Total Parking Solutions PCN Appeal Rejected at Popla. Confused about NTK

FollyT

We have just received an "unsuccessful" Popla appeal decision with the verification code 8412665011.

I will also post the Popla decision in the appropriate thread.

We used the Newbies thread and other posts in this forum to help draft our appeal, and had hoped that the fact that no postal NTK was ever received would help us win at Popla.

For future reference, it would help us, and possibly others, if you would look at this case and point out where we went wrong.

(We do not dispute the infringement, but there were a number of other vehicles parked on verges of this small self-contained car park area at the time of the driver's hospital appointment, which the hospital PALS did acknowledge but did not accept as mitigation)

The TPS PCN was affixed to the vehicle on 11.08.2025.

We appealed online to TPS on 04.09.2025. The appeal was made as the Keeper of the vehicle. 

This appeal was acknowledged by e-mail on 10.09.2025. TPS sent a reply rejecting the appeal in a pdf attached to an e-mail on 23.09.2025.

We appealed to Popla on 07.10.2025.

We submitted our comments on TPS's evidence to Popla within the seven day period specified as effective from 24.10.2025.

Our appeal was rejected on 08.12.2025.

We would really appreciate your feedback. Also, we do not intend to pay the fine at this stage.

Here is the relevant documentation:

FollyT

1. TPS APPEAL REJECTION, 23.09.2025:

From: 

Total Parking Solutions Ltd 

3 Kings Court, 

Kettering Venture Park, 

Kettering, NN15 6WJ W: www.totalparking.co.uk 

23/09/2025

Dear ,

Re: Parking Charge Number (Vehicle: )

POPLA Verification Code 8412665011

Site: Arrowe Park Hospital, Wirral

Issue date: 11/08/2025

Thank you for your correspondence, the contents of which have been noted.

Since your appeal appears to be a vague template and giving no mitigating reasons for the breach of terms and conditions, we are limited with what we are able to respond.

We duly enclose images of the vehicle and signage in situ. The reason for the Parking Charge is clearly explained in our correspondence dated 11.08.2025.

Please note, our signage at this location is ample and approved by the British Parking Association (BPA).

With regards to your requests for documents and information; other than a copy of the signage in situ we have no other obligation upon you. Any other relevant information will be made available to POPLA if so required.

Regarding the name of the creditor, this information is clearly printed on the notification.

Kindly note, the parking charge was issued POFA 2012 compliant and as such, where a driver is not named, the keeper may be held liable.

The Terms and Conditions of parking at this location are clearly displayed at the entrance and throughout the car park. It is the vehicle driver responsibility to ensure that when parking on private property they do so in accordance with the Terms and Conditions in force at the particular location. The vehicle in question was observed by our Parking Attendant for: The vehicle was parked on yellow lines or hatched area, which was in contravention of the car parks Terms and Conditions of use.

Unfortunately, after careful consideration your representation has been declined. It follows therefore, that the Parking Charge was correctly issued and the discounted amount of £40.00 remains outstanding.

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. Please choose one of the following options;

1. In your first correspondence you have declared that you were not the driver at the time of the parking event. If you were not the driver, please provide us with the driver’s full name and serviceable address within 28 days beginning with the day after this correspondence.

Should we not be notified of the full name and serviceable address for service to the driver, under schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the Act’) we do have the right, subject to meeting the requirements of the act, to recover from the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time it was parked, so much of that amount that remains unpaid.

Further detail of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 can be found here 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

Or

2. Pay the Parking Charge within 14 days at the prevailing price of £40.00 by 07/10/2025.

Please note after this date, the full charge will be due at £70.00 and must be paid by 21/10/2025. Payment can be made online by visiting www.totalparking.co.uk/payment or via our 24 hour telephone line 01536 680107. Payment can also be made by post to TPS UK, PO Box 7135, Kettering, NN16 6BP.

Or

3. Make an appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA) within 28 days (by the 21/10/2025) by visiting www.popla.co.uk and use the following verification Code 8412665011 to submit your appeal.

Please be advised that if you choose to have independent arbitration of your case, and your appeal is declined, then the Parking Charge will be due at the full amount of £70.00.

If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the amount due via our debt recovery process, where additional costs may be incurred.

By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal.

