07-09-2026, 07:19 AM
@TheParkingmeister
First, well done. That is a serious amount of persistence, and the POPLA results speak for themselves. Thirteen charges challenged and thirteen charges defeated is not a fluke; it shows a fundamentally defective enforcement operation.
One point I would treat with caution, though, is the suggestion that PPM do not have a KADOE contract. If postal Notices to Keeper were sent to the registered keeper, and the keeper’s details were not provided by the company, lease firm, fleet manager or some other intermediary, then the data must have come from a DVLA route somewhere. That may have been PPM directly, or it may have been through an agent, back-office provider or another DVLA access route. So the question is: who requested the keeper data, on what date, through what DVLA route, and what reasonable cause was asserted?
What is more important is that PPM now appear to be trying to invoke PoFA keeper liability, but repeatedly failing to do what PoFA requires. If the Notices to Keeper were not given within the relevant statutory period, keeper liability is dead. If the notices were in time but failed to include all the mandatory wording and information required by Schedule 4, keeper liability is still dead. PoFA is not a general right to chase the keeper. It is a conditional statutory mechanism, and the operator has to comply with it strictly.
The 2026 notices make the position even more questionable because the alleged breach appears to have changed from parking-type allegations, such as parked without a valid permit or outside a bay, to “stopped in a no waiting zone”. That is not just a cosmetic rewording. It changes the nature of the alleged conduct from parking in breach of displayed terms to stopping or waiting on what looks and functions like an industrial estate road.
That brings in another appeal point: material changes under section 3.4 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice. Where there is a material change to pre-existing terms which would not be immediately apparent to drivers, the operator must put additional temporary notices at the site entrance for at least four months, making clear that new terms, conditions or charges apply. If PPM changed the enforcement regime from parking/permit/bay-type restrictions to “no waiting” enforcement, they should be put to strict proof of when that change was made, what the old terms were, what the new terms were, where the new signs were installed, and what temporary entrance notices were displayed for the required four-month period.
If there was no proper entrance signage at all, that point becomes even stronger. They cannot sensibly claim compliance with a requirement to place temporary notices at the site entrance if drivers are not clearly being told, at the point of entry, that they are leaving the public highway and entering controlled private land with materially changed terms.
The GLA/GLAP point should also be kept precise. Public ownership alone does not automatically kill private enforcement, because a public authority body can own land in a private/proprietary capacity. The key issue is the actual legal status of Chequers Lane. If it is adopted highway, traffic-authority land, or land where parking/waiting is subject to statutory control, then private PoFA keeper liability is highly questionable or unavailable. If PPM say it is purely private controlled land, then they must prove the contract, the boundary, the entrance signage, the operative terms, and landowner authority. POPLA allowed the appeals because PPM failed to prove even that basic authority.
So the headline is simple: PPM appear to be trying to run a private parking model on an industrial access road, using highway-style “no waiting” language, with inadequate entrance signage, questionable boundary control, defective PoFA compliance, no proven landowner authority at POPLA, and likely non-compliance with the PPSCoP material-change requirements. That is not robust parking management. It is an enforcement trap that collapses as soon as it is properly challenged.
For reference, the attached POPLA decision records the operator’s case as “stopping in a no waiting zone” and allowed the appeal because PPM failed to provide a contract or witness statement proving authority to manage and issue PCNs at the site. The PPSCoP material-change point is supported by section 3.4, which requires additional temporary entrance notices for at least four months where materially changed terms would not be immediately apparent to drivers.
First, well done. That is a serious amount of persistence, and the POPLA results speak for themselves. Thirteen charges challenged and thirteen charges defeated is not a fluke; it shows a fundamentally defective enforcement operation.
One point I would treat with caution, though, is the suggestion that PPM do not have a KADOE contract. If postal Notices to Keeper were sent to the registered keeper, and the keeper’s details were not provided by the company, lease firm, fleet manager or some other intermediary, then the data must have come from a DVLA route somewhere. That may have been PPM directly, or it may have been through an agent, back-office provider or another DVLA access route. So the question is: who requested the keeper data, on what date, through what DVLA route, and what reasonable cause was asserted?
What is more important is that PPM now appear to be trying to invoke PoFA keeper liability, but repeatedly failing to do what PoFA requires. If the Notices to Keeper were not given within the relevant statutory period, keeper liability is dead. If the notices were in time but failed to include all the mandatory wording and information required by Schedule 4, keeper liability is still dead. PoFA is not a general right to chase the keeper. It is a conditional statutory mechanism, and the operator has to comply with it strictly.
The 2026 notices make the position even more questionable because the alleged breach appears to have changed from parking-type allegations, such as parked without a valid permit or outside a bay, to “stopped in a no waiting zone”. That is not just a cosmetic rewording. It changes the nature of the alleged conduct from parking in breach of displayed terms to stopping or waiting on what looks and functions like an industrial estate road.
That brings in another appeal point: material changes under section 3.4 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice. Where there is a material change to pre-existing terms which would not be immediately apparent to drivers, the operator must put additional temporary notices at the site entrance for at least four months, making clear that new terms, conditions or charges apply. If PPM changed the enforcement regime from parking/permit/bay-type restrictions to “no waiting” enforcement, they should be put to strict proof of when that change was made, what the old terms were, what the new terms were, where the new signs were installed, and what temporary entrance notices were displayed for the required four-month period.
If there was no proper entrance signage at all, that point becomes even stronger. They cannot sensibly claim compliance with a requirement to place temporary notices at the site entrance if drivers are not clearly being told, at the point of entry, that they are leaving the public highway and entering controlled private land with materially changed terms.
The GLA/GLAP point should also be kept precise. Public ownership alone does not automatically kill private enforcement, because a public authority body can own land in a private/proprietary capacity. The key issue is the actual legal status of Chequers Lane. If it is adopted highway, traffic-authority land, or land where parking/waiting is subject to statutory control, then private PoFA keeper liability is highly questionable or unavailable. If PPM say it is purely private controlled land, then they must prove the contract, the boundary, the entrance signage, the operative terms, and landowner authority. POPLA allowed the appeals because PPM failed to prove even that basic authority.
So the headline is simple: PPM appear to be trying to run a private parking model on an industrial access road, using highway-style “no waiting” language, with inadequate entrance signage, questionable boundary control, defective PoFA compliance, no proven landowner authority at POPLA, and likely non-compliance with the PPSCoP material-change requirements. That is not robust parking management. It is an enforcement trap that collapses as soon as it is properly challenged.
For reference, the attached POPLA decision records the operator’s case as “stopping in a no waiting zone” and allowed the appeal because PPM failed to provide a contract or witness statement proving authority to manage and issue PCNs at the site. The PPSCoP material-change point is supported by section 3.4, which requires additional temporary entrance notices for at least four months where materially changed terms would not be immediately apparent to drivers.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
