DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 104075--------------------------------------------------
Re: CUP Enforcement. Trade City, Romford
By: 3times Date: December 30, 2025, 8:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeal declined as expected and popla code issued. Appeal is
dated 11/12, went to junk so only just found it.
This is the text of the appeal letter they sent;
Site: Trade city
Issue date: 27/11/2025
Contravention: Parked on or within a no parking area
Thank you for your appeal received on 08/12/2025 regarding the
above detailed Parking Charge Notice. We have reviewed the case
and considered the comments you have made. This appeal has been
considered in conjunction with the evidence gathered by the
parking attendant. Our records show the notice was correctly
issued as the vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and
Conditions of Parking.
Whilst we appreciate your concerns and the comments raised; the
vehicle was parked on private land, in a no parking area, on a
yellow-lined pedestrian walkway, in breach of the terms and
conditions, the vehicle registration mark was not exempt from
parking terms neither was it registered at the above location,
and no supporting evidence was submitted in the first instance
to support authority from the operator to use the space.
Within the appeal, you claimed that the Notice to Keeper does
not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012.
The notice states:
' ... This Parking Charge Notice has been issued to the
above-mentioned vehicle due to a breach of the Terms &
Conditions of Parking at the location noted above. The Parking
Charge is now payable to C.U.P Enforcement as the Creditor. The
Parking Charge notice of £100 is due for payment within 28 days
of the notice date. If paid within 14 days of this notice date
the amount payable will be reduced to £60.
The signage displayed at the entrance of the car park and
throughout states that the site is private land operated by
C.U.P Enforcement (the creditor). The conditions detailed on the
signage must be complied to or a Parking Charge Notice will be
incurred. Motorists who choose to park their vehicle in the car
park are thereby agreeing to be bound by these terms. As the
motorist has contravened the terms and conditions detailed on
the signage, a parking charge notice has been issued and is now
payable to C.U.P Enforcement.
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Paragraph:
You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the vehicle
is required to pay this parking charge in full. If you were not
the driver of the vehicle at the time, please inform us of the
name and current postal address of the driver and pass this
notice on to them. This information can be supplied online at:
cupenforcement-liability.zatappeal.com You are advised that if,
after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the
second working day after the Date Issued), the parking charge
has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and
current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any
unpaid part of the parking charge from you as the vehicles
Registered Keeper. This Notice is given to you under Paragraph
9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and
is subject to our compliance with the applicable conditions
under Schedule 4 of the Act.
Should you provide an incorrect address for service, we may
pursue you for any Parking Charge amount that remains unpaid.
Should you identify someone who denies they were the driver, we
may pursue you for any Parking Charge amount that remains
unpaid. Please see reverse for details of how to pay, transfer
liability, or appeal this PCN ... ' CUP Enforcement is
authorised to issue clearance, parking permits and charges under
PoFA 2012 in cases of contravention. As detailed above, the
notice is PoFA 2012 compliant, and as the keeper you are now
liable for the
charge.
The driver entered a contract with CUP due to the following:
Firstly, there was an offer, which was reasonably brought to
attention via signage at the site which sets out the terms and
conditions. Secondly, the driver was afforded a reasonable
opportunity to read and understand the offer and consequently,
is now required to comply with the contract. Ultimately, it is
the responsibility and duty of the motorist to ensure upon
arrival, that they seek out, read and comply with terms and
conditions accepted upon parking if they wish to use land that
does not belong to them. By parking the vehicle in
contravention, they accept the potential consequence of
incurring a PCN. Terms and conditions were undoubtedly displayed
and contact information is displayed on all CUP signage,
however, none was made. Unfortunately, sufficient evidence was
not provided in order to warrant the cancellation of the PCN. As
the contact details of the driver have not been provided, the
registered keeper is now liable for the parking charge notice.
The terms and conditions are displayed on CUP signage throughout
the development to notify drivers of the contractual agreement
when entering the above location. We can confirm the officer
followed the correct procedure and the PCN was issued correctly.
Please note that the grace period allowance is not a period of
free parking, refers to parking spaces where payment has been
made for use of the parking area, for a particular amount of
time, or where/if parking is permitted. The location above is
private land hence it is a restricted area where no payment was
made, there was no maximum parking time frame and motorists that
are not exempt are not permitted to utilise the parking spaces,
therefore, the grace period is not applicable in this instance.
The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (SCoP) sets
the standards with which parking operators that are regulated by
The British Parking Organisation and The International Parking
Community need to comply.
