POPLA Decisions

LDast

Success against ParkingEye for PCN issued at Lidl, Sutton Coldfield, using non-PoFA due to breach of PoFA 9(2)(a), failure to specify the relevant land. I include the original points 1 & 2 from the initial POPLA appeal although there were other points raised. The operator responded and I expanded on the main points. Following it is the POPLA assessor conclusion.

POPLA ref: 6062824162

ParkingEye ref: XXXXX/XXXXX

Vehicle registration: XXXXXXX

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, and I am appealing the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by ParkingEye. I was not the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. As the registered keeper, I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver and I decline to do so.

I dispute the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the following grounds:

(1) Failure to adhere to the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

(2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

(3) Inadequate signage leading to failure to adhere to PoFA 2012 and breach of the BPA Code of Practice

(4) No evidence of landholder authority

1. Failure to adhere to multiple requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

ParkingEye’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in several critical ways, which prevent them from transferring liability from the driver to me, the registered keeper. PoFA was introduced to allow parking operators to hold keepers liable when the driver is not known, but only if the operator follows the Act’s strict statutory requirements. In this case, ParkingEye’s non-compliance with several key PoFA requirements invalidates their claim to hold me, as the keeper, liable.

a) Failure to Include the Warning Required by PoFA 9(2)(f)

One of the most important conditions of PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f), is that the Notice to Keeper must warn the keeper that if, after 28 days, the driver has not been identified, the liability for the parking charge may be transferred to the keeper. This warning must be explicitly stated in the NtK.

Upon examining ParkingEye’s NtK, it is evident that this required warning is completely absent. The lack of this warning is a critical failure because PoFA only allows for keeper liability if all conditions are met, and this specific warning is essential for notifying the keeper of the potential transfer of liability. Without this warning, ParkingEye cannot lawfully hold the keeper liable under any circumstances.

The omission of this warning means that ParkingEye is not compliant with PoFA Schedule 4, and it is not enough for them to comply with other parts of the Act. PoFA requires full compliance for the transfer of liability to be valid. Partial or substantial compliance is not sufficient, as established in several POPLA decisions and persuasive appeals in the courts. Therefore, ParkingEye’s NtK is invalid for the purposes of transferring liability to me as the registered keeper.

b) Failure to Specify the Relevant Land (PoFA 9(2)(a))

PoFA 9(2)(a) requires the Notice to Keeper to specify the “relevant land” where the vehicle was parked. This is not just a minor technicality—identifying the precise location of the alleged parking event is fundamental to the validity of the NtK, as it ensures the registered keeper is fully informed of where the alleged contravention took place.

In this case, the NtK only states “Lidl Sutton Coldfield” as the location of the alleged contravention. However, there are two separate Lidl stores in Sutton Coldfield:

• Lidl, 55 Mere Green Rd, Sutton Coldfield B75 5BN

• Lidl, 33 Kings Rd, Sutton Coldfield B73 5AB

This ambiguity fails to meet PoFA’s requirement to specify the relevant land. By not identifying which Lidl store is involved, the NtK leaves me, the registered keeper, in doubt about where the vehicle was allegedly parked. The distinction between these two locations is significant, as they are separate sites with different parking layouts, terms, and conditions.

The requirement in PoFA to specify the relevant land exists to avoid precisely this kind of confusion. An operator cannot reasonably expect a keeper to understand or respond to an NtK that does not even properly identify where the alleged breach occurred. As a result, ParkingEye’s failure to specify the relevant land is a clear breach of PoFA 9(2)(a), and this alone invalidates their ability to hold me liable as the keeper.

This was pointed out to the operator in the original appeal but was completely ignored in their response. I cannot be held liable as the keeper because the Notice to Keeper (NtK) failed to comply fully with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

And here is the POPLA assessment:

POPLA assessment and decision

09/01/2025

POPLA Verification Code: 6062824162

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Heidi Brown

Assessor summary of operator case:

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the motorist remained in the car park for longer than the stay authorised.

Assessor summary of your case:

- The appellant states the Notice to Keeper fails to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. - The appellant states there are two Lidl stores in Sutton Coldfield and the Notice to Keeper does not specify which store is the location where the contravention took place.

- The appellant states this breaches the requirements of PoFA.

- The appellant states the signage on site does not meet the requirements set by the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and it does not give adequate notice of the charge.

- The appellant states there is no evidence of landowner authorisation on site. Upon reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated and expanded on their grounds. The appellant provided a copy of the PCN and images of the signage on site as well as images of signage from a different location.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below:

When assessing an appeal, the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. -

The appellant states there are two Lidl stores in Sutton Cold!eld and the Notice to Keeper does not specify which store is the location where the contravention took place. The appellant states this breaches the requirements of PoFA.

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. PoFA also states ‘The notice must— (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;’.

In this case, the appellant has confirmed there are multiple Lidl stores within the local area which they listed and the Notice to Keeper does not specify the specific store where the charge was issued. The parking operator has not commented on this nor has it rebutted the appellant’s comment.

Due to this, I do not believe the Notice to Keeper sufficiently specifies the relevant land in accordance with PoFA. If there are multiple stores in the area, the operator should be providing the street address so the registered keeper can identify the location of the breach.

