on later CCTV stills and
assert “over 8 minutes”. That is not what the statute requires.
>
> PoFA is a strict, conditions-based mechanism. If an operator
wants to transfer liability from an unknown driver to a keeper,
the NtK itself MUST contain the mandatory information. Evidence
produced later cannot retrospectively make a defective NtK PoFA
compliant. The notice must be compliant on its face. It is not.
Therefore, no keeper liability can arise.
>
> 2. CCTV stills and an asserted “8 minutes” do not satisfy PoFA
9(2)(a).
>
> The operator says CCTV stills show the vehicle at the location
for about 8 minutes. Even if POPLA accepts those timestamps,
that does not address the failure in the NtK: PoFA 9(2)(a)
requires the NtK itself to specify the period of parking to
which it relates.
>
> A period of parking MUST be specified as a period, not left to
inference. A “period” means a stated duration or a stated
start/end period set out in the NtK itself. Two images with
times are not the NtK specifying a period of parking; at best
they are raw data from which someone might infer something. PoFA
does not say “provide information from which a period might be
inferred”. It says the NtK MUST specify the period.
>
> There is also no legal requirement to include photos on an
NtK. Here, the images are small and the timestamps are tiny and
not reliably legible on the NtK. A statutory requirement cannot
be satisfied by expecting a recipient (or POPLA) to magnify tiny
images, guess at numbers, or construct an alleged period from
photographs.
>
> Accordingly, whether the operator relies on the NtK images or
later CCTV stills in the evidence pack, that cannot cure the
absence of a specified period of parking on the NtK. Since the
NtK does not specify the period of parking as required by PoFA
9(2)(a), keeper liability cannot arise and the appeal must be
allowed.
>
> 3. The operator’s “liability has been established because the
keeper confirmed keeper status” statement is a clear legal
error.
>
> The evidence pack states, in effect, “the keeper confirmed
they were the keeper, therefore liability has been established”.
That is wrong. Keeper status is not liability. Keeper liability
only arises if the operator fully complies with all statutory
conditions. POPLA should give no weight to any conclusion of
“keeper liability established” that is based on that error.
>
> 4. Their Notice of Rejection is generic assertion and does not
evidence contract formation.
>
> They simply assert: there was an offer brought to attention by
signage, the driver had an opportunity to read it, and it is the
motorist’s duty to “seek out, read and comply” with terms. That
is advocacy, not evidence. It does not evidence any entrance
sign; it does not show where the alleged offer was displayed on
approach; it does not show that signs were in “prominent
positions”; and it does not explain how a contract is formed for
an area they label as “no parking / no waiting / no
obstruction”.
>
> 5. Consideration is not evidenced for a “no parking area”
allegation, and their own sign wording is prohibitive.
>
> The operator’s quoted sign terms are prohibitions: “No parking
on roads and footpaths”, “No waiting”, “No loading/unloading”,
“No parking on yellow lines”, etc., with a threatened charge if
a motorist fails to comply. For a contract there must be an
offer capable of acceptance and consideration
(permission/benefit granted in exchange for compliance/payment).
For a location that is expressly prohibited (“no parking”),
there is no offer of parking to accept in that prohibited area
and no consideration/permission granted for that location. The
operator cannot logically argue both:
>
> (1) “parking for any amount of time is not allowed here”; and
> (2) “a contract was offered and accepted to park here”.
>
> A prohibition backed by a demand for £100 is not an “offer” to
park in a prohibited area. The Notice of Rejection does not
address this contradiction, and it does not explain what
consideration the driver supposedly received for parking where
parking is said to be forbidden.
>
> 6. They have not evidenced any entrance signage, despite
claiming the terms were brought to attention on entry.
>
> They state “signage displayed at the entrance… and
throughout”. Yet the pack does not evidence an entrance sign in
situ in any way that shows a driver would see it on entry on the
material date. Close-up “sample” photos of a terms sign are not
proof of entrance notice. If they rely on a claimed duty to
“seek out” terms, they must first prove the driver was alerted
on entry that the land is private, that contractual terms apply,
and that further terms signage must be located and read. They
have not.
>
> 7. Their signage evidence does not demonstrate that the driver
was put on notice on entry, nor that any terms signage was
sufficiently prominent to be found and then read.
