DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 109957--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Elite Parking Management - Parked in Contractor/Visitor Bay
       without valid permit - British Estate
   DIR By: nman26
       Date: February 16, 2026, 11:26 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Sorry for the delay - please find redacted version of their
       evidence pack here
  HTML http://
  HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fhm_3Wv67Yr91fDLKvkpGjYonh3VUkTj/view?usp=sharing
       Would really appreciate any steer.
       Thanks
       #Post#: 110021--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Elite Parking Management - Parked in Contractor/Visitor Bay
       without valid permit - British Estate
   DIR By: Mustek
       Date: February 17, 2026, 3:21 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Their evidence pack lacks any Notice to Keeper, as expected.
       You can possibly reply using the following:
       --- Quote ---
       > RESPONSE TO OPERATOR EVIDENCE
       >
       > The operator has not proven compliance with PoFA Schedule 4
       paragraph 8.
       >
       > A windscreen Notice to Driver was issued on 22 November 2025.
       Where an NtD has been given and the driver is not identified,
       PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 8 requires service of a compliant
       Notice to Keeper within the statutory day 29 to day 56 window.
       The operator has not produced any NtK in evidence.
       >
       > Without compliance with PoFA, there is no lawful basis to
       pursue the Keeper. The identity of the driver has not been
       disclosed, and the operator may not rely on assumption or
       inference.
       >
       > The appeal must therefore be upheld because the person being
       pursued cannot be liable for the charge in law.
       >
       > Conclusion
       >
       > The operator has ignored and failed to rebut the main ground:
       the operator has failed to produce or evidence service of any
       Notice to Keeper as required by PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 8 and
       is put to strict proof of posting. The driver is unidentified.
       The appeal must be allowed.
       --- End Quote ---
       #Post#: 110144--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Elite Parking Management - Parked in Contractor/Visitor Bay
       without valid permit - British Estate
   DIR By: nman26
       Date: February 17, 2026, 4:04 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thanks - submitted!
       #Post#: 114698--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Elite Parking Management - Parked in Contractor/Visitor Bay
       without valid permit - British Estate
   DIR By: nman26
       Date: March 28, 2026, 10:26 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Happy to announce... POPLA have allowed the appeal!
       "The appellant has raised the following points from their
       grounds of appeal. For the purposes of my decision, I have
       summarised these below. • The operator has failed to comply with
       Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. On
       reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on
       their initial grounds of appeal. In support of their appeal, the
       appellant has provided the operators rejection letter and an
       image of the PCN.
       Assessor supporting rational for decision
       I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: In
       terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the
       operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it
       alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN
       correctly. In order for the keeper to be liable for the parking
       charge, the operator has to follow the strict requirements of
       Schedule 4 POFA. In this instance, the operator has only
       provided a copy of the PCN that was issued to the vehicle. It
       has not provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper. Therefore, I am
       unable to determine if the operator has met the strict
       requirements of PFA. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. The
       appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am
       allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address
       these."
       Many many thanks to all those who supported!
       *****************************************************
       Page 3 of 3
   DIR Previous Page