However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, details on how to are explained above.

Yours sincerely,

Parking Control Department

FollyT

2. APPEAL TO POPLA, 07.10.2025

Parking Charge Number: 
Vehicle Registration Number: 
Issue date: 11/08/2025
POPLA Verification Code 8412665011

I am the registered keeper of vehicle  and am appealing a parking charge from Total Parking Solutions on the following grounds:

1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served – no Keeper Liability can apply.

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact thedriver who was liable for the charge

3. No evidence of Landowner Authority – the operator is put to strict proof of full
compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear, or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served – no Keeper Liability can apply.

This operator has not fulfilled the ‘second condition’ for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion in this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

‘’Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:

4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

(a) The conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as
applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:

6(1) ‘The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor) – (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a
notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8.

This is re-iterated in 6(2) ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance
with paragraph 8.

The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after
that on which any notice to driver was given.

Furthermore, POFA paragraph 8 (4) states ‘The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

My appeal, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, to Total Parking Solutions against the PCN issued on 11/08/2025, was rejected by them in a pdf file dated 23/09/2025, which
they sent to me by email only on 23/09/2025.

At no time have I received any postal correspondence whatsoever from Total Parking Solutions. No NTK has been delivered.

As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA ‘keeper liability’ to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. Where there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported ‘NTK’ was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a
keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally
liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the then POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in
2015:
Understanding keeper liability
‘There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges
from the keeper of the vehicle.
There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for
example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver.
[...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not
generally pass.’

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the
POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
‘’I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After
considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.’

3. No evidence of Landowner Authority – the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they  produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any ‘site agreement’ or ‘User Manual’ setting out details – such as any 
‘genuine customer’ or ‘genuine resident’ exemptions or any site occupier’s ‘right of veto’  charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the  boundary of the site – is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.
It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to 
make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a 
matter for a landowner only).
Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party agreement.
Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set 
out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only 
restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, 
and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

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 define
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


4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it
requires that the driver is given ‘adequate notice’ of the charge. POFA 2012 defines ‘adequate notice’ as follows:
‘’(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) ‘adequate notice’ means notice given by: (a)
the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land’’.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be areasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and
POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site – given the minuscule font size of the £70, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance – is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.
There was no contract nor agreement on the ‘parking charge’ at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar ‘ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis’ case.
In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually
clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:
http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN
In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were ‘large lettering’ signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the
Judges.
Here is the ‘Beavis case’ sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-
eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the ‘large lettering’ and ‘prominent signage’ that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and
‘agreement on the charge’ existed.
It is vital to observe, since ‘adequate notice of the parking charge’ is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs).

Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed – i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering – at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.
This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:
‘’the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The
appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have
allowed the appeal.’’
From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.
The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:
http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm
As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed
here:
http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.asp
‘’When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2’ letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3’ or even larger.’’
...and the same chart is reproduced here:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-
/10000000175068392/g.html
‘’When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall’’.
‘’...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max
viewing distance.’’ So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the ‘charge’ and placed
high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.
Under Lord Denning’s Red Hand Rule, the charge (being ‘out of all proportion’ with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should
have been effectively: ‘in red letters with a red hand pointing to it’ – i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in
‘Beavis’. A reasonable interpretation of the ‘red hand rule’ and the ‘signage visibility distance’ tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more
transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more ‘white space’ as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is
a ‘Requirement for transparency’:
(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.
The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact ‘Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA.
Civ 106’ about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.
This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument,
not the operator’s case:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html
This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to – and cannot have ‘breached’ – an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact
that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as ‘private land’ and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have
been seen and read from a driver’s seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver’s perspective. Equally, I require this
operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver’s seat, not stock examples of ‘the sign’ in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere ‘stock examples’ of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

