I am currently developing the Resources and Advice section of the Gullible Tree website. This section is designed to provide structured explanations of the legal framework and processes involved in dealing with parking charges issued by private parking operators.

Although still under development, the section is being updated regularly with new articles and reference material. A number of practical tools are already available, including deadline calculators to assist with assessing whether a notice was served in time under PoFA and a calculator for determining defence deadlines where a County Court claim has been issued.

If you would like to explore the material, please visit gullibletree.com and select “Resources/Articles” from the main menu.

@b789 got this from previous post, sorry didn't know about the forum

If you could please advise

https://ibb.co/KpRVFDK9
https://ibb.co/TDYN3PFY
https://ibb.co/WNjnC3gC
https://ibb.co/r2wP7wKx
https://ibb.co/bj7pFKDC
https://ibb.co/8DCv8bjb
https://ibb.co/pm541BB
https://ibb.co/vGLVGzD
https://ibb.co/8Sb31qH

(02-10-2026, 07:36 PM)badrav Wrote: @b789 got this from previous post, sorry didn't know about the forum

If you could please advise

https://ibb.co/KpRVFDK9
https://ibb.co/TDYN3PFY
https://ibb.co/WNjnC3gC
https://ibb.co/r2wP7wKx
https://ibb.co/bj7pFKDC
https://ibb.co/8DCv8bjb
https://ibb.co/pm541BB
https://ibb.co/vGLVGzD
https://ibb.co/8Sb31qH

Type of parking ticket: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) or Charge Notice (CN)

Hello all!

My daughter's Mum received a parking invoice for an overstay at McDonalds, 873 St Albans Road, Garston, Watford.

She received it on the 31st Jan, it was issued dated 15th Jan, but the alleged contravention date is 13th Jan.

I have offered to deal with it for her as she is under a fair bit of stress at the moment. 

Anyway, I noticed that time was running short to appeal it so just sent in a quick appeal on the MET website just to halt time running out and potential escalation. I did the appeal on the basis of poor signage, the appeal was rejected on 5th Feb as expected. 

We are now at the POPLA appeal stage, which is what I would be ever so grateful for help with. 

Initially the we noticed the poor signage, and the misleading fact that there is a soft play in the venue, suggesting long stays. The parking charge itself also arrived way out of the 14 day window. After buying more time with the initial appeal, the keeper looked into it a bit deeper and realised she had never stayed in the venue as long as the charge suggested, in her life. More importantly, on that day she had not in fact stayed at all, but the driver used the drive thru on two occasions. Once to buy dinner for her daughter after school before visiting a friend, then once again on the way home to buy something for herself. She appears to have been the victim of double-dipping ANPR cameras. The friend she visited can confirm in writing that she was with them between the times she is alleged to have been parked at McDonalds.

Please could someone help me word the POPLA appeal? There is still several weeks left til it needs to be in. This is link to the pictures of the illegible terms on the signage which I could not read even standing in front of. There is also a tiny sign at the entrance but a zebra crossing right there, and coming off a busy road it is extremely easy not to notice it. It has none of the terms on anyway and the only legible bit on it is where it says "90 minute stay", but even then as I said, you could easily miss it as your eyes are immediately drawn to the zebra crossing. 

Here is a link to the signs, and the NTK, but the main points are the fact that the letter arrived late and she wasn't even parked there during the alleged times. 

Many thanks! 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...sp=sharing

Hi,

This is a continuation thread from my original post on FTLA: https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tick...rk-london/

Just to recap: my initial appeal and POPLA failed. I then received a LoC letter from DCBLegal and replied with:

Quote:Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

As a firm of supposed solicitors, one would expect you to be capable of crafting a letter that aligns with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions do not exist for decoration—they exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You might wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), stipulate that prior to proceedings, parties should have exchanged sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 helpfully clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.

