02-10-2026, 11:19 AM
That wording is helpful, thank you.
The initial appeal does not identify the driver, which is important. It is framed entirely in general terms and challenges signage, expectations, and the operator’s reliance on ANPR. That means keeper liability has not been compromised at this stage.
The absence of receipts is not fatal. Double-dip cases do not stand or fall on receipts alone. A contemporaneous witness statement confirming where the driver was between the two alleged visits is valid evidence and can be relied upon at POPLA. In addition, the burden remains on the operator to prove a single continuous period of parking, not on the appellant to disprove it.
The fact that the double-dip issue was not raised in the initial appeal is not a problem. POPLA is not limited to the grounds raised at first appeal, and it is entirely normal for further investigation to uncover the true facts later, particularly where the Notice to Keeper was received late and time pressure forced a holding appeal.
At POPLA, the operator will be put to strict proof that:
– the ANPR system did not record two separate visits,
– all entry and exit images for that vehicle on the material date have been disclosed,
– no “orphan” images exist,
– and that the required manual quality control checks were carried out before issuing the charge.
In parallel, the PoFA position can still be examined separately by reference to the Notice to Keeper itself, regardless of what was said in the initial appeal.
At this stage, nothing in the initial appeal has prejudiced the case. Once confirmation is given that the witness will provide a statement, the POPLA appeal can be structured around double-dipping, ANPR reliability, and the operator’s strict evidential burden, with signage and PoFA points included as supporting grounds.
You have 33 days from the date of the initial appeal rejection to submit the POPLA appeal, not just 28. They allow 5 days for service of the rejection.
The initial appeal does not identify the driver, which is important. It is framed entirely in general terms and challenges signage, expectations, and the operator’s reliance on ANPR. That means keeper liability has not been compromised at this stage.
The absence of receipts is not fatal. Double-dip cases do not stand or fall on receipts alone. A contemporaneous witness statement confirming where the driver was between the two alleged visits is valid evidence and can be relied upon at POPLA. In addition, the burden remains on the operator to prove a single continuous period of parking, not on the appellant to disprove it.
The fact that the double-dip issue was not raised in the initial appeal is not a problem. POPLA is not limited to the grounds raised at first appeal, and it is entirely normal for further investigation to uncover the true facts later, particularly where the Notice to Keeper was received late and time pressure forced a holding appeal.
At POPLA, the operator will be put to strict proof that:
– the ANPR system did not record two separate visits,
– all entry and exit images for that vehicle on the material date have been disclosed,
– no “orphan” images exist,
– and that the required manual quality control checks were carried out before issuing the charge.
In parallel, the PoFA position can still be examined separately by reference to the Notice to Keeper itself, regardless of what was said in the initial appeal.
At this stage, nothing in the initial appeal has prejudiced the case. Once confirmation is given that the witness will provide a statement, the POPLA appeal can be structured around double-dipping, ANPR reliability, and the operator’s strict evidential burden, with signage and PoFA points included as supporting grounds.
You have 33 days from the date of the initial appeal rejection to submit the POPLA appeal, not just 28. They allow 5 days for service of the rejection.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