Registered keeper of the vehicle
07/10/202

FollyT

3. TPS'S EVIDENCE TO POPLA, 24.10.2025

Operator Case Summary

POPLA VERIFICATION CODE: 8412665011 PARKING CHARGE NUMBER:  The vehicle was parked on yellow lines or hatched area The Terms and Conditions of parking at this location are clearly displayed at the entrance and throughout the site. The onus is with the driver to ensure that when parking on private property they do so in accordance with the Terms and Conditions. The vehicle was logged by patrol officer as the vehicle was parked on the yellow lines or hatched area which breaches the Terms and Conditions of this site. The signage at this location clearly states, “No parking on yellow lines, white lines, hatched areas or approaches to crossing and junctions/access”. The appellant was captured by our attendant as parking on yellow lines or hatched area at this location. Please see patrol officer captured vehicle images enclosed. Kindly be advised the signage within this car park is ample and approved by the BPA. The signage noticeboards displaying the terms and conditions of this car park are 600mm x 800mm. The BPA Code of Practice, section 19.3, requires signage notice boards to be at least 450mm x 450mm. As such, we are satisfied the signage notice boards comply with the current BPA Code of Practice section 19. The appellant raises concerns regarding the parking charge amounts not being displayed on the signage within this car park. As per the copies in evidence, all signage noticeboards have the parking charge amounts stipulated so all users of this car park are notified and can make an informed decision. The highest court in the UK, the Supreme Court, has unambiguously confirmed that parking charges issued on private land are fully enforceable. In the case of Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 their Lordships stated that private parking charges were enforceable because they served a legitimate interest and were in the interests of the public generally. The case confirmed that the amount of the charge does not have to reflect any loss that might have been caused by breach of the Terms and Conditions of parking. The Supreme Court decision is binding law on all other courts throughout the UK. The appellant contends that Total Parking Solutions have failed to bring the amount of the parking charge to the adequate attention of the driver. We believe that the primary function of the signs in our car parks is to advise all motorists of the Terms and Conditions of parking. This is in keeping with Section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice. Given that over 99% of the visitors that use the parking facilities at our locations, do not receive a parking charge means that this objective is fulfilled. Secondary to this, is the requirement to point out the implications to the less than 1% who fail to comply. We believe that this is best achieved by placing the amount of the Parking Charge after the standard Terms and Conditions and contend that this is fully in keeping with the findings of the ParkingEye v Beavis case which stated that the amount of the parking charge should be adequately brought to the attention of the motorist. We believe, that for example, to point out the implications first and then outline the Terms and Conditions would not make logical sense and could be considered as confusing to motorists. We contend that this is a sensible and reasonable progression through the sign that any visitor to the location would be able to follow, and therefore we contend that the amount of the parking charge has been more than adequately brought to the attention of the motorist. The current signage displayed within this car park meets the requirements of PoFa 2012, the BPA Code of Practice and the ParkingEye v Beavis case as adequate notice is provided. The onus is on the driver of the vehicle to ensure that when parking on private land, they do so in accordance with the full Terms and Conditions stipulated on the signage notice boards, ensuring every section is thoroughly read so an informed decision can be made in relation to the contract being formed between the driver and the Car Parking Operator. Please see in evidence the signage map and copies of the signage notice boards displayed within this car park for ease of reference. The parking charge for this case was affixed to the vehicle on the date of the parking event and was available to the driver of the vehicle upon return to their vehicle. The appeal for this parking charge was submitted before the parking charge could be sent to the DVLA to request keeper details, therefore all details provided, including the keeper’s name and address, were provide by the appellant on the 04-09-2025. The appellant has identified themselves at the keeper of the vehicle in question in their appeal submitted on the 04-09-2025. The Protection of Freedoms Action 2012 (POFA) required the parking charge to be issued within 14 days of the contravention date. The parking charge was issued and affixed to the vehicle on the date of the contravention, therefore the parking charge is POFA 2012 compliant and where a driver is not named, the keeper may be held liable for the parking charge amount. Please see patrol officer taken photos 3, 4 and 5 which show the printed version of the PCN, and the parking charge affixed to the windscreen of the vehicle. Since the appellant has identified themselves as the keeper, and the keeper has not provided information on the driver, the keeper is responsible for the parking charge. The appellant questioned TPS’s authority to operate at the site. In line with POPLA requirements, we have provided a redacted, signed copy of the landowner authority to act confirming TPS’s authority to manage and enforce parking. The parking charge has been issued to this vehicle for “The vehicle was parked on yellow lines or hatched area”. The patrol officer at this location has taken multiple photographs of the vehicle parked on hatched lines and not within any parking bay on the date of the parking event. The vehicle was seen to have failed to comply with the terms and conditions at this location and as such, a parking charge was issued on the date of the contravention and affixed successfully to the vehicle. The keeper has identified themselves as the appellant and as the parking charge is POFA 2012 compliant, the keeper is accepting responsibility. TPS have also provided evidence that they have authority to act on behalf of the landowner. Therefore, we are satisfied that the parking charge has been issued correctly in this case.

