Here is a suitable response to the operators evidence. Just paste it into the response box on the POPLA website:QuotePOPLA Verification Code: [Verification Code]
UKPC PCN Number: [PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Vehicle Registration]
Re: Response to UKPC Evidence Submission and Reaffirmation of Appeal Points
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and have reviewed the evidence submitted by UKPC. I submit the following detailed response to their evidence, highlighting critical points from my original appeal that have not been fully addressed or rebutted, alongside new issues with the evidence they have provided.
1. **Signage: Inadequate and Unclear – No Valid Contract Formed**
Original Appeal Argument:
The signage at the site does not clearly convey the parking charge of £100. It is buried in a wall of small text, making it almost impossible for a motorist to understand that they are entering into a contract that includes a substantial penalty for non-compliance. In contrast, the signage in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 prominently displayed the charge in large, bold text.
UKPC's Evidence Response:
UKPC claims their signage complies with BPA Code of Practice, but they fail to address the core issue: the size, clarity, and prominence of the £100 parking charge. Their response does not rebut the comparison to the Beavis case, where the £85 charge was displayed clearly and conspicuously. UKPC’s sign, by contrast, buries the charge in small print, failing to make it obvious to motorists.
Unanswered:
UKPC did not provide evidence that their £100 charge is displayed in a similarly prominent fashion as required by the BPA Code of Practice, Section 18.3, or that it was brought to the driver’s attention in line with PoFA requirements. The image comparison I provided clearly shows how the £100 charge is obscure, supporting my claim that no valid contract was formed.
2. **Keeper Liability – Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012**
Original Appeal Argument:
UKPC has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, meaning they cannot transfer liability for the alleged parking charge from the driver to the registered keeper.
Under Schedule 4 of PoFA, strict conditions must be met before the keeper can be held liable for a parking charge incurred by the driver. UKPC's failure to comply with several key requirements renders the Notice to Keeper (NtK) non-compliant, meaning they cannot hold the registered keeper liable for the charge.
UKPC’s NtK fails PoFA on the following points:
(i) Paragraph 9(2)(e): PoFA requires that the NtK must include an “invitation” for the keeper to pay the charge. Specifically, it must “invite” the keeper to pay the charge or provide the name and address of the driver. The wording on UKPC’s NtK does not contain this necessary invitation, which is a critical requirement under PoFA.
(ii) Paragraph 9(2)(f): PoFA mandates that the NtK must include a warning to the keeper that if, after 28 days, neither payment nor driver details are provided, the keeper will become liable. UKPC’s NtK fails to provide this warning clearly and in the correct format.
(iii) Paragraph 9(2)(a): The NtK must specify the relevant land on which the vehicle was parked. UKPC’s vague description of the location is insufficient under PoFA, as it does not clearly identify where the vehicle was allegedly parked, nor does it specify a defined area.
(iv) Paragraph 9(2)(b): PoFA requires that the NtK must inform the keeper of the reason for issuing the charge. In this case, UKPC fails to make the alleged breach of contract clear in their NtK. The NtK must inform the keeper why the parking terms were allegedly breached, but this is not sufficiently communicated.
Given these failures, UKPC has not complied with the requirements of PoFA, meaning they cannot transfer liability to the keeper.
Unanswered:
UKPC has not provided a detailed rebuttal showing how they have complied with the specific points of PoFA listed above. Their simple assertion of compliance is not enough. PoFA compliance requires meeting every one of the detailed conditions in Schedule 4, and they have demonstrably failed to do so.
Without strict compliance with PoFA, UKPC cannot hold the keeper liable, and this charge is therefore unenforceable.
3. **No Evidence That the Keeper is the Driver**
Original Appeal Argument:
As UKPC cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper, they must provide evidence that the keeper was the driver at the time of the alleged parking contravention.
UKPC's Evidence Response:
UKPC failed to address this point in their response. They have not provided any evidence to suggest that the registered keeper was the driver, nor do they offer any rebuttal to my challenge on this matter.
Unanswered:
UKPC has made no attempt to prove the identity of the driver, and they have not demonstrated why they believe the registered keeper should be held liable without PoFA compliance.
As there is no evidence that I, as the registered keeper, was the driver, UKPC has no legal grounds to pursue this charge against me.
4. **Breaches of BPA Code of Practice**
Original Appeal Argument:
UKPC's signage and operational practices fail to comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, including Section 18.1 (clear and prominent entrance signs), Section 18.3 (prominent display of parking charges), and Section 18.4 (contrast and positioning of signage).
UKPC's Evidence Response:
UKPC asserts that their signage complies with the BPA Code of Practice but provides no specific evidence to support this claim. They rely on generic statements that their signs meet the necessary standards without addressing the specific breaches I raised in my appeal.
Unanswered:
(i) Section 18.1: No evidence was provided of adequate entrance signage that clearly conveys the terms and conditions of parking. UKPC failed to show that the entrance sign made it clear that terms and conditions applied.
(ii) Section 18.3: UKPC has not shown that the parking charge is prominently displayed. As demonstrated by the image comparison with the Beavis case signage, the £100 charge is obscured in small print, violating Section 18.3 of the BPA Code.
(iii) Section 18.4: The parking charge is not sufficiently distinct from other information on the sign, making it easy to miss. This violates the requirement for important terms to be clearly distinguishable.
5. **No Evidence of Landowner Authority**
Original Appeal Argument:
UKPC is required to demonstrate that they have the authority to issue parking charges on this land. I requested an unredacted copy of the contract between UKPC and the landholder.
UKPC's Evidence Response:
UKPC provided a redacted "Contract Variation Form" instead of the full contract. This is inadequate, as it does not demonstrate the extent of their authority to manage parking on the land or issue charges. Additionally, their failure to provide a full and unredacted contract suggests they may not have the necessary authority.
Unanswered:
The redacted contract does not prove that UKPC has sufficient authority to issue parking charges in their own name. A 'Contract Variation Form' is not a full contract and does not show the boundaries of the land or who is responsible for signage.
Without full proof of authority, UKPC has no legal grounds to pursue this charge.
**Conclusion:**
In conclusion, UKPC has failed to address or rebut the key points of my original appeal. Their evidence submission does not provide sufficient proof of the following:
(a) Inadequate signage that fails to form a valid contract with the driver, particularly regarding the display of the £100 charge.
(b) Non-compliance with PoFA 2012, meaning they cannot hold the registered keeper liable.
No evidence that the registered keeper was the driver.
(c) Breach of the BPA Code of Practice, with inadequate entrance signage and unclear display of parking terms.
(d) Lack of landholder authority, as the redacted contract they provided is insufficient proof.
Based on these points, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
POPLA Verification Code: [Verification Code]
UKPC PCN Number: [PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Vehicle Registration]
Re: Response to UKPC Evidence Submission and Reaffirmation of Appeal Points
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and have reviewed the evidence submitted by UKPC. I submit the following detailed response to their evidence, highlighting critical points from my original appeal that have not been fully addressed or rebutted, alongside new issues with the evidence they have provided.
1. **Signage: Inadequate and Unclear – No Valid Contract Formed**
Original Appeal Argument:
The signage at the site does not clearly convey the parking charge of £100. It is buried in a wall of small text, making it almost impossible for a motorist to understand that they are entering into a contract that includes a substantial penalty for non-compliance. In contrast, the signage in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 prominently displayed the charge in large, bold text.
UKPC's Evidence Response:
UKPC claims their signage complies with BPA Code of Practice, but they fail to address the core issue: the size, clarity, and prominence of the £100 parking charge. Their response does not rebut the comparison to the Beavis case, where the £85 charge was displayed clearly and conspicuously. UKPC’s sign, by contrast, buries the charge in small print, failing to make it obvious to motorists.
Unanswered:
UKPC did not provide evidence that their £100 charge is displayed in a similarly prominent fashion as required by the BPA Code of Practice, Section 18.3, or that it was brought to the driver’s attention in line with PoFA requirements. The image comparison I provided clearly shows how the £100 charge is obscure, supporting my claim that no valid contract was formed.
2. **Keeper Liability – Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012**
Original Appeal Argument:
UKPC has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, meaning they cannot transfer liability for the alleged parking charge from the driver to the registered keeper.
Under Schedule 4 of PoFA, strict conditions must be met before the keeper can be held liable for a parking charge incurred by the driver. UKPC's failure to comply with several key requirements renders the Notice to Keeper (NtK) non-compliant, meaning they cannot hold the registered keeper liable for the charge.
UKPC’s NtK fails PoFA on the following points:
(i) Paragraph 9(2)(e): PoFA requires that the NtK must include an “invitation” for the keeper to pay the charge. Specifically, it must “invite” the keeper to pay the charge or provide the name and address of the driver. The wording on UKPC’s NtK does not contain this necessary invitation, which is a critical requirement under PoFA.
(ii) Paragraph 9(2)(f): PoFA mandates that the NtK must include a warