I notice that the assessor went for POFA compliance on the NtK as a reason to upholdAs one ground to uphold is all that's required, as soon as they find one they don't bother assessing the others. If I were a betting man, I'd wager that where there are multiple potential successful grounds, they pick the 'easiest' one and use that.
POPLA Reference: [Your POPLA Number]
Euro Car Parks (ECP) PCN: [PCN Number]
I am writing to respond to the evidence pack submitted by Euro Car Parks (ECP) regarding my appeal. While I respect the importance of presenting clear and accurate evidence in a POPLA appeal, it is deeply concerning that ECP has submitted a falsified and inaccurate version of the Notice to Driver (NtD). The version presented in their evidence pack does not match the NtD that was affixed to the vehicle, and it is clearly a stock image or facsimile designed to misrepresent what actually occurred. I would like to bring to the POPLA assessor's attention the following points:
Fabricated Notice to Driver (NtD):
The NtD attached to the vehicle was severely truncated due to a machine printing error, cutting off crucial information such as the PCN number and parking details. This made it impossible to initiate an appeal at the time. In contrast, the version provided by ECP in their evidence pack is a complete, unaltered document with all information present, including different word placements and text wrapping compared to the original.
ECP’s version of the NtD bears no resemblance to the original, as shown by the altered formatting and content placement. This should be seen for what it is — a stock image that has been submitted in an attempt to mislead the POPLA process.
The copy of the NtD I provided in my initial appeal clearly shows the printing error and I urge the POPLA assessor to compare the two versions. The discrepancies between them are not minor; they are fundamental. The operator has knowingly submitted a doctored NtD that misrepresents the actual document left on the vehicle.
Impact on My Ability to Appeal as the Keeper:
Due to the printing error on the original NtD, I was unable to provide the PCN number required to appeal through the operator’s website. As a result, I had no recourse until the Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued. ECP’s own system relies on the PCN number, yet they failed to ensure this number was visible on the NtD left on the vehicle. This further demonstrates their negligence in complying with the process they expect an appellant to follow.
Inaccurate Reliance on PoFA:
It is laughable that ECP attempts to rely on PoFA for holding the keeper liable while simultaneously submitting an invalid and non-compliant NtD. PoFA requires that the NtD includes specific, unambiguous information, none of which was properly conveyed on the version affixed to the vehicle due to the already mentioned printing issues.
ECP's own admission in their evidence pack that they must fully comply with PoFA only reinforces the fact that they have failed to do so. They cannot hold me, as the registered keeper, liable under PoFA because the NtD they issued was defective and did not meet the requirements outlined in Schedule 4.
Misleading Representation of Contractual Breach:
ECP's photos, which purport to show a breach of contract by parking "outside a marked bay," are equally flawed. As I outlined in my initial appeal, the vehicle was parked in what appeared to be a bay, with no markings or signage to indicate otherwise. The operator’s failure to properly mark the bays or provide adequate signage to indicate that the space was not a valid bay further undermines their claim.
Operator’s Conduct:
The submission of an inaccurate and misleading NtD is not only a breach of transparency but also reflects poorly on the operator’s integrity in this case. I submit that POPLA should take this into account when considering the overall fairness and conduct of the operator. The fact that ECP cannot even provide an accurate copy of the original NtD suggests they are attempting to deceive both myself and POPLA in this matter.
Request for Fairness in Adjudication:
I request that POPLA dismiss the operator's reliance on their fabricated NtD and acknowledge that ECP has not acted in good faith by submitting false evidence. Furthermore, ECP has failed to meet the necessary legal requirements under PoFA, both in the NtD and NtK, and should not be allowed to pursue this parking charge any further.
What is the best way of bringing this to the POPLA reviewer's attention ?Refer to the page in your POPLA appeal where you included photos of the actual notice. Point out that these are the actual notice the driver received, and that what they have included in their evidence pack is not the notice the driver received, but rather what the notice should have looked like if they hadn't messed it up.
Inadequate signage leading to failure to adhere to PoFA 2012 and breach of the BPA Code of Practice
The operator has failed to show that the signs are legible from all parking spaces and, specifically, there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. Section 19.3 of the BPA CoP states:
“You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle… Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.
Section 19.4 of the BPA CoP states "If you intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, your signs must give ’adequate notice’. This includes:
• specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking
• adequately bringing the charges to the attention of drivers, and
following any applicable government signage regulations.”
The signs at this location fail to prominently give adequate notice of the specified sum payable. Considering that this operator often relies on the Supreme Court appeal decision in the Beavis case, the signage at this location fails miserably when compared to the signage in that case which clearly showed the charge prominently. It should be noted that within PoFA 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 defines “adequate notice” as follows:
2(2) The reference in the definition of “parking charge” to a sum in the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to drivers of vehicles (when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land).”
“2(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) ‘adequate notice’ means notice given by:
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
where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which:
specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and
are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land”.
Even in circumstances where PoFA does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making an independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. The minuscule font used in the signs at this location fail, miserably, to provide adequate notice of any charges.
Considering the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA, it is beyond any doubt that the signage is not sufficient to give adequate notice of the charge and bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist.
No evidence of landholder authority
The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.
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 “relevant 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 including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. 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 also authorised 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 to the 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 information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.
Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and, of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement). Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice 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:the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012
This paragraph mandates that for a parking operator to hold the vehicle's registered keeper liable for a parking charge, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include:
An "Invitation to Pay": The notice must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.
Exact Wording: The wording must clearly convey this invitation and mere implication or indirect suggestions are insufficient. The act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to fully incorporate this invitation renders the notice non-compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012.
Non-Compliance Issue
If the NtK fails to include a clear "invitation to pay", or any synonym of the word "invitation", this omission is a breach of Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(2)(e)(i). Even if the notice suggests that payment is required, without an explicit invitation directed towards the keeper to settle the charge, the notice does not meet the exacting requirements of PoFA 2012.
Significance of Full Compliance
Strict Liability: The law mandates full and exact compliance with the specified wording and content outlined in PoFA 2012.
Partial or Substantial Compliance Insufficient: Even if the notice largely complies with other requirements, the absence of a clear invitation to the keeper to pay is a significant flaw. The operator cannot rely on partial or even substantial compliance — every element as specified in the legislation must be present and correct.
Consequences for the Operator
Challenge Basis: If the notice is found to lack this crucial element, it can be used as a basis to challenge the parking charge.
Keeper Liability: The operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper, which significantly weaken their case if the notice to the driver or other requirements are also flawed or if the driver is unknown.
Conclusion
In summary, a PCN that does not include an explicit "invitation" for the keeper to pay the charge is not fully compliant with Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012. Since the law demands strict adherence, any omission, even if minor, invalidates the notice and relieves the keeper of any obligation to pay. This should be raised in any appeal or legal response to the charge.
I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, namely no "invitation", or any synonym of the word, for the keeper to pay the charge as per paragraph 8(2)(e)(i), you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn.
Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegations and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.
I suggest you cancel the PCN or issue me with a POPLA code.
As the keeper of vehicle [VRM] in response to your “ING CHARGE NOTICE”, I decline to identify the driver. As your “ING CHARGE NOTICE” does not comply with the requirements of PoFA, you are unable to hold me liable as the keeper.
Either cancel the PCN or issue a POPLA code where an assessor can review your PoFA and your BPA Code of Practice failings.