FollyT

4. OUR COMMENTS SUBMITTED IN REBUTTAL OF TPS'S EVIDENCE TO POPLA, 26.10.2025

POPLA Verification Code 8412665011

Rebuttal of evidence submitted by TPS:

TPS have failed to address the principal ground of my appeal, namely that:

1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served – no Keeper Liability can apply.

At no point did TPS supply me with a Notice to Keeper as specified in paragraphs 4, 6 and 8 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. In their evidence, they do not claim to have done so. I respectfully submit that this appeal must therefore be allowed.

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.

In their evidence, TPS state that they have not identified the driver of the vehicle in question but claim that they are PoFA 2012 compliant in their attempt to transfer responsibility for the parking charge amount to me, the appellant, as its registered keeper. However, the failure by TPS to issue me with an NTK means that the operator has failed to meet a mandatory requirement of PoFA 2012. I respectfully submit, therefore, that TPS are not lawfully entitled to seek to enforce a parking charge against me, as keeper, and that this appeal should be allowed.

3. No evidence of Landowner Authority – the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

TPS have provided a Witness Statement instead of an unredacted copy of the full contract with the Landowner. Moreover, the surname of the signatory has been redacted and there is no indication of the basis on which the signatory is authorised to represent the Landowner. The statement is dated 2016. It does not reference the expiry date of any contract. Nor does it refer to this specific incident. By providing only this Witness Statement, instead of a full un-redacted copy of their current contract with the landowner, TPS have failed to provide sufficient evidence that they have the necessary authority required by the BPA Approved Operator Code of Practice and sector Single Code of Practice, Section 14, to allow them to pursue charges in their own name as creditor and to enter into contracts with drivers. 

4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear, or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

The PCN refers to an incident in Car Park B at Arrowe Park Hospital. The signage evidence provided by TPS in Signage Maps 2 and 4 does not correspond to the area covered by this particular self-contained car park. In Signage Map 3, Car park B is the car park situated immediately to the right of the building labelled Children's Outpatients, and is stamped with the words 'Arrowe Park Hospital.' There is no evidence of signage in Car Park B on Signage Map 3, in contrast to ample signage marked on other areas of the same map. In Signage Map 1, Car Park B has the words 'Arrowe Park Hospital' superimposed upon it. There is only one symbol indicating signage inside this self-contained area. Car Park B is entered by turning right off the road shown running parallel to the left-hand side of Signage Map 1 and taking a ticket from a machine at the barrier. TPS have provided generic evidence of signs elsewhere in the extensive grounds of the hospital. They have failed to provide a photograph of a sign situated at the entrance to Car Park B. In any event, the nearest sign containing terms and conditions is on the passenger side after the ticket machine and is set on a post above another sign showing the tariffs for the car park. This is above the line of vision of drivers entering the car park. Moreover, the wording regarding the car park charge of £70 is in a much smaller font than the other text on the sign, as can be seen in the stock signs, dated 2018, provided by TPS as evidence. TPS have not provided strict proof of the size of this wording on their signs. In the Beavis case referred to by TPS, the charge was in the largest font used. As set out in my appeal, in the light of the PoFA 2012 requirement that drivers must be given adequate notice of any parking charges, I maintain that, in seeking to enforce this PCN, TPS cannot rely on a supposed contract between themselves and a driver who is not given sufficiently clear information as to what the said contract entails. The evidence they have supplied here is not sufficient to prove otherwise.

FollyT

5. POPLA APPEAL UNSUCCESSFUL, 08.12.2025

POPLA assessment and decision
08/12/2025
Verication Code
8412665011

Decision Unsuccessful

Assessor Name Lyndsey Howgate

Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to being parked in a hatched
area.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below:

 •The appellant advises they are appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle and not the driver.

•The appellant advises a compliant notice to keeper was not served.

