C.U.P enforment pcn

sandbags89

okay, here is my draft for those who have the time to scan over it.

Used some bits from other appeals I found and added some other bits found whilst reading POFA (2012). That actually made this a bit more easy to understand, especially points raised previously in this post by others.

Newbies post said to make it long winded so I have done that also as you can see, but overall I think most points relate to my appeal:

Appeal re POPLA Code: [XXX] v CUP Enforcement

Vehicle Registration: [XXX]

POPLA ref: [XXX]

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 31st July 2025 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the operator – CUP Enforcement – was

submitted and acknowledged on 11th August 2025 but subsequently rejected by a letter dated 19th August 2025. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1) The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5) (exceeded 14 days, received day 16).

2) CUP enforcement lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass.

3) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver.

4) Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to the use of ANPR.

5). The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for.

6) No Planning Permission from Broxbourne Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage.

1) The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5) 

Firstly, according to POFA 2012 Sub-paragraph 9 (2) "the Notice to keeper must specify the relevant land to which the notice relates". CUP Enforcement's notice to keeper does not comply with this. Instead it  appears to display contradicting information, a high street address supposedly located in London but with a Hertfordshire postcode. The land is not identidied clearly and definitely as it should.

Crucially, The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was delivered outside of the relevant period specified under sub-paragraph 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

"The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) 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."

According to the PCN, the alleged 'contravention date' was on the 19th July 2025 and the 'notice date' was 31st July 2025. Therefore, according to POFA 2012, the notice to keeper was deemed delivered and also received on 4th August 2025 (due to being sent out over the weekend), making it 16 days after the alleged contravention. 

This clearly exceeds the 14 day deadline, which does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) and consequently means that the registered keeper cannot legally be held liable. For this reason the Notice to keeper is not valid and should be cancelled. 

2) CUP enforcement lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing

It is suggested that CUP enforcement does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that CUP enforcement be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

3) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and were not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces to form any contract with a driver

19:1 “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you….In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start.

Baring this paragraph in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and CUP enforcement. To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated. Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer. 

Upon further research it is apparent that signage is poorly located in relation to where the vehicle was parked and could have easily been missed. BPA 19:9 also states that for disabled motorists "there must be at least one sign containing terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle". I will add that there is a disabled badge holder registered to this vehicle. A driver cannot be in breach of a contract they have not seen and are unaware of.

In addition the BPA Code of Practice 19:6 states that telephone numbers provided on signage "must not be charged above basic rate". However, the 0844 number provided incurs a service charge. This does not comply with BPA code of practice and shows an example of poor ethics, charging higher rates attempting to profit off members of the public who wish to acquire more information or challenge the parking restrictions. 

4) Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach

BPA’s Code of Practice (21.4) states that:

“It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or

registered keeper data, you must:

⦁ be registered with the Information Commissioner

⦁ keep to the Data Protection Act

⦁ follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data

⦁ follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks

The guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office that the BPA’s Code of

Practice (21.4) refers to is the CCTV Code of Practice found at:

https://ico.org.uk/media/for- organisations/documents/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf

The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice makes the following assertions:

“This code also covers the use of camera related surveillance equipment

including:

⦁ Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR);” “the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations under the DPA. Any organization using cameras to process personal data should follow the recommendations of this code.”

“If you are already using a surveillance system, you should regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.” 

“You should also take into account the nature of the problem you are seeking to address; whether a surveillance system would be a justified and an effective solution, whether better solutions exist, what effect its use may have on individuals”

“You should consider these matters objectively as part of an assessment of the scheme’s impact on people’s privacy. The best way to do this is to conduct a privacy impact assessment. The ICO has produced a ‘Conducting privacy impact assessments code of practice’ that explains how to carry out a proper

assessment.”

“If you are using or intend to use an ANPR system, it is important that you undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary.”

“Example: A car park operator is looking at whether to use ANPR to enforce parking restrictions. A privacy impact assessment is undertaken which identifies how ANPR will address the problem, the privacy intrusions and the ways to minimize these intrusions, such as information being automatically deleted when

a car that has not contravened the restrictions leaves a car park.”

“Note:

... in conducting a privacy impact assessment and an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, you will be looking at concepts that would also impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle. Private sector organisations should therefore also consider these issues.”

“A privacy impact assessment should look at the pressing need that the surveillance system is intended to address and whether its proposed use has a lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate.”

The quotations above taken directly from the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice state that if CUP Enforcement wish to use ANPR cameras then they must undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary. It also states that CUP Enforcement must regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.

It therefore follows that I require CUP Enforcement to provide proof of regular privacy impact assessments in order to comply with the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice and BPA’s Code of Practice. I also require the outcome of said privacy impact assessments to show that its use has “a lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate”.

The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice goes on to state:

“5.3 Staying in Control

Once you have followed the guidance in this code and set up the surveillance system, you need to ensure that it continues to comply with the DPA and the code’s requirements in practice. You should:

⦁ Tell people how they can make a subject access request, who it should be sent to and what information needs to be supplied with their request;”

“7.6 Privacy Notices

It is clear that these and similar devices present more difficult challenges in relation to providing individuals with fair processing information, which is a requirement under the first principle of the DPA. For example, it will be difficult to ensure that an individual is fully informed of this information if the surveillance system is airborne, on a person or, in the case of ANPR, not visible at ground level or more prevalent then it may first appear.