As such, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised grounds of appeal and evidence, however I have not considered these, as they do not have any bearing on my decision.

Coupon-mad

Nice one!

Worth copying for other newbies and not just re Lidl Sutton Coldfield.  This is a fairly common error on NTKs relating to large towns or cities.

LDast

I've had two previous successes with these PE NtKs where they do not put a full address. One was for a Lidl in St Albans where there are two stores and another for one in Liverpool where there are quite a few.

1122abc

Coupon-mad said:

Everyone with a Horizon case should use the same argument. Thanks for being the guinea pig! We knew the argument was right, but POPLA assessors are not always that bright!

FYI for others reading, I sent my appeal on 17/12/24 with the same argument and Horizon rejected my appeal on 18/12/24. I even referenced the POPLA decision on 17/12/24. I have updated my thread.

Coupon-mad

1122abc said:

Coupon-mad said:

Everyone with a Horizon case should use the same argument. Thanks for being the guinea pig! We knew the argument was right, but POPLA assessors are not always that bright!

FYI for others reading, I sent my appeal on 17/12/24 with the same argument and Horizon rejected my appeal on 18/12/24. I even referenced the POPLA decision on 17/12/24. I have updated my thread.

Yep but nobody expects it to work at first stage.

1122abc

sdg213 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Everyone with a Horizon case should use the same argument. Thanks for being the guinea pig! We knew the argument was right, but POPLA assessors are not always that bright!

Would sharing excerpts from my appeal help for a template?

Hello, I would be grateful if you could please share the excerpts? Thank you

Coupon-mad said:

Coupon-mad said:

Yep but nobody expects it to work at first stage.

Yes you are right, I don't know why I thought it would work. Thank you for your reply

hirersezn

PPC: NCP
Location: Stratford International
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6545191/ncp-threatening-prosecution-is-this-new/

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Michael Pirks

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the penalty notice (PN) due to parking without a valid ticket.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal in extensive detail: • The parking operator has failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant. • The parking operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. • There is no evidence of Landowner Authority. • There is insufficient and unclear signage in the area where the vehicle was parked. In their comments to the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on their grounds in extensive detail. The appellant has provided the following evidence to support their appeal: • A word document explaining the grounds of appeal in further detail.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I find in favour of this appeal. I will explain my reasoning below. By issuing the appellant with a Penalty Notice, the parking operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the rules and regulations of the site in question. It is the duty of the parking operator to provide evidence to POPLA of what parking rules are at at the site and that the motorist is liable for the PN. Appendix G of the Railway Byelaws code of practice states that parking operators must follow certain rules including issuing a PCN to be received within the required timescale. Section 4.4 states that it is presumed that a penalty notice is sent by post, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. The required timescale for a PN to be issued is within 14 days of the date of contravention. In this case, the parking operator has issued the PCN on 19 July 2024, when it should have been issued on 8 July 2024 to be received by 11 July 2024, as the date of breach was 27 June 2024. As such, the PN was not issued until after the 14-day timeframe and therefore, the parking operator has failed to transfer the liability. I have not considered any other grounds for appeal, as they do not have any bearing on my decision. I must allow the appeal.

Le_Kirk

Well done on your successful outcome. Why did the POPLA assessor keep jumping between PN & PCN?

AstraDisaster

Hi all, just wanted to post my successful POPLA decision against Initial Parking Ltd and say thank you for all the help I've gathered from the forum.

The vehicle is a company car and Initial Parking did not provide any of the required documents under Schedule 4 of POFA (Para 13.2).

Decision: Successful

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to unpaid tariff time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • Initial Parking failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

• No evidence that the appellant is the individual liable – there is no driver liability 

• BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance of photo evidence 

• No evidence of period parked 

• No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice The appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal in the motorist comments.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I find in favour of the appellant and allow this appeal, below I will explain my reasoning. When assessing an appeal, the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. The appellant has confirmed that they are the hirer of the vehicle. The driver has not been identified. 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. POFA allows the hirer of a vehicle to be held liable for PCN providing that the requirements of POFA have been met. Paragraph 13.2 states: “The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.” I have reviewed the evidence pack provided by the parking operator and cannot see any evidence of the documents required under POFA. As these have not been provided, POFA has failed and the appellant, as the hirer cannot be held liable. Therefore, I am allowing 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.

LDast

Le_Kirk said:

Well done on your successful outcome. Why did the POPLA assessor keep jumping between PN & PCN?

Because they are conflating civil law and statutory law. Whilst a positive outcome for the appellant, it still means that POPLA are adjudicating on matters beyond their remit. A PN issued by NCP for an alleged breach of railway byelaws is only a fake PN and is issued unlawfully because it is an extortionate attempt to recover an alleged statutory penalty and have it paid into their own bank account and not the public purse. ie. They are attempting to profit from a criminal matter.

The practice of unregulated private parking companies such as APCOA, SABA, and NCP issuing Penalty Notices under Railway Byelaws 14 is fundamentally unlawful. These notices are not real penalties but are disguised demands for payment (civil offered contracts) enforced through misleading threats of prosecution. The retention of payments by private operators further undermines the legitimacy of these notices, violating both the statutory framework of Byelaws 14 and consumer protection laws.