DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 107626--------------------------------------------------
Re: CUP Enforcement. Trade City, Romford
DIR By: 3times
Date: January 28, 2026, 3:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the reply. Looks like I missed the opportunity.
Although the email from Popla came through at 11pm last night so
technically still had an hour.
from Popla:
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.
#Post#: 112240--------------------------------------------------
Re: CUP Enforcement. Trade City, Romford
DIR By: 3times
Date: March 6, 2026, 5:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just had a reply from POPLA. As expected it was unsuccessful.
Result below. What are my options now.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds
of appeal: • They are the registered keeper of the vehicle and
there is no legal obligation to identify the driver. • The
parking operator has not complied with the Protection of
Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and there can be no keeper liability. •
The period of parking is not specified on the PCN. The images
and dates on the PCN do specify the period of parking and POPLA
cannot infer what happened between the times on the images. •
The signage on the site is prohibitive and not capable of
forming a contract. A contract requires an offer capable of
acceptance and the parking operator is attempting to impose a
PCN for a prohibited act. • The parking operator’s still images
cover around 3 minutes. This demonstrates that the mandatory
minimum consideration period has not been applied. They quote
the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) on
relation to this. • They request strict proof of a fully
complaint entrance sign on the date, a dated site plan showing
the location of signs around the site and photographs from the
driver’s position showing the nearest signs. • The request
strict proof that the parking operator has a legal standing on
this land to issue and pursue PCNs. They refer to section 14.1
of The Code in relation tot this and what must be evidenced. •
The parking operator’s rejection letter is unreliable as it
refers to PoFA when PoFA has failed. The above evidence will be
considered in making my determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the
day of the parking event. The operator has provided evidence to
demonstrate it has complied with PoFA. As such, I am considering
the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. When
assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has
issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has
complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car
park. The appellant has stated that the PCN does not comply with
PoFA as a period of parking has not been specified. PoFA 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. The PCN shows two timestamped images between
14:22 and 14:29, a duration of 7 minutes. I am satisfied that
this shows the period of parking and there is no evidence to
suggest otherwise. The PCN has also been issued within the
appropriate dates and includes the appropriate wording to hold
the keeper liable. This shows that the PCN sully complies with
PoFA. The appellant has stated that the images cover a period of
3 minutes and this shows that the consideration period has not
been complied with. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of
Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators
need to comply with. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice
states that parking operators must allow a consideration period
of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in
Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park.
In this case, as this is a no parking area, the consideration
period would be “while driving”. As the evidence shows that the
vehicle remained stationary here for 7 minutes. As such, the
consideration period would not be applicable on this occasion.
The appellant has also raised several issues with the signage on
the site. They have requested evidence of the signage at the
entrance and throughout the site and also stated that the
contract is prohibitive and cannot form a contract. Firstly, the
terms and conditions are not prohibitive as parking in allowed
within this car park. There are multiples signs throughout the
site that explain the full terms and conditions but specifically
state that parking is not allowed on the roadways. As such, the
driver could have parked in an allowed area in order to be
allowed to park instead of parking in a no parking area. Section
3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that there must be
an entrance sign displayed and maintained at the entrance to the
site, to inform drivers whether parking is permitted subject to
terms and conditions or prohibited. On this occasion, the
parking operator has provided evidence of a site map that
clearly shows the entrance sign at the entrance to the site.
This would establish the parking contract upon entry to the
site. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the
requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The
signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have
the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their
vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous,
using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible.
The signage throughout the site fully explains the terms and
conditions for parking on the site. The signage clearly explains
that there is no parking allowed on the walkways and that a £100
PCN would be issued for any breach of the terms and conditions.
The parking sector SIngle Code of Practice states that parking
is "a vehicle entering and remaining on controlled land". Whilst
I completely understand the driver had no intention of failing
to comply with terms and conditions, the driver of the vehicle
does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the
contract to accept it, there is only the requirement that the
driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the
terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is
the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and
conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to
the contract and parking. As the evidence shows that the driver
has parked in this walkway, they have parked here in breach of
the terms and conditions. This has resulted in the issuance on
the PCN. The appellant has also questioned the parking
operator’s authority to issue PCNs on this land. Section 14.1 of
the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on
behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained
before a parking charge can be issued. In this case, the parking
operator has provided evidence of the contract they have with
the landowner showing that they have the authority to issue PCNs
on this land. The appellant has also explained that the parking
operator’s rejection letter cannot be relied upon. It is the
remit of POPLA to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly
based on the parking contract and this does not extend to
complaints regarding the parking operator or how they manage
their cases. If the appellant would like to take this complaint
further, they could do so directly with the parking operator. I
have included a link to their complaints policy here
HTML https://www.cupenforcement.com/pay-pcn/appeal-pcn/complaints.<br
/>After considering the evidence from both parties, the
appellant
parked within a no parking area and therefore did not comply
with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am
satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I
must refuse the appeal.
#Post#: 112259--------------------------------------------------
Re: CUP Enforcement. Trade City, Romford
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 6, 2026, 7:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The original PCN is definitely not compliant with PoFA and there
several non compliance issues.
#Post#: 112418--------------------------------------------------
Re: CUP Enforcement. Trade City, Romford
DIR By: 3times
Date: March 8, 2026, 8:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> The original PCN is definitely not compliant with PoFA and
there several non compliance issues.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi, what is the process now, just sit and wait.
Thanks
#Post#: 112420--------------------------------------------------
Re: CUP Enforcement. Trade City, Romford
DIR By: jfollows
Date: March 8, 2026, 8:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If CUP use DCB Legal as they have done in the past, then ignore
(but tell us) when you get threatening debt collectors’ letters
from DCBL, and in due course come back when you receive a Letter
of Claim from DCB Legal.
DCB Legal has form for intimidating people into paying, but
discontinuing before having to pay the court fee.
Search this forum for many, many examples.
Spend the time researching and thinking about a defence you will
file against DCB Legal’s claim in due course.
#Post#: 112531--------------------------------------------------
Re: CUP Enforcement. Trade City, Romford
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 9, 2026, 6:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: 3times link ---
>
> [quote author=InterCity125 link=topic=8979.msg112259#msg112259
date=1772802674]
> The original PCN is definitely not compliant with PoFA and
there several non compliance issues.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi, what is the process now, just sit and wait.
Thanks
[/quote]
I can jot down a quick complaint to POPLA which will hopefully
get them to admit that there has been an assessor error.
A successful complaint will pretty much make you impossible to
pursue using PoFA.
What is the assessors name?
#Post#: 112536--------------------------------------------------
Re: CUP Enforcement. Trade City, Romford
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 9, 2026, 7:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
POPLA Complaint - Clear Procedural Error.
POPLA Code -
POPLA Assessor -
FAO Lead Assessor,
This is a complaint relating to the incorrect assertion of
Keeper Liability under PoFA 2012 by your Assessor.
Unfortunately, in their assessment, the assessor wrongly
establishes keeper liability when the required mandatory wording
and subsequent legal choices are not present in the parking
operators NtK.
To make things simple (and totally objective) this complaint
purely relates to the assessor's error when examining the NtK
for compliance under PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e).
You will see from my submitted appeal that I specifically raised
the PoFA non compliance issue.
In the appeal response the assessor clearly states that, "The
PCN has also been issued within the appropriate dates and
includes the appropriate wording to hold the keeper liable. This
shows that the PCN fully complies with PoFA." - this is
demonstrably false since the PCN clearly does not meet the
requirements of term 9(2)(e) and as such the PCN cannot be
described as "fully compliant" as it clearly isn't.
As you will be aware, the wording of PoFA is legally very tight
and, as your assessor appears to acknowledge, total compliance
with 9(2) is needed in order for a parking operator to transfer
liability onto a Registered Keeper.
Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) states the following;
The notice MUST
(e)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 of the vehicle, to notify
the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
So, in order to be compliant with 9(2)(e) we must examine the
precise wording of the operators NtK - in the case of the
mandatory requirements of 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) we
are looking for a section of mandatory wording immediately
followed by the presentation a two limbed legal choice which
must be offered to the vehicle keeper.
This should therefore be something along the lines of the
following;
==============================================
At the current time, CUP Enforecemnt (the creditor) does not
know both the name and a current address for service for the
driver.
The keeper is therefore invited TO PAY THE UNPAID PARKING
CHARGES
or
If the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the
creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver and to pass this notice onto the driver.
==============================================
The required paragraph is clearly missing from the operators
NtK.
The information must be presented in this manner to be compliant
ie in one paragraph. Compliance cannot be achieved by, for
example, placing the information at random points throughout the
NtK since this would not present the keeper with the text
followed by the two limbed legal choice which 9(2)(e) requires -
this point is clearly backed up by the precise wording of
9(2)(e) - the mandatory text which must be immediately followed
by the invitation to the keeper to pay the charges or nominate
another driver.
So you will see, from the examination of the operators NtK, that
there is no section of mandatory wording which reads, "the
creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current
address for service for the driver" and, subsequently, there is
no, "invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges"
and, further, nor is there a two limbed legal choice correctly
setting out the keepers options as required by 9(2)(e).
As a result the NtK is clearly not compliant with the
requirements of PoFA and liability cannot be transferred to the
keeper.
I understand from various consumer groups (on the internet) that
POPLA have recently stated that assessors were to undergo
"further intense training in an effort to avoid future failures
when assessing keeper liability under PoFA" - Can you please
explain why such basic errors (such as this one) are still being
made.
I look forward with interest to your views.
Best wishes,
xxxxxx xxxxxxx
#Post#: 113398--------------------------------------------------
Re: CUP Enforcement. Trade City, Romford
DIR By: 3times
Date: March 16, 2026, 7:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, will get that sent off.
#Post#: 115647--------------------------------------------------
Re: CUP Enforcement. Trade City, Romford
DIR By: 3times
Date: April 12, 2026, 1:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Recieved a reply to the POPLA appeal as below;
Thank you for your email, which was passed to me by the POPLA
team, as I am responsible for responding to complaints.
I note from your correspondence that you are unhappy with the
decision(s) reached by the assessor in your appeal against Close
Unit Protection – EW.
POPLA is an impartial and independent appeals service, and we do
not act either for the parking operator or the appellant. It is
important to explain that it is not our remit to source evidence
and documents from either party in support of their submission,
and our decisions are based on the evidence received from both
parties at the time of the appeal. We cannot consider further
evidence after the appeal has been completed.
It is also worth explaining that my role is not to determine if
the decision is correct, but to establish if the assessor has
failed to follow the correct POPLA process and identify whether
a procedural error has occurred.
I have summarised your complaint as follows:
You say the assessor has wrongly established keeper liability
when the mandatory wording in the operator’s Notice to Keeper is
not present. You tell POPLA that the complaint relates to the
error with Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 (2) (e) of the Protection of
Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. You explain that you specifically
raised the non-compliance issue and the assessor responded that
the PCN fully complies with PoFA 2012, which you say it is not
as the required paragraph is missing from the PCN. You advise
that you understand from various consumer groups that POPLA has
recently stated assessors were to undergo further intense
training to avoid future failures and you ask for an explanation
as to why such basic errors are still being made.
I must advise that in your original appeal you raised PoFA 2012
Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 (a) which discusses the period of
parking. You raised:
The assessor considered these grounds of appeal and made a point
of addressing this section specifically as it is what you drew
attention to and he stated:
“The appellant has stated that the PCN does not comply with PoFA
as a period of parking has not been specified. PoFA 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.
The PCN shows two timestamped images between 14:22 and 14:29, a
duration of 7 minutes. I am satisfied that this shows the period
of parking and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. The
PCN has also been issued within the appropriate dates and
includes the appropriate wording to hold the keeper liable. This
shows that the PCN sully complies with PoFA.”
I agree with the assessor’s rationale in this case.
The section you refer to within your complaint is Schedule 4
Paragraph 9 (2) (e). This was not raised as a specific point for
consideration, however I will discuss further. This section
states:
I have highlighted the pivotal sections above in blue. The first
paragraph names the operator as the creditor.
The second paragraph explains that the driver is required to pay
the PCN in full and if you are not the driver to inform the
operator of a name and current postal address for the driver and
to pass the notice on to them.
The third paragraph explains that if the driver has not been
identified that the registered keeper will be held responsible
for the PCN.
I am satisfied that the whole of section of Schedule 4,
Paragraph 9 was met when issuing this PCN.
In terms of the POPLA process, our assessors are given regular
training and coaching sessions to ensure our decisions remain of
a high standard.
I have reviewed the assessor’s decision, and I am satisfied that
no procedural error or shortfall has occurred during the
assessment of the appeal. The assessor considered all evidence
provided when reaching their decision. As POPLA is a one-stage
process, there is no opportunity for you to appeal the decision.
In closing, I am sorry that your experience of using our service
has not been positive. We have reached the end of our process,
and my response now concludes our complaints procedure. I trust
you will appreciate that there will be no further review of your
complaint, and it will not be appropriate for us to respond to
any further correspondence on this matter.
Yours sincerely,
#Post#: 115833--------------------------------------------------
Re: CUP Enforcement. Trade City, Romford
DIR By: 3times
Date: April 14, 2026, 6:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Final Demand from CUP recieved today.
I guess the waiting period starts to see what action they take.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page