One of the main rights that a privacy notice helps deliver is an individual’s right of subject access.”

CUP Enforcement has not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the keepers right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, CUP Enforcement has not stated a Privacy Notice or any wording even suggesting the keepers right to a SAR on any paperwork, NtK, reminder letter or rejection letter despite there being a Data Protection heading on the back of the NtK. This is a mandatory requirement of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice (5.3 and 7.6) which in turn is mandatory within the BPA’s Code of Practice and a serious omission by any data processor using ANPR, such that it makes the use of this registered keeper’s data unlawful. 

As such, given the omissions and breaches of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice, and in turn the BPA’s Code of Practice that requires full ICO compliance as a matter of law, POPLA will not be able to find that the PCN was properly given.

5). The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for

The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.

Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

CUP Enforcement’s signs do not comply with these requirements because these car park signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law.

There is no information indicates that these camera images would be used in order to

issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices.

6) No Planning Permission from Broxbourne Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage

A search in Broxbourne Council’s planning database does not show any planning permission for the pole-mounted ANPR cameras, nor does it show any advertising consent for signage exceeding 0.3m2.

UK government guidance on advertisement requires:

“If a proposed advertisement does not fall into one of the Classes in Schedule 1 or Schedule 3 to the Regulations, consent must be applied for and obtained from the local planning authority (referred to as express consent in the Regulations). Express consent is also required to display an advertisement that does not comply with the specific conditions and limitations on the class that the advertisement would otherwise have consent under. It is criminal offence to display an advertisement without consent.”

This suggests CUP Enforcement is/has been seeking to enforce Terms & Conditions displayed on illegally erected signage, using equipment (pole-mounted ANPR cameras) for which no planning application had been made. I request that CUP Enforcement provides evidence that the correct Planning Applications were submitted (and approved) in relation to the pole-mounted ANPR cameras and that Advertising Consent was gained for signage exceeding 0.3 m2, prior to the date to which this appeal relates (19 July 2025).

odd question, do I need to end it a certain way, yours sincerely etc? I notice other appeals just end. Will I need to provide any name or details at the bottom, or will this be filled in somewhere else on the POPLA site.

thanks in advance

1505grandad

Just checking  -  does the following para really apply to your case?:-

"Upon further research it is apparent that signage is poorly located in relation to where the vehicle was parked and could have easily been missed. BPA 19:9 also states that for disabled motorists "there must be at least one sign containing terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle". I will add that there is a disabled badge holder registered to this vehicle. A driver cannot be in breach of a contract they have not seen and are unaware of."

sandbags89

1505grandad said:

Just checking  -  does the following para really apply to your case?:-

"Upon further research it is apparent that signage is poorly located in relation to where the vehicle was parked and could have easily been missed. BPA 19:9 also states that for disabled motorists "there must be at least one sign containing terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle". I will add that there is a disabled badge holder registered to this vehicle. A driver cannot be in breach of a contract they have not seen and are unaware of."

Realistically, no. Technically, from the parking space where the vehicle was, a sign wasn't visible, you'd have to get out the vehicle and check the signage behind (although from their own evidence you can't actually confirm where the signage is. Can't make it out from the photos and the close up shot doesn't show it's location) And there is a disabled person registered to this vehicle. However, I agree it's a stretch at best.
Left it in to aid with the long-winded approach, but maybe you think it's better to remove incase it has a negative effect?

Coupon-mad

Leave it in and submit it.

sandbags89

Submitted. Now we wait 🤞

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

Coupon-mad said:

sandbags89 said:

Sorry just wanted to clarify the steps as not gone past the first step before, from what I recall I've always managed to get the landowner to cancel, or years back I use to ignore some.

So to confirm I should send the template with the added line about landowner authority. I assume this will get rejected. I will then get a popla code and send another template to them... Do I expect to get this rejected also? And then what, hope it gets dismissed before any court dates?

To explain in bit more detail, my vehicle was parked off the road in a space on the pavement belonging to a retail shop. Out of business hours so shop is closed. Driver didn't notice the sign. Ironically driver has parked there numerous times (first time being ticketed, cameras must be fairly new) due to the advice of a traffic warden Needed to stop briefly to pop into a shop, warden turned up and advised to park in one of those spaces as they have no authority to ticket there. Anyway..

You will win at POPLA if you spell out that the date the NTK was deemed delivered was 4th August which is too late for keeper liability.

You could also add that point (now) to the appeal to CUP and remove this stuff, which isn't relevant to you:

"If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner."

Make sure you DO NOT add any words that imply who parked. Appeal as keeper.

YOU WILL WIN AT POPLA.

Thanks for the breakdown 👍🏼

If the notice date says 31 July, how do I prove it was received at a later date. Just my word against theres no?

No.

Did you miss the word 'deemed'?

sandbags89 said:

Submitted. Now we wait 🤞

You'll win, as I said. 

But now is not a time for someone with a rogue PCN from a firm that used covert (illegal/excessive) secret camera surveillance and who has lied to you about keeper liability, to just sit & wait.

Please please do this on or before 5th September - end of next week :  the government's Public Consultation.

Their proposals are wrong and in some parts,  anti-consumer. We must stop them.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline.

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious and you haven't even resolved your case yet, we get that. It doesn't matter - no knowledge is needed - you can call out a scam industry with our help, with little preparation needed and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law.

I've written some guidance on that thread, to help people quickly nip through questions, if you agree with my position.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please!