QuoteSubject: Claim [insert court reference] – N1SDT signed by Sarah Ensall: authority to conduct litigation and regulatory notice
Dear Sir/Madam,
I refer to the Claim Form (N1SDT) filed/served in this matter. The document is signed by Sara Ensall, position stated as "Claimants Legal Representative", and purports to be signed on behalf of the Claimant’s solicitor.
Please confirm by return:1. Ms Ensall's role, and whether she is an authorised person within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007 with current rights to conduct litigation (provide SRA or CILEX number and practising status). If not authorised,
2. The precise exemption relied upon under Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 that permits this individual personally to conduct litigation and sign this document in these proceedings (if relying on a court order, provide the sealed order; if relying on an enactment, identify it precisely).
For the avoidance of doubt:• Preparing, signing, filing, or serving an N1SDT is an act of conducting litigation, a reserved legal activity.
• Following Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025], unqualified employees may assist but cannot themselves conduct litigation unless authorised or exempt.
Action required:• Confirm the above within 7 days.
• If the document was not signed by an authorised (or exempt) person, re-file and serve a compliant version personally signed by an authorised individual, with their full name clearly stated.
Costs and regulatory notice:
If the document was signed by a person not authorised or exempt, or must be re-filed/served to correct the signatory’s identity/status, I, as a litigant in person, will treat this as unreasonable conduct. In line with Mazur and CPR 27.14(2)(g), I will invite the Court, in its discretion, to order the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs caused by your firm’s irregular conduct, and, if appropriate, to consider wasted costs against representatives.
Further, carrying on a reserved legal activity without entitlement is a criminal offence under the Legal Services Act 2007. If any unauthorised conduct of litigation has occurred, I will report the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority without further notice and reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court.
Yours faithfully,
[Full Name]
[Postal Address]
[Email]
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.
Hi guys, in the email from DCB legal it states that their client may be willing to settle. Do you think it is worth me giving them a call to find out what sort of settlement they are proposing?No.
Please find attached all evidence we currently have on file.What was attached?
Subject: Your Ref: [insert] – Keeper liability, misstatements of law, and PAPDC non-compliance
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for your letter. It will serve as a useful exhibit of your client’s approach to both evidence and law. A few corrections are required and should your client persist in issuing proceedings, it will be adduced as evidence of procedural and legal illiteracy.
1) PoFA Schedule 4 is conditional, not aspirational
You quote PoFA para 4(1) but omit para 4(2): any right to recover from a keeper “applies only if” the statutory conditions are met (including strict compliance with the NtK requirements). Please provide the complete NtK relied upon, together with proof of posting, so that compliance with all mandatory elements (e.g. period of parking, relevant land, the prescribed 9(2)(f) warning, timings) can be verified. Absent strict compliance, keeper liability is not available.
2) There is no presumption that the keeper was the driver
Your assertion “if you were not the driver, you would have nominated” attempts to invert the burden of proof. There is no s.172 duty in civil parking claims; silence is neutral. If you allege I was the driver, you must plead and prove it. Persuasive County Court authority has rejected precisely this “we conclude you were the driver because you didn’t name one” gambit (e.g. VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C]). This line of argument is legally baseless and professionally embarrassing. Kindly refrain.
3) DVLA data and tracing
Obtaining my DVLA-registered keeper details and tracing an address says nothing about driver identity or PoFA compliance. It goes to service, not liability.
4) “Warden observed” and signage assertions
If you intend to allege a contract was formed and breached, produce the contemporaneous evidence you will rely upon:• All photos/video with timestamps/metadata; the attendant’s notebook entries; and any handheld device logs.
• A signage plan and clear, date-stamped photos showing the exact signs in situ at the material time (including charge prominence, font sizes and mounting heights).
• The written landowner contract conferring standing on the operator to issue PCNs and litigate in its own name (not a redacted agent letter). Trade-association templates do not replace proof of title to sue.
5) The £70 add-on
Your £70 “debt recovery” bolt-on is an unrecoverable attempt at double recovery. Small-claims costs are governed by CPR 27.14; signage or trade-association wording cannot conjure a new head of damages. Put simply: the court will not award it.
6) VAT diversion
Your VAT diversion is a non sequitur—irrelevant to liability, and transparently deployed to pad a hollow claim. Whether the core charge is outside the scope of VAT has no bearing on keeper liability, contract formation, or the unlawfulness of the £70 add-on.
7) Protocol
Your letter still fails the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. Re-issue a PAPDC-letter and all documents you intend to rely upon (NtK, landowner contract, signage plan/photos, full VRM/permit audit trail, attendant notes, and any maintenance/outage logs). I will then respond within 30 days of receipt of a compliant bundle.
For the avoidance of doubt: I am the registered keeper. I am not obliged to identify the driver and decline to do so. If your client cannot (a) prove strict PoFA compliance or (b) adduce cogent evidence of driver identity, any claim will be defended and I will seek sanctions for unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). If you insist on issuing regardless, please proceed; I will be pleased to place your “keeper = driver because they didn’t nominate” reasoning before a judge.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
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.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C] (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yvxek3kfwtb3qent3lj6y/VCS-Limited-v-Ian-Mark-Edward-H0KF6C9C.pdf?rlkey=niecohfdtj1n1ysh5prbsp52p&e=1&dl=0).
Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents/information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol.
As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol.
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. An explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; for how long it is claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said contract.
7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
9. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged contravention.
11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?
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,
[Your name]
Where the driver, keeper or hirer lodges an appeal with the relevant Appeals Service, enforcement proceedings and/or debt resolution must either not
commence or, where commenced, must be suspended until the Appeals Service determines the appeal.
Subject: Formal Complaint – POPLA Decision Contains Legal Errors
POPLA reference: [POPLA reference No.]
To: POPLA Complaints Team
Dear Sir/Madam,
This is a formal complaint regarding the fundamentally flawed decision made by POPLA Assessor Michael Pirks in my appeal against UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC). Your assessor has erred in law, demonstrating either a complete misunderstanding of PoFA 2012 or deliberate disregard for the law in order to favour the parking operator.
I have no expectation that POPLA will reverse its decision—I am well aware that your organisation never admits fault, no matter how blatant the error. However, I insist that this complaint be formally recorded, as it highlights not just the ineptitude of one assessor, but the substandard legal training provided to POPLA staff.
I understand that POPLA’s decision is not binding on me. However, should the operator persist and try to litigate, I have no issue contesting this matter before a properly trained judge in an actual court of law, where the glaring legal errors made in this POPLA decision will be exposed and dismissed accordingly.
1. Assessor’s Failure to Apply PoFA 2012 – No "Period of Parking" Specified
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a), which states that the notice must:“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
Instead of providing a period of parking, UKPC’s NtK merely states a single timestamp (01:54).
This is a critical failure for two reasons:• A single moment in time does not constitute a "period of parking". A period, by definition, requires a duration—a start time and an end time, or at least a recorded timespan of observation.
• In the persuasive appellate court decision, Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (2023), it was confirmed that a parking charge notice must specify a period of parking that the notice relates to, not just a timestamp.
Your assessor completely ignored this fundamental requirement and erroneously concluded that the NtK was PoFA-compliant. This is a clear and undoubted misapplication of the law.
2. The "Period of Parking" Must Also Exceed the Minimum Consideration Period
Not only must a Notice to Keeper specify a period of parking, but that period must exceed the minimum consideration period.
The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice v9, Section 13.1 states:"The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the 'parking contract' with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary depending on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes."
The Brennan ruling explicitly stated that the "period of parking" recorded on a Notice to Keeper must be at least a short duration.
If the operator’s own evidence only records 1 minute, it is legally insufficient because it does not demonstrate that the vehicle was parked for longer than the consideration period. Your assessor has not accounted for this requirement at all, despite the fact that it is a basic, established principle of parking enforcement.
Had Michael Pirks been adequately trained, he would know that an NtK which fails to:• Specify a period of parking (rather than just a timestamp); and
• Demonstrate that the period exceeded the minimum consideration time
does not comply with PoFA 2012, and thus, keeper liability cannot be established. This failure to apply both the law and the BPA Code of Practice is a clear demonstration of either negligence or bias.
3. Assessor’s Nonsensical Reasoning Regarding the Driver’s Actions
Your assessor stated:"As the appellant has not stated what the motorist was doing at the site, I am unable to determine if they were reviewing the terms or not."
This is an absurd and legally irrelevant argument.• The burden of proof rests entirely with the operator to prove a contravention occurred.
• If the assessor "is unable to determine" whether the driver was reviewing the signs, then he is equally unable to determine that they were NOT reviewing the signs.
• By default, this means the operator has failed to provide sufficient evidence to show a contract was formed before the motorist left the site.
This completely nonsensical statement exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of burden of proof and basic legal fairness.
4. Wilful Disregard of the Prohibitory Nature of Signage – No Contract Formed
The signage in question states: "NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING."
This is not an offer of parking under specific terms—it is a prohibition. The signage is prohibitory in nature and therefore cannot form a contract.
The most prominent wording on the sign is "NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING." This is a prohibition, not an offer of parking under specific terms. A contract requires an offer, acceptance, and consideration, yet this sign does not offer parking—it simply forbids unauthorised vehicles. This aligns with the legal principle that prohibitory notices do not create a contractual agreement, because they do not extend an invitation to park under specific conditions.
Furthermore, UKPC’s signage does not prominently display the parking charge amount in a manner that would make it an obvious term of any alleged contract. The Supreme Court ruling in ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) established that terms must be prominently displayed to be binding. After providing photographic evidence and comparing the signs with the one in the Beavis case, this was simply dismissed.
(https://i.imgur.com/rlvjXni.jpeg)
5. POPLA’s Systemic Problem – Substandard Training & Bias
This decision does not just expose the inadequacy of a single assessor—it demonstrates a wider problem within POPLA.• Your assessors fail to understand PoFA.
• Your assessors fail to apply basic contract law.
• Your assessors consistently favour operators, applying different standards to appellants and operators.
If Michael Pirks is considered "trained", then POPLA’s training standards are clearly substandard and exhibit a deficiency in your assessors legal knowledge.
6. My Request (Although I expect it to be ignored)
Given the catalogue of legal errors, misinterpretations, and biased reasoning in this case, I formally request the following:1. A written response acknowledging that the decision contained material legal errors. (I don't expect this will be forthcoming, but I’m asking anyway.)
2. An internal review of how PoFA training is delivered to your assessors.
3. Confirmation that this complaint has been recorded and that a review of Michael Pirks’ competence will be conducted.
4. A response explaining why POPLA continues to misapply PoFA, despite these issues being raised in multiple formal complaints.
I fully expect POPLA to refuse to admit fault, because that is what POPLA does. However, I understand that your decision has no legal weight and is not binding on me.
Should the operator try and litigate over this, I will argue this case before a properly trained judge in court, where your assessors legally flawed determination will be exposed.
I expect a formal response within 14 days.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]
Am I right in thinking, if I stated in the appeal that the driver had left the vehicle to read the signage then the decision would have been different?I've given up trying to predict how assessors will rule. Can be a lottery. Either way, one can only state things as they were, not as they might have been in order to create a more favourable narrative.
These notices are placed throughout the car park.
We ensure that signage is ample, clear and visible, wholly in line with the British Parking Association Code of Practice.
There are sufficient signs advising drivers that parking without a permit may result in a parking charge being issued.
UKPC has failed to adequately rebut the points in my appeal, particularly regarding the lack of compliance with PoFA, inadequate signage, and failure to provide proper notice of the parking charge. This response details how UKPC has not addressed or satisfactorily answered the following:
1. Failure to Comply with PoFA – No Period of Parking Specified:
In my appeal, I stated that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a), which requires a period of parking to be specified. UKPC's response only provides a timestamp (01:54) but fails to specify a parking period. A single timestamp does not meet the statutory requirement for a "period of parking." UKPC has not addressed this key point and has failed to demonstrate compliance with PoFA on this issue.
2. Inadequate and Non-Compliant Signage – No Contract Formed:
I highlighted that the signage is prohibitory, stating "NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING," and thus does not form a valid contract under contract law. Furthermore, the terms and conditions, including the parking charge, are hidden in small text and not clearly visible. UKPC’s response merely states that the signage complies with the BPA Code of Practice, without addressing the issue of the prohibitory nature of the signage or the poor visibility of important terms. This does not rebut the fact that no contract could have been formed with the driver.
3. Ambiguity of Location – NtK Fails to Specify Exact Location:
I argued that the NtK fails to specify the exact location of the alleged contravention within Uplands Business Park, a large industrial estate with many areas, many of which have no signage. UKPC did not address this point in their response, providing no clarification on where within the business park the vehicle was allegedly parked. This is a clear failure to comply with PoFA’s requirement to specify the relevant land.
4. UKPC Must Provide Strict Proof of Driver Identity:
Since I am appealing as the registered keeper, UKPC must provide strict proof of the driver’s identity to hold the driver liable. UKPC has failed to provide any evidence or argument addressing the identity of the driver, yet continues to assert liability. This is a critical failure, as without such proof, UKPC cannot hold me, as the keeper, liable under PoFA.
5. Consideration Period – Ability to Locate and Understand Signage:
I pointed out that UKPC did not allow sufficient time for the driver to locate and read the signage, especially in the low-light conditions at the time of the alleged contravention. UKPC’s response cited BPA Code of Practice sections 13.2 and 13.6 to argue that no grace period is required once a parking event has occurred. However, they failed to address the requirement for a consideration period before a contract can be formed. Additionally, they did not address the issue of poor visibility of signage due to darkness.
6. Signage Comparison – Failure to Provide Prominent Notice of the Parking Charge:
The comparison image that was provided further demonstrates the issues with UKPC's signage compared to the ParkingEye sign, which was referenced in the Beavis case. The UKPC signage is prohibitory, stating "NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING" in large text, suggesting no invitation to park and thus no contract can be formed. Additionally, the £100 parking charge is buried in a block of small text, making it difficult for a driver to notice or understand. This contrasts sharply with ParkingEye’s signage, where the charge of £85 is prominently displayed in large, bold text, ensuring that the motorist is clearly informed of the cost of breaching parking terms.
7. Denning LJ’s "red hand rule" states that the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater notice must be given to it. A £100 parking charge is clearly an unreasonable term, and UKPC has failed to highlight it prominently. Instead, they bury it within dense text that a driver is unlikely to read, especially in low-light conditions, which was the case here. The signage from ParkingEye, shown in the comparison, provides a clear example of how terms should be communicated to motorists, with the parking charge clearly visible. UKPC’s failure to adequately notify the driver of the parking charge means no contract was formed.
8. Operator Contract Issues:
Additionally, UKPC has provided only a few heavily redacted pages of what they claim to be a contract between themselves and the managing agent of the site. However, there are several key issues with this evidence:
9. Missing Details on Automatic Renewals or Contract Extensions:
There is also no information in the contract provided about automatic renewals, rollovers, or any extensions of the original contract. The contract appears to have ended in 2019, and without evidence of a valid, current agreement, UKPC cannot rely on this document as proof of their ongoing authority to issue parking charges at this site.
10. No Evidence of Permission from the Landowner:
The few pages provided do not demonstrate any permission flowing from the landowner to the operator, which is required to prove that UKPC has the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices on this land. It is well established that a managing agent is not necessarily the landowner, and without evidence of the landowner’s explicit authorisation, the operator cannot prove their right to enforce parking on this land.
11. On this basis, the contract UKPC has provided is insufficient to demonstrate that they have the legal standing required to issue and pursue Parking Charge Notices at this location. Without clear evidence that UKPC has a valid and current contract with the landowner, the parking charge must be cancelled.
Given these failures, UKPC has not adequately rebutted the core issues of inadequate signage, lack of clear notice of the parking charge, and the failure to comply with PoFA. The parking charge must be cancelled.
Thanks for that, it’s good to know.I provided a comparison of the Beavis sign with the UKPC one. Did yours that image in your POPLA appeal? "Good to know" doesn't help you if you didn't use it.
I am appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle against the parking charge notice issued by UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC). The grounds for my appeal are outlined below, supported by multiple failings in the Notice to Keeper (NtK) and the supporting evidence provided by UKPC. The PCN has been incorrectly issued based on the following grounds:
1. Failure to Comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) - No Period of Parking SpecifiedThe Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by UKPC does not comply with PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a), which mandates that the NtK MUST specify the period of parking. The NtK only provides a single timestamp (01:54:34) but fails to indicate the duration or period during which the vehicle was allegedly parked.
Without this information, the NtK does not meet the statutory conditions necessary to hold the keeper liable. UKPC cannot transfer liability to the keeper when their NtK does not comply with PoFA, and as such, the charge must be cancelled.
2. Inadequate and Non-Compliant Signage – No Contract Formed & PoFA FailureUKPC claims that their signage is clear and prominent, citing an absurd comparison in their rejection letter to road signs that motorists are expected to read at 70 mph. This argument is not only irrelevant but laughable in the context of a car park, where signage must be legible and sufficiently prominent at low speeds or even while stationary.
a) Hidden Terms and Conditions: The only prominent wording on the sign is "NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING." All other crucial information, including the terms of parking and the parking charge, is hidden in a wall of small text, making it impossible for any driver to reasonably read or understand the contract they are purportedly agreeing to. The wording "NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING" on the sign is prohibitory in nature. A prohibitory sign cannot form the basis of a contract because it offers no invitation to park under any terms. Instead, it acts as a deterrent, merely stating that parking is not permitted. For a contract to be valid and enforceable, there must be an offer, consideration, and acceptance, none of which can occur with a prohibitory notice.
As a result, this type of signage cannot be used to form a contractual agreement, and no breach of terms could have occurred. Therefore, no parking charge can be enforced based on this inadequate and non-compliant signage.
b) Non-compliance with BPA Code of Practice: The BPA Code of Practice mandates that parking terms and charges must be clearly visible and easy to read. In this case, the signage does not meet these standards, as the essential terms (including the £100 charge for breach) are obscured within tiny text, and the clarity of the signage is insufficient to form any contract with a motorist.
c) PoFA Non-compliance: This failure to clearly (adequately) bring to the attention of the driver the sum of the parking charge for breaching terms also constitutes a failure to comply with PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(d). PoFA mandates that the amount due must be clearly communicated. As UKPC has failed to adequately highlight this, no valid contract was formed, and UKPC cannot hold the keeper liable.
Given these facts, no legally binding contract was formed between the driver and UKPC, as the signage fails to communicate the parking terms adequately.
3. Ambiguity of Location – NtK Fails to Specify Exact Location
The NtK is vague and fails to specify the exact location within Uplands Business Park where the vehicle was allegedly parked. This business park is a large industrial estate, with numerous areas, many of which are entirely unsignposted. Without specifying the exact location, it is impossible for UKPC to claim a valid parking contravention occurred at a specific point.a) PoFA Non-Compliance: Under PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, the relevant land must be specified. The general mention of Uplands Business Park does not meet the requirement for specifying the relevant land, and therefore the NtK is not compliant.
b) Multiple Unsigned Areas: Given that some areas within the estate have no signage whatsoever, it is entirely possible that the vehicle was parked in a location without any displayed terms. This further erodes the credibility of UKPC's claim and their assertion that the driver was bound by any parking terms.
4. UKPC Must Provide Strict Proof of Driver IdentitySince I am appealing as the registered keeper, and no admission has been made regarding the identity of the driver, UKPC is required to provide strict proof that the person they are pursuing is indeed the driver.
UKPC has not provided any evidence that identifies the driver, nor can any assumptions or inferences be made under PoFA 2012. In the absence of such proof, the charge must be cancelled, as UKPC cannot demonstrate that the keeper and driver are the same individual.
5. Consideration Period – Ability to Locate and Understand Signage
In their rejection of my initial appeal, UKPC claimed that their signage was sufficient and that motorists should have the same level of "observance" in a car park as they do on public roads at high speeds. This claim is not only baseless but also demonstrates UKPC’s lack of understanding of the BPA Code of Practice.a) Time to Find and Read Signs: The BPA Code of Practice clearly requires that motorists be given an appropriate amount of time to find the signage, read it, and understand the terms before any contract can be assumed to have been formed. This is referred to as a consideration period. In this instance, there was no adequate signage visible upon entry, and even where signs are placed, the terms are not legible due to their size and poor placement.
b) Inadequate Signage in Low Light Conditions: The alleged contravention occurred in the early morning, in darkness, which would make it even more difficult for any motorist to read and understand the terms displayed on UKPC’s signs. No consideration period was allowed for the driver to locate, read, and comprehend the small-font, densely worded signage.
Conclusion
In summary, the parking charge must be cancelled due to the following reasons:• The NtK is non-compliant with PoFA 2012 due to the absence of a period of parking and the failure to specify the exact location of the alleged contravention.
• No contract was formed because the signage was inadequate, non-compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, and failed to clearly communicate the parking terms.
• The failure to bring the sum of the charge for breaching terms to the attention of the driver constitutes another PoFA 2012 failure.
• UKPC has provided no evidence identifying the driver, and no assumptions can be made under PoFA about the keeper being the driver.
• The consideration period required to locate and understand the signage was not provided.
I suggest that POPLA upholds this appeal and cancels the PCN.
Subject: Response to Your Request for Driver's Details
Dear UKPC,
Thank you for your letter dated [insert date]. As you are well aware and I would like to reiterate, that as the registered keeper, I am under no legal obligation to provide the details of the driver, and I will not be doing so.
You have referred to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA); however, you seem to have overlooked or completely failed to comprehend the fact, that to hold the keeper liable, you must meet ALL the conditions laid out in PoFA, which, as I previously pointed out, your Notice to Keeper fails to do. Partial or even substantial compliance is insufficient, and therefore you will not be able to rely on PoFA to pursue the registered keeper.
Please get on with it and either cancel this PCN or provide a POPLA code so that I can escalate it to POPLA, and if necessary, to a court claim, issued either through your own failed "legal department" or through your preferred bulk litigator, DCB Legal, and you already know, when defended robustly, will eventually be discontinued.
Yours faithfully,
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 period of parking is defined in the NtK as required per paragraph 9(2)(a), 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.