Section 2.19a of SCoP sets the definition of parking as: a
vehicle entering and remaining on controlled land.
Section 2.19b of SCoP defines the action of being parked as: a
vehicle being stationary other than in the course of driving. A
vehicle may be deemed to be parked whether or not the driver has
vacated the vehicle/turned off the ignition. The evidence shows
it was stationary; hence, was observed as being parked - this
observation stands.
As parking was prohibited in this area, there was a breach of
the terms and conditions indeed.
A stationary vehicle is classed as parked whether or not the
driver or any passengers are waiting within the vehicle or in
the surrounding area, and whether or not the engine is running.
Parking standards are a matter of safety, security and
etiquette. Responsibility rests with the driver to ensure the
area selected for stay, no matter the occasion or duration, is
suitable and parking complies with current terms and conditions.
The time and date stamped photographic evidence submitted by the
operative, captured the vehicle parked at the location. Our
sitemaps confirm the signage at the site was clear, legible,
unobstructed, in full operation and in proximity to the
vehicle.
What is my next move. Thanks
#Post#: 104109--------------------------------------------------
Re: CUP Enforcement. Trade City, Romford
By: b789 Date: December 30, 2025, 1:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The POPLA code is valid for 33 days from the date of the initial
appeal rejection. So, as long as the apealrejection is not dated
earlier than 28 November, it is still valid. Appeal to POPLA
with the following:
[quote]POPLA APPEAL (REGISTERED KEEPER)
I am the registered keeper. I dispute this parking charge. There
is no legal obligation on a keeper to identify the driver and I
decline to do so. The operator’s only lawful route to pursue the
keeper is strict compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”). The operator has not complied with
PoFA. Accordingly, there can be no keeper liability and POPLA
must allow this appeal.
The operator’s evidence, and its rejection letter, also fail on
contract formation and on mandatory standards in the Private
Parking Single Code of Practice (“PPSCoP”), including the
required consideration period and the requirement to retain
evidence that the consideration period had ended before issuing
a PCN.
1. NO KEEPER LIABILITY: THE NOTICE TO KEEPER DOES NOT COMPLY
WITH POFA 9(2)(a) BECAUSE IT DOES NOT “SPECIFY THE PERIOD OF
PARKING”
PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a) requires a Notice to Keeper to
“specify… the period of parking to which the notice relates”.
That wording is not optional. It is a mandatory condition
precedent to keeper liability.
This Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not specify ANY period of
parking. It does not use the statutory concept at all. It
provides a “contravention date” and includes two CCTV still
images with time/date stamps. That is not compliance with PoFA
9(2)(a) for three separate reasons:
First, PoFA requires the Notice itself to “specify” the period
of parking. A period of parking is a defined duration. A
contravention date is not a period. An isolated timestamp is not
a period. Two timestamps might allow a reader to infer that
something happened between two moments in time, but PoFA does
not ask POPLA to infer or reconstruct a period from images. It
requires the operator to specify it on the notice. This operator
has not.
Secondly, PoFA does not require an operator to use images on an
NtK and images are not a statutory substitute for the mandatory
wording. The statute does not say “provide images from which a
period might be inferred”. It says the notice MUST specify the
"period of parking". If an operator chooses to include images,
they remain merely supporting material. They cannot cure the
failure to comply with the explicit statutory requirement to
specify the period of parking.
Thirdly, the still images do not state a period of parking in
any event. They are simply stills. There is no statement on the
Notice identifying a start time, an end time, and expressly
defining the “period of parking to which the notice relates”.
POPLA is invited to read PoFA 9(2)(a) as written. The operator’s
notice fails it.
Because PoFA 9(2)(a) is not complied with, there is no keeper
liability. The operator’s repeated assertion that the notice is
“PoFA compliant” and that “as the keeper you are now liable” is
a misstatement of the law. POPLA must allow the appeal on this
basis alone.
2. PROHIBITIVE SIGNAGE: “NO PARKING ON THE WALKWAY” IS NOT
CAPABLE OF FORMING A CONTRACTUAL LICENCE TO PARK THERE
Without prejudice to the primary keeper-liability point, the
operator’s signage is prohibitive at the alleged location. The
key term is “NO PARKING ON THE WALKWAY”. That is a prohibition,
not an offer of a contractual licence to park on that walkway in
exchange for a charge.
A contract requires an offer capable of acceptance. If parking
is forbidden in a particular place, there is no offer of parking
in that place. The operator is attempting to impose a charge for
a prohibited act. That is not a clear contractual offer for that
location. At most it resembles an allegation of trespass, which
is a matter for a landholder, not a parking operator seeking to
enforce a “parking charge” in its own name.
Accordingly, even on a driver-liability analysis, the operator
has not demonstrated any contract capable of being formed for
“parking on the walkway”.
3. STRICT PROOF: CONSIDERATION PERIOD (PPSCoP) AND THE
OPERATOR’S FAILURE TO RETAIN EVIDENCE THAT IT HAD ENDED BEFORE
ISSUING A PCN
The operator’s still images appear to cover only around three
minutes. Even if POPLA were to treat those images as showing the
vehicle stationary for a short duration, that undermines, rather
than supports, the operator’s case because it demonstrates that
the operator issued a PCN without evidence that the mandatory
minimum consideration period had expired.
The PPSCoP makes clear that the significance of the
consideration period is fundamental because it is the point at
which the driver is taken to have accepted the terms and
conditions of the controlled land. Annex B states, in substance,
that:
[indent]Where there is evidence the consideration period has
expired, the minimum period is not relevant, but the operator
should retain evidence to show how the consideration period had
ended. The significance of whether the consideration has expired
is fundamental as it is the point the driver has accepted the
terms and conditions. A consideration period is not a free
period of parking.[/indent]
This is fatal to the operator’s reliance on a brief sequence of
still images. If the operator alleges a contractual parking
charge, it must be able to evidence that the consideration
period ended and that a contract was accepted. The PPSCoP
requires the operator to retain evidence showing how the
consideration period had ended before enforcement. The
operator’s evidence does not do that. Two stills across a short
span do not evidence the end of the consideration period, nor do
they evidence acceptance of terms, nor do they evidence that
enforcement was permissible at that point.
Put simply: before the consideration period ends, the driver is
still considering the terms and deciding whether to accept them
or leave. The PPSCoP requires operators to retain evidence that
the consideration period ended. The operator has not provided
such evidence. POPLA must therefore find that the charge was
issued prematurely and in breach of the PPSCoP, and allow the
appeal.
4. STRICT PROOF: COMPLIANT ENTRANCE SIGNAGE AND ADEQUATE NOTICE
The operator asserts there was clear signage “at the entrance…
and throughout” and that “sitemaps confirm” signage proximity.
Assertions are not evidence.
POPLA is invited to require strict proof of:
[indent]• A fully compliant entrance sign, in place on the
material date, with photographs taken from a driver’s viewpoint
on approach, demonstrating that the terms were readable before
entry.
• A dated site plan showing the location of every entrance sign
and every terms sign relied upon, the route of travel, the exact
location of the vehicle, and the distances/lines of sight
between the vehicle and the nearest applicable signs.
• Photographs from the driver’s position at the alleged location
showing the nearest sign, its orientation, and that it was
readable without leaving the vehicle and searching
around.[/indent]
If the operator cannot prove adequate notice of terms at the
point of decision-making, there can be no contract.
5. STRICT PROOF: STANDING/LANDHOLDER AUTHORITY AND FULL
COMPLIANCE WITH PPSCoP SECTION 14.1(a) TO (j)
The operator must prove it has the legal standing to operate on
this land and to issue and pursue parking charges in its own
name. POPLA is invited to treat standing as a threshold issue.
If the operator cannot prove landholder authority in the form
required by the PPSCoP, the charge is unsupported and the appeal
must be allowed.
PPSCoP section 14.1(a) to (j) sets mandatory requirements for
written landholder authority. POPLA must not accept generic
statements, “sitemaps”, “site agreements summaries”, or a
self-serving witness statement. The operator must produce
contemporaneous documentary evidence that satisfies each and
every requirement in section 14.1(a) to (j). If they do not,
POPLA must find that the operator has failed to prove standing
and the PCN is unenforceable.
Accordingly, the operator is put to strict proof by providing
the following, as documentary evidence (not commentary):
[indent]1. The unredacted, contemporaneous landholder
contract/authorisation in force on the material date, with the
landholder correctly identified (freeholder/superior leaseholder
or a party with sufficient proprietary interest), and evidence
that the signatory had authority to grant those rights.
2. Clear confirmation within that contract/authorisation of the
precise land to which it applies, including a dated plan/map
defining the boundary of the controlled land and the specific
area(s) where enforcement is permitted. This must include (or
expressly exclude) the exact area alleged in this PCN (the
“walkway”/restricted area).
3. Explicit wording showing what the operator is authorised to
do at this site, including (where claimed) the right to issue
parking charge notices, to demand payment, and to recover
charges in its own name. If the operator asserts it may pursue
court proceedings, POPLA must require the contract to expressly
confer that right.
4. Evidence that the operator’s enforcement scope is not wider
than the landholder has granted (for example: exclusions for
pedestrian routes, accessways, loading areas, service roads,
tenant demised areas, and any other areas not intended to be
controlled land for enforcement).
5. Evidence that the authority complies with every element of
PPSCoP 14.1(a) to (j). POPLA should require the operator to
identify, item-by-item, where in the contract each sub-paragraph
(a) through (j) is satisfied, and to produce the corresponding
pages. If any item is not evidenced, POPLA must conclude that
section 14.1 is not met.[/indent]
The burden of proof is on the operator. If the operator refuses
to provide an unredacted agreement and instead provides a
template witness statement or partial extract, POPLA is invited
to find that the operator has failed to discharge that burden.
PPSCoP 14.1(a) to (j) exists precisely to prevent enforcement
based on unsupported assertions of authority. If compliance is
not proven, the charge must be cancelled.
5. WHY THE OPERATOR’S REJECTION LETTER IS UNRELIABLE
The operator’s rejection letter is not a reliable guide to the
law or to POPLA’s task.
It claims that CUP is “authorised… under PoFA 2012” and that
keeper liability follows. That is wrong. PoFA imposes strict
conditions; it does not confer keeper liability by assertion.
The Notice fails PoFA 9(2)(a).
It diverts into “grace period” commentary. This is irrelevant to
PoFA compliance and does not rescue a defective Notice. It also
misses the point that the PPSCoP’s consideration period is the
fundamental stage at which contractual acceptance may occur and
operators must retain evidence that it ended before enforcement.
It cites its own interpretation of “parking” and “parked” as if
that overrides statutory compliance and contract formation. It
does not. The operator must still comply with PoFA to pursue a
keeper and must still prove that a contract was formed and that
enforcement was permissible under the PPSCoP.
CONCLUSION
This operator cannot pursue the keeper because the NtK does not
specify any period of parking as required by PoFA 9(2)(a). POPLA
must allow this appeal.
Further, the signage is prohibitive (“NO PARKING ON THE
WALKWAY”) and is not capable of forming a contractual licence to
park there. In any event, the operator has failed to provide
evidence that the consideration period had ended before issuing
a PCN, as required by the PPSCoP, and must be put to strict
proof of compliant entrance signage and landholder authority,
including full compliance with PPSCoP section 14.1(a) to (j). If
strict proof is not produced, the charge must be
cancelled.[/quote]
#Post#: 104149--------------------------------------------------
Re: CUP Enforcement. Trade City, Romford
By: 3times Date: December 31, 2025, 4:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks. POPLA appeal submitted.
#Post#: 104150--------------------------------------------------
Re: CUP Enforcement. Trade City, Romford
By: andy_foster Date: December 31, 2025, 5:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
@b789
If the signs communicated an offer of a right to park in a
marked bay in return for some consideration from the driver, and
included a prohibition on parking outside of marked bays, all
things being equal, that would be a valid contractual offer. The
point is that no such offer is communicated in any meaningful
sense to any class of person who was not a permit holder (and
presumably not to permit holders either)
You appear to be arguing that any breach defeats any offer,
because the relevant clause was itself prohibitive. That would
be very inaccurate.
The fact that the signs clearly prohibit parking on the walkway
does not make them entirely prohibitive - it is the fact that no
offer is communicated to the class of which the driver was a
member which means that there was no offer (and that the signs
were entirely prohibitive).
@OP - are there any other signs purporting to offer any right to
park within the car park, and particularly at the entrance?
#Post#: 104187--------------------------------------------------
Re: CUP Enforcement. Trade City, Romford
By: b789 Date: December 31, 2025, 10:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Andy — you’re correct. My framing slid into treating “the clause
relied on is prohibitive” as if that alone prevents a contract
from existing, which I accept is not correct as a general
proposition.
A parking scheme can make a contractual offer to a defined class
of motorists (for example permit holders or authorised users)
and then regulate that offer with prohibitions such as “park
only in marked bays” or “no parking on walkways”. In that
situation, the prohibitions are simply contractual terms and a
breach does not defeat the existence of the contract.
The point I should have articulated more clearly — and which
your comment correctly highlights — is that this is a
class-based analysis. Here, the signage does not communicate any
offer of a right to park to the class of motorist the driver
belonged to. There is no invitation, no mechanism, and no
consideration by which a non-permit holder could lawfully park.
In that sense, the signage is not merely partly prohibitive; it
is entirely prohibitive as regards that class. Where no offer is
made to a particular class, there can be no acceptance and
therefore no contract with that class.
In any event, the appeal has already been submitted and this is
only POPLA, so no big deal — especially as the assessor on the
day could very well be the tea-boy, which means someone more
likely to have a better grasp on contract law than most POPLA
assessors.
#Post#: 104279--------------------------------------------------
Re: CUP Enforcement. Trade City, Romford
By: 3times Date: January 2, 2026, 5:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=andy_foster link=topic=8979.msg104150#msg104150
date=1767179315]
[member=26]b789[/member]
If the signs communicated an offer of a right to park in a
marked bay in return for some consideration from the driver, and
included a prohibition on parking outside of marked bays, all
things being equal, that would be a valid contractual offer. The
point is that no such offer is communicated in any meaningful
sense to any class of person who was not a permit holder (and
presumably not to permit holders either)
You appear to be arguing that any breach defeats any offer,
because the relevant clause was itself prohibitive. That would
be very inaccurate.
The fact that the signs clearly prohibit parking on the walkway
does not make them entirely prohibitive - it is the fact that no
offer is communicated to the class of which the driver was a
member which means that there was no offer (and that the signs
were entirely prohibitive).
@OP - are there any other signs purporting to offer any right to
park within the car park, and particularly at the entrance?
[/quote]
The only signs are the ones I originally posted.
As an aside I emailed the company that was being visited to see
if they could do anything, even stating that a competitor would
be used in future if the parking conditions continued. They said
they couldn't do anything.
#Post#: 106666--------------------------------------------------
Re: CUP Enforcement. Trade City, Romford
By: 3times Date: January 20, 2026, 8:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
CUP have submitted their evidence to POPLA as below; There is a
pack as a PDF but I don't have a way of redacting any info
without printing (30 pages).
PCN Details • Parking operator: CUP Enforcement • PCN number:
116522 • VRM: TON13X • Method of issue: PoFA Notice to Keeper
Postal Notice MNPR • Date of contravention: 19/11/2025 • Date
notice sent: 27/11/2025 • Location: Trade City • Reason for
issue: Parked on or within a no-parking area. Parking Policy:
CUP Enforcement has a valid rolling contract in place with their
client at the location. A copy has been included within this
evidence pack, along with the site map. The site is private land
and parking conditions signage is on display at the location.
The parking area is monitored by wardens. Any vehicle found
parked within a no-parking area be issued with a PCN. Case
Summary ● The vehicle was observed parked at the site on
19/11/2025 in a no parking area; on a yellow-lined pedestrian
pathway. Such areas are universally recognised as spaces where
parking is not permitted. Photographic evidence was captured on
the day. ● As the motorist had accepted the terms by
parking their vehicle at the location, a Parking Charge Notice
(PCN) was issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle by
post. ● An appeal was received from the keeper on
08/12/2025 wherein the appellant’s statement confirmed he was
the keeper and that he would not be naming the driver. ●
No evidence was submitted to support any authority to use the
no-parking area. ● As a PoFA had been issued, the keeper
was confirmed, the evidence confirmed the vehicle was parked in
a no parking area in view of the terms and conditions, the
vehicle was parked on a yellow lined pedestrian pathway, the
vehicle was not exempt from parking conditions and no evidence
was submitted to support any authorisation to use the space, the
appeal was rejected. • A reminder was issued on 29/12/2025.
Section 19.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states that operators
are required to have signage that make it clear a motorist is
entering onto private land. Signs are displayed to give notice
to motorists that they are entering private land and terms and
conditions are in place for parking. CUP Enforcement is not
required to set out individual terms for motorists’
notification. The responsibility is with the motorist when they
enter the site to look for the signs detailing the full terms of
parking. Additionally, there are clear floor markings at the
site. Parking terms and conditions signs were on display at the
location. Signage can be seen within the sample images, site map
(enclosed within this evidence pack) and supporting images. The
images combined with the site map show the signage was in view
and in close proximity to the vehicle, and the vehicle was
parked on the no-parking area, on the yellow lined pedestrian
pathway markings. o Within the POPLA, the keeper submitted
multiple new grounds of appeal, which we understand is not
permitted at the POPLA stage as the appellant is only required
to expand on the appeal points that were initially submitted at
the initial appeal stage. We submit the following: o The
evidence shows that adequate signage was present. o A PoFA was
issued therefore the keeper is now liable for the charge as he
has refused to name the driver. o The photographic evidence
confirms the vehicle was parked on a yellow lined pedestrian
pathway. o The area is a no-parking area, therefore parking is
not permitted in the area where the vehicle was parked. o The
grace period allowance is not a period of free parking, refers
to parking spaces where payment has been made for use of the
parking area, for a particular amount of time, or where/if
parking is permitted. The location above is private land and a
signposted no-parking area where no payment was made, there was
no maximum parking time frame and motorists that are not exempt
are not permitted to utilise the space, therefore, the grace
period is not applicable in this instance. o The Private Parking
Sector Single Code of Practice (SCoP) sets the standards with
which parking operators that are regulated by The British
Parking Organisation and The International Parking Community
need to comply. Section 2.19a of SCoP sets the definition of
parking as: a vehicle entering and remaining on controlled land.