Your template letter mentions a “contract”, yet fails to provide one. This would appear to undermine the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It’s difficult to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue when your side declines to furnish the very document it purports to enforce.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that confirms any PoFA 2012 liability
2. A copy of the contract (or contracts) you allege exists between your client and the driver, in the form of an actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date, not a generic stock image
3. The exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract(s) which is (are) relied upon that you allege to have been breached
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner, establishing authority to enforce
5. A breakdown of the charges claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” fee includes VAT
6. The full name and role of the person with conduct of this matter and their regulatory status/authorisation to conduct litigation

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Yours faithfully,

Quote:1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4.

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);

(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.

5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:

Draft Order:

Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.

AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.

AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.

AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent case management).

ORDER:

1. The claim is struck out.

2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.

Type of parking ticket: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) or Charge Notice (CN)

Hi, I Got this from Horizon Parking.




[img]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/v5exx9r2osi7wiyzixx7m/Horizon5.jpeg?rlkey=w57nb0p4ghfxqoru3hriahjj5&st=bivzx1lm&raw=1[/img]









TTThis was my appeal to them

I am the registered keeper. I dispute your parking charge and I am not identifying the driver.

This PCN has been issued for the wrong area and your ANPR images do not prove where the vehicle was parked. The vehicle was parked in the Charles & Wensum House car park, which is clearly signed as permit holders only via the on-site directional signage. In that permit-holder area there are no Horizon contractual terms and no pay or registration instructions. The only sign present there is a legacy clamping warning, which is plainly not your ANPR pay/registration regime.

If the area is permit holders only, there is no contractual offer to non-permit holders and no driver could be contractually bound to pay a parking charge. At most, parking without a permit would be trespass, which only the landowner can pursue and only for nominal loss. You are not the landowner and there was no loss.

Cancel the charge, or provide the following strict proof so the keeper can understand your case.

1. A contemporaneous site plan and boundary map showing that Charles & Wensum House car park is within your enforcement area for this site.
2. A copy of the landowner contract confirming you are authorised to operate and enforce in that specific permit-holder area.
3. Photographs of the signage within Charles & Wensum House car park that you say created any obligation to pay or register, taken from the driver’s route and from the parked location.

If you reject, you must issue a POPLA code.

They rejected with 

Thank you for your recent correspondence concerning the above-referenced Parking Charge.
 
Review of your Appeal
 
The Parking Charge was issued lawfully and in full and proper accordance with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice issued by the British Parking Association (the ‘BPA’).
 
There are signs located at the entrance to, and within the car park, that state the terms and conditions that apply when parking. 
 
As clearly stipulated on signage within the car park, payment or registration for parking must be made for the full duration of the vehicles stay.  Our systems do not show any evidence of payment or registration made against this vehicle on the incident date.
 
The signs throughout the car park are clear and comply fully with the BPA’s prescribed rules and regulations.  When parking on private land, it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park concerned.
 
As we have not been provided with the name and a serviceable address for the driver/hirer, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we do have the right, subject to meeting the requirements of the Act, to recover from the Registered Keeper the amount that remains outstanding. We have obtained the name and address of the registered keeper of the vehicle from the DVLA for the purposes of enforcing this charge.
 
Please note that your vehicle was found to be parked in the designated Premier Inn area of the car park instead of the permit parking area which is situated before our camera capture zone. 
 
If parking cannot be made without breaching the terms and conditions of the car park, alternative parking arrangements must be sought or motorists will be issued with a Parking Charge as per the car park terms stated on the signage on site.
 
Given the above, and whilst we have considered your representations carefully, on this occasion your appeal has been rejected.
 
 
The Charge Amount and Methods of Payment
 
In good faith, Horizon will hold the charge at the current amount of £60 for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence to allow you further time to pay.
 
Payment of the outstanding charge can be made using our 24-hour payment line: 020 8106 0789 or online at Horizon Parking Portal 
 
Alternatively, payment can be made via cheque made payable to Horizon Parking Ltd and posted to Horizon Parking Ltd, Finitor House, 2 Hanbury Road, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 3AE.
 