>
> The operator’s “seek out the terms” argument presupposes
entry-point notice. Without an entrance sign, a driver would
have no reason to know they must actively search for any sign at
all, still less that stopping in the area shown would
purportedly trigger a £100 charge.
>
> In the absence of any evidenced entrance signage, the operator
must at least prove that the on-site terms signage was
sufficiently prominent to be readily seen and recognised as a
terms sign from the area where the vehicle is shown, so that a
driver would know to go and read it. They have not done so.
>
> Their contravention photos show the vehicle partially on a
yellow-lined pedestrian pathway with a sign far away in the
background; the terms are unreadable in the context shots. The
operator then relies on close-up photos (apparently from other
dates) to show the wording. Close-up photos prove only that a
sign exists when photographed up close; they do not prove that a
motorist would have noticed it in real conditions, from the
route of entry and from the area where the vehicle is shown.
>
> Further, the only sign they appear to rely upon is mounted on
a bike shed at the back of the area, not on a freestanding pole,
and their own close-up shows it positioned alongside other
worn/competing signage. That reduces prominence and makes it
less likely to stand out as the key contractual notice. The
operator has not provided driver-eye photos showing how a
motorist would be alerted to the need to find and read that
sign, nor evidence it was the nearest/most prominent sign
relative to the vehicle position.
>
> 8. Their “opportunity to read due to duration” argument is
circular.
>
> They argue the motorist had opportunity to read the terms
because of “the duration of parking” and “proximity of
signboards”. That is an assumption, not evidence. Time on site
does not prove the driver saw, read, or accepted the terms,
particularly where no entrance sign is evidenced and the alleged
terms sign is distant and not shown to stand out.
>
> 9. Multiple vehicles parked similarly supports lack of
adequate notice, not the operator’s case.
>
> The operator’s own plan/photographs show multiple vehicles
parking on the same pathways/areas. That is consistent with
drivers not being given clear, prominent notice of any alleged
“no parking” terms. If the location were clearly and prominently
signed, it is unlikely that multiple motorists would
independently choose to park in the same “prohibited” place.
>
> 10. Standing/landowner authority: POPLA must not infer
authority from the mere presence of signs or the operator’s
say-so.
>
> The operator has not produced verifiable evidence of landowner
authority meeting the mandatory requirements set out in PPSCoP
section 14.1 (a–j). What they provide is essentially an
operator-produced “permission” document / redacted site
agreement, which is not adequate proof of standing.
>
> POPLA must not assume “they must have permission because the
signs are there” or “no reasonable landowner would allow it
otherwise”. That is speculation and reverses the burden of
proof. Signs can remain after expiry/termination; signs can be
installed by agents/contractors with limited powers; authority
can be limited to parts of a site; or authority can be held by a
different entity. None of those issues is resolved by the mere
existence of signage. The operator must prove contemporaneous,
site-specific authority with a dated, signed, verifiable
agreement/confirmation that evidences compliance with the Code’s
mandatory requirements.
>
> 11. Net result: the operator’s pack does not rebut the appeal.
>
> It does not show PoFA compliance because the NtK does not
specify the period of parking (PoFA 9(2)(a)) and later CCTV
stills cannot cure that defect. It does not evidence a contract
because it does not evidence an entrance sign, does not show
prominence/findability of the alleged terms sign, and relies on
prohibitive wording without explaining what offer and
consideration supposedly created a contract in a prohibited
area. It does not properly evidence standing under PPSCoP
section 14 and POPLA must not fill that evidential gap by making
assumptions. The appeal should be allowed and the charge
cancelled.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 102445--------------------------------------------------
Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
DIR By: Samo05
Date: December 15, 2025, 1:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Brilliant, thank you so much for your help. Ill update you with
my appeal decision.
If this goes the right way for me is there anywhere i can donate
for the help supplied here?
#Post#: 102446--------------------------------------------------
Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
DIR By: Samo05
Date: December 15, 2025, 1:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We are writing to update you about your appeal.
Your appeal is now ready to be assessed and is currently in a
queue waiting to be allocated. We expect to make a decision on
your appeal 6-8 weeks from the point that the appeal was first
submitted. The next communication that you will receive from us
will be the decision on your appeal.