Section 2.19b of SCoP defines the action of being parked as: a
vehicle being stationary other than in the course of driving. A
vehicle may be deemed to be parked whether or not the driver has
vacated the vehicle/turned off the ignition. The photographic
images captured the vehicle parked for 7 minutes and 30 seconds.
As parking was prohibited in this area, there was a breach of
the terms and conditions indeed. Parking standards at the
location are a matter of safety, security and etiquette. The
motorist failed in their responsibility after they parked in a
no-parking area. The regulations of parking on the site clearly
state the requirements. CUP Enforcement has a written and signed
agreement with the landowner giving it rightful authority to
fulfil their duty in carrying out enforcement on this land. All
CUP enforcement on the site is in full compliance with BPA
parking regulations. The parking charge amount was £100, reduced
to £60 if payment was made within 14 days, and held at that
amount after the appeal response. No payment has been received.
The charge now stands at £100. When parking on private land, the
contract formed is between the motorist and the parking
operator. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure
they have sought out, read and complied with the parking
operator’s terms and conditions, which are stated on the signage
if they want to use land that does not belong to them. As can be
seen from the images and the site map provided in this evidence
pack, the signboards and yellow lined areas are clear, legible
and in prominent positions. The motorist had the opportunity to
observe the terms. As a PoFA was issued; the keeper has been
confirmed; utility of the site was gained; the vehicle was
parked on private land in a no-parking area, adequate signage,
floor markings and parking terms were on display; the vehicle
was not exempt; and no evidence to support authorisation to use
the no parking area was submitted; we stand by the decision to
issue the PCN and request the refusal of the appeal. Please see
the uploaded items for the operator images and the evidence pack
complete with supporting documents.
#Post#: 107403--------------------------------------------------
Re: CUP Enforcement. Trade City, Romford
By: 3times Date: January 26, 2026, 9:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have managed to redact personal info from the doc that CUP
sent
HTML https://ibb.co/WNByf157
All help greatly appreciated.
#Post#: 107578--------------------------------------------------
Re: CUP Enforcement. Trade City, Romford
By: 3times Date: January 27, 2026, 3:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just found an email from POPLA in my junk. Dated 20/01 and
saying I have 7 days to provide any comments to the info that
CUP have provided.
Looks like I'm missing that deadline. Anything I need to do.
details:
Your parking charge appeal against Close Unit Protection - EW.
Close Unit Protection - EW has now uploaded its evidence to your
appeal. This will be available for you to view by clicking here
Please note: some evidence may not show immediately, if it is
not currently available on your account please check back later
before contacting us.
You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to
provide comments on the evidence uploaded by Close Unit
Protection - EW.
Please note that these comments must relate to the grounds of
appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA,
we do not accept new grounds of appeal or evidence at this stage
Any comments received after the period of seven days has ended
will not be considered and we will progress your appeal for
assessment. Therefore, if you have any issues with the evidence
uploaded by Close Unit Protection - EW such as being unable to
view it online, please contact POPLA immediately via phone -
0330 1596 126, or email - info@popla.co.uk, so that we can look
to rectify this as soon as possible.
After this period has ended, we will aim to issue our decision
as quickly as possible. The decision we reach is final and
binding. When the decision is reached there is no further option
for appeal.
Yours sincerely
POPLA Team
#Post#: 107579--------------------------------------------------
Re: CUP Enforcement. Trade City, Romford
By: DWMB2 Date: January 27, 2026, 3:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Log in and see if it will still let you submit anything. The job
with responses to evidence is to pick holes in their evidence,
and point out any of your appeal points they have not rebutted
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page