Additional Types of Appeal
 
If you have no evidence that you wish to submit to us, then you have now reached the end of our appeals procedure.  Although we have rejected your appeal, the Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA) provides an independent appeals service. To use this service, you must appeal to POPLA within 28 days of the date of this correspondence.
 
For full instructions on how to appeal to POPLA, please visit their website at www.popla.co.uk. If you would rather progress this matter by post, please contact our Appeals Office and we will send you the necessary paperwork.
 
Your POPLA reference number is XXXXXXXXXX
 
Please be advised that if you elect for independent arbitration of your case, you will be required to pay the charge at the full amount and, as such, will no longer qualify for payment at the reduced rate. Please also be advised that POPLA will not accept an appeal where payment is made against the Parking Charge in question.
 
We are required by law 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, Horizon has not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service.  As such, should you wish to appeal, then you must do so to POPLA as explained above.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Appeals Department
Horizon Parking Limited

Hi,

I think you were helping me with an ongoing issue regarding ELITE CAR PARKING MANAGEMENT  LTD  where I had a CCJ without ever being notified of the original ticket or the County Court date and you advised me to submit an N244 application.

I received the following letter over the weekend and just checking if there's anything I should do or if its just a matter of waiting?

I'm happy to copy across the details from the other thread on the ftla.uk forum if that helps too.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/17Mu3nqs...sp=sharing

thanks

Jim

Type of parking ticket: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) or Charge Notice (CN)

The single most important rule if you receive a PCN from MET at Southgate Park (the McDonald’s/Starbucks site near Stansted) is this: do not identify the driver, under any circumstances. Not directly, not indirectly, and not “just to explain what happened”. If you do, you hand the operator the only thing they need to pursue the charge.

This matters because the law treats the Driver, the registered Keeper, and (where applicable) the Hirer as different legal persons. Only the Driver can ever be liable for an alleged breach of a parking contract unless the operator can use Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) to transfer liability. If PoFA does not apply, Keeper or Hirer liability does not exist at all.

Southgate Park is not “relevant land” for PoFA purposes because it lies within the boundary of Stansted Airport and is subject to airport byelaws. Land that is subject to statutory control is expressly excluded from PoFA. This has nothing to do with who owns the land, who manages the car park, or whether it looks like an ordinary retail site. Statutory control does not disappear because land is sold, leased, or developed by a private company.

Airport byelaws are a form of law. They apply to land forming part of the airport unless they are formally revoked or disapplied by the state. There is no evidence that the byelaws have been removed from Southgate Park. Because statutory control remains in place, PoFA cannot apply there. That is why the land is not relevant land in law, even if a private parking company operates the site.

The consequence of this is critical. Because PoFA does not apply, MET cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known Keeper or Hirer. The only person who could ever be liable is the Driver. And the operator has no idea who was driving unless the Keeper or Hirer blabs it.

This is where so many motorists become low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree. Out of ignorance and fear, people assume the registered Keeper must be liable, or they panic and start explaining what happened using “I parked” or “I stopped”. Others name the Driver without realising they have just removed their strongest legal protection. That is exactly how these charges are made to stick.

If the Driver is not identified, the burden of proof is entirely on the operator. They must prove that the Keeper or Hirer was the Driver. There is no legal presumption that this is the case, and they cannot do it. Without PoFA and without a named Driver, their claim has nowhere to go.

This is why you must always refer to the driver in the third person only. Never say who was driving. Never use “I” or “we”. Respond only as Keeper or Hirer, deny liability, point out that PoFA does not apply because the land is subject to statutory control, and do not engage with powerless and useless debt collectors.

Handled properly, these cases are easily winnable. They only succeed when people, through ignorance and fear, give the operator the one thing the law says they must prove for themselves.