•The appellant advises the parking operator has not shown the individual who it is pursuing was the driver.

•The appellant advises no evidence of
landowner authority.

•The appellant advises the signs were not prominent, clear or legible.

The appellant has provided: •A copy of their grounds of appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the 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 registered keeper of the vehicle has raised the appeal; I will be referring to them as the appellant throughout my report.

The parking operator has provided a copy of the car park site map indicating where signage is located within the car park and time dated photographs of the signage within the car park which advises no parking on yellow lines, white lines, hatched lines or approaches to to crossing/junction access, pay on exit, tariffs available, payment methods available and failure to comply will result in a £70 PCN being issued. The parking operator has also supplied images obtained from the parking attendant showing the vehicle parked within a hatched area.

The appellant advises they are appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle and not the driver. The appellant advises a compliant notice to keeper was not served. The appellant advises the parking operator has not shown the individual who it is pursuing was the driver. The government created the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to allow a parking operator to hold the keeper of a vehicle liable for a PCN if it does not know who the driver is. It also gives the keeper of a vehicle the chance to name the driver if they do not want to be held liable for the PCN. A keeper of a vehicle is a person who is registered with the DVLA as owning the vehicle. I note in this instance, the PCN was affixed to the vehicle on the day it was issued. The parking operator advises that the appellant made contact prior to details being obtained from the DVLA confirming that they were the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am satisfied that the PCN was affixed to the vehicle and as no driver details were supplied, the parking operator has acted in accordance with the requirements of PoFA 2012 regarding requesting payment of the PCN from the keeper of the vehicle.

The appellant advises no evidence of landowner authority. On many car parks, a parking operator acts on behalf of a landowner. I have reviewed a copy of a witness statement dated 11 March 2016, which confirms that the parking operator does have authority to manage the car park, which would include collecting payment for any breaches of terms and conditions of use of the private land. The appellant had not provided any evidence to suggest that the parking operator does not have the landowner’s authority to manage the land and therefore I must be satisfied that the parking operator does have the authority to issue PCN’s to motorist who breach any terms and conditions of use of private land/car park.

The appellant advises the signs were
not prominent, clear or legible. Due to the appellants grounds of appeal, I have reviewed this sectors
Code of Practice which was jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the
International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code
of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice
(The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 3.1.1 of The Code
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. Section 3.1.3 of The Code 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. I have reviewed the car park site map indicating where signage is located and photographs of signage within the area provided by the parking operator and I am satisfied that there is ample, clear signage throughout to advise all motorist of the terms and conditions of use of the private land. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, due to being parked in a hatched area, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused

Coupon-mad

You didn't go wrong. The Assessor did!

"The parking operator advises that the appellant made contact prior to details being
obtained from the DVLA conrming that they were the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am satised that the PCN was axed to the vehicle and as no driver details were supplied, the parking operator has acted in accordance with the requirements of PoFA 2012 regarding requesting payment of the PCN from the keeper of the vehicle."

Email a complaint to POPLA stating that this new Assessor needs retraining because, for keeper liability to apply, there has to be:

- data obtained from the DVLA and not from any other source

- a compliant NTK had to follow a windscreen PCN REGARDLESS of an appeal in between. They have clearly not complied with para 8 of Schedule 4 and the Assessor failed to even look at whether a NTK was served by post.

Car1980

Yes. Also bear in mind that Popla is a pseudo-appeals service where the appellant has to make their case. In county court the claimant has to make their case, not the other side.

That's why it is assumed they have landowner authority and they say you have to prove otherwise (not sure how you'd be able to do that).

In a court claim the opposite would apply. They would obliged to produce it.

It's not even that an appeals service is necessarily back to front - it's just that Popla is terrrible and the IAS is even worse. At the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, for example, councils are obliged to submit a Traffic Regulation Order. You certainly don't have to prove that none exists.

Notice the signage ruling as well. Usual templated words because signs are signed off by the paymasters, so they must be kosher by the very fact they exist. Imagine if Popla started finding that signage wasn't up to scratch. That would be a lot of car parks that needed new signs and a lot of money lost by the parking companies. There would soon be an exodus to the opposing IPC trade body!

FollyT

Thank you for the helpful comments. I will e-mail a complaint to Popla, as suggested.