Kind regards
POPLA Team
#Post#: 110391--------------------------------------------------
Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
DIR By: Samo05
Date: February 19, 2026, 1:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So i have had my appeal rejected. See below.
Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor Name: Natalie Matthews
Assessor summary of operator case: The operator has issued the
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking in a no parking area.
Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant has provided a detailed account of events. For the
purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the
following points and have checked each point before coming to my
conclusion. The appellant says that: • They raised that the PCN
doesn’t meet Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 in relation
to keeper liability. • The PCN refers to “failed to make a valid
payment” and refers to a date of issue. • They raised the PCN
doesn’t have the correct warning, “after the period of 28 days
beginning with the day after that on which the notice is
given…”. • They raised landowner authority. • The appellant
reiterated their version of events in the motorist’s comments
section. • They raised Brennan v Premier Parking (2023). • They
feel the PCN doesn’t refer to period of parking. The appellant
reiterated their version of events in the motorist’s comments
section. and raised new grounds of appeal that they never raised
in the grounds like signage, PCN amount, other vehicles in
breach and the generic initial appeal response. The appellant
included photographic evidence of their initial appeal response
and two images of the PCN, in support of their appeal. The
evidence has been included in my assessment.
Assessor supporting rational for decision:
In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s
vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act
(PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice
(PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me
with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I
have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections
of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I will
therefore be assessing the appellant’s liability as the keeper
of the vehicle. When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the
parking operator issued the parking charge notice correctly and
if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use
of the car park on the day. POPLA is a single-stage appeal
service that is impartial and independent of the sector. Our
remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The
signage on site forms the basis of the contract. The signage in
this car park states that the area is a no parking area at any
time. Firstly, I will discuss the photographic evidence the
appellant has included PCN and the initial appeal response which
is noted but does not add value to the appeal. The Protection of
Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators
to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event
that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators
have to follow certain rules including issuing a PCN to be
received within the required timescale. Section 7/8/9 states the
PCN must be issued within 14 days. In this case I can see that
PCN was issued within the relevant period. Therefore, the
parking operator has successfully transferred the liability onto
the registered keeper. Furthermore, the PCN doesn’t mention not
paying for parking. The PCN reason is for parking in a no
parking area. The warning the operator added in the motorist's
comments about the 28 days is slightly different, but it is
still acceptable as it has the same meaning and is acceptable
and still meets POFA. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of
Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators
need to comply with. Section 14.1 of the code state parking
operators must have written authority from the landowner before
the PCN can be issued. I can see the operator included a copy of
the landowner contract. They raised entry and exit or snap shot
times are not the same a ‘period of parking’ and raised Brennan
v Premier Parking (2023). POPLA do not accept civil court
decisions as they don’t set legal precedent and only accept
Supreme Court Rulings. Additionally, ‘period of parking’
wouldn't be considered in this case as the terms and conditions
read that parking isn't permit on roads, footpaths or on yellow
lines, however, the appellant's vehicle remained in a ‘no
parking’ area for 8 minutes. It should be noted that the
motorist comments section is a place to expand upon the original
grounds given and not to be used as a platform to introduce new
grounds that the operator has not had the opportunity to review.
As such, the new grounds of appeal given within the motorist
comments section have not been considered in this appeal
response. Ultimately, the crux of this case is, regardless of
who was driving the car on the date in question, they driver
breached the terms and conditions, by parking in a no parking
area for 8 minutes. The PCN met all aspects of POFA and the keep
is responsible for the PCN as the driver hasn’t been named. Upon
consideration of the evidence supplied, the driver was not
permitted to park where they did and therefore did not comply
with the terms and conditions. Accordingly, I have refused this
appeal.
#Post#: 115172--------------------------------------------------
Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
DIR By: Samo05
Date: April 3, 2026, 10:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all, i have now had the final demand charge. Its gone from
£60 within 14 days at the start to £100 if not paid after that.
I get i loose the right to pay the £60 for doing my appeal. But
now they have raised it to £140. which is totally unacceptable.
Any advice on this? I have 2 days before i need to pay it as ive
been away.
#Post#: 115175--------------------------------------------------
Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
DIR By: jfollows
Date: April 3, 2026, 10:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can give in to their threats, or you can ignore them. In the
latter case you will pay £0 regardless of whether they demand
£60, £100 or £1,000. Are you fighting this or giving in?
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page