Back once again with a renegade parking ticket

cooldude255220

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81910074#Comment_81910074

Who is they? Is that the PPC's comments or the adjucator's decision?

Paragraph 9(4)(b) of Schedule 4 of POFA states:

The notice must be given by … 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.

Paragraph 9(5) states:

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.

Paragraph 9(6) states:

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.

With an alleged incident date of 28th October 2025, the Notice must have given on or before 11th October 2025. (Not, like you point out, merely "issued").

The Notice is deemed to have been given on 6th October 2026. However, this deeming provision only operates unless the contrary is proved. Therefore, if there is proof of it arriving on 15th November 2025, then this overrules the deemed delivery and should have been enough to make the Notice not compliant with POFA.

As an aside, how are you able to prove that the letter that was delivered on the Ring footage is the Notice to Keeper? Is the envelope fairly distinctive, for example?

Edit: I've seen above the comments about the distinctiveness of the envelope.

Which PPC is this?

34LH89

Sorry, that's the POPLA appeal adjudicator.

She quotes the regulation as saying the letter must be sent within 14 days, not received within 14 days, of which there is a clear distinction.

She says the PPC can't be held accountable for when Royal Mail deliver it, which is fair enough, unless they have posted it late which I suspect they have.

cooldude255220

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81910292#Comment_81910292

Yeah she's wrong. It's unfortunate for them but it needs to be delivered (whether actually, or presumptively and with no rebuttable) - not merely sent - within 14 days.

34LH89

I thought that was the case. There's no reopening it though I take it?

cooldude255220

Unfortunately there's no mechanism to get them to reconsider it.

Out of interest, what wording did you use for the appeal?

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81910487#Comment_81910487

You should certainly complain by email to POPLA and point out that this Assessor got the law wrong and she didn't consider your Ring Doorbell evidence of the date the NTK was served. Worse, she wrongly says that the operator can't be held accountable for when Royal Mail deliver it but this is legally wrong and wholly incorrect when determining the date a NTK was actually served, which is what Schedule 4 mandates.

POPLA says that it is an evidence-based service. POPLA cannot ignore evidence from either side in the dispute. There was video evidence of the NTK being delivered outside of the 14 day period and the operator failed to rebut that point. They cannot just say that isn't their problem; they had to fight evidence with evidence. They could have supplied a Unity5 certificate of posting but they did not, so the Appellant's evidence of the date of service prevailed. The Assessor ignored that and needs retraining on POFA which she clearly doesn't understand.

Coupon-mad

Obviously you won't be paying.

Please add the full decision into the top thread called 'POPLA Decisions' with a link to this thread and state which PPC.

Which PPC is this?

34LH89

I will do.

It was Euro Car Parks.

I've been to the court claim stage several times with others, and they have always backed down, so I'm certainly not going to pay this one.

34LH89

Thank you for your webform received 8 March 2026, outlining the reasons why you are unhappy with the decision that has been reached by the assessor in your appeal. This was passed to me by the POPLA team as I am responsible for investigating complaints.

It is worth pointing out that before submitting an appeal, our website informs appellants that POPLA is a one-stage appeal service, and we cannot reconsider your appeal if you disagree with our decision.

The crux of your complaint is that you are unhappy with the outcome reached in the assessment of your appeal.

You state the assessor has misunderstood the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 and unfairly rejected your appeal.

You explain the assessor has stated Euro Car Parks has to send the Notice to Keeper within 14 days which is not true as the rules state the notice must arrive within 14 days which you quoted in your appeal.

You advise this is a key distinction as in your case, the Notice to Keeper arrived a day late making it impossible to the operator to apply liability as it is unable to confirm who the driver is.

Paragraph 9 of POFA confirms that the relevant period for the purpose of sub paragraph (4) is 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

POFA states further a notice sent by post is presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it was posted:

I note the assessor has confirmed in the decision that the Notice to Keeper was issued on 4 November 2025, seven days after the parking event on 28 October 2025. Therefore, it was sent within the statutory time frames stated within POFA.

This means the notice was presumed to have been delivered by 7 November 2025.

As such, the operator has met the strict requirements of POFA in transferring the charge to you as the registered keeper.

It should be noted that there is no requirement for an operator to provide proof of postage or send a Notice to Keeper by recorded delivery.

I acknowledge you provided two images in your appeal, a photograph of the Notice to Keeper and an image from a door cam showing a post man.

While the image of the Notice to Keeper has a date stamp of 12 November 2025, this image only confirms that an image of the notice was taken on this date.

Therefore, on reviewing these images, I am not satisfied that these proof the Notice to Keeper did not arrive within the relevant time frame.

On reviewing the door cam image, while this shows eh post man has an envelope, I am unable to determine from this image if this is the Notice to Keeper.

You state the assessor has also advised Euro Car Parks cannot be held accountable to the Royal Mail but surely this means you cannot be held to the operator either.

Once the operator issues the Notice to Keeper via the post, it has no control over any delays caused by a third-party postal service.

Having reviewed both the appeal and your complaint, I am satisfied the decision reached is appropriate based on the evidence presented. Had I considered this appeal, I would have reached the same outcome.

I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not been positive. However, POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has now ended and this response concludes our complaints process. It will not be appropriate for us to correspond further on this matter and all further correspondence will be noted on your case but not responded to.

You are of course, free to pursue this matter further, through other means, such as the Courts. For independent legal advice, please contact Citizens Advice at: www.citizensadvice.org.uk or call 0345 404 05 06 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh).

Yours sincerely

34LH89

@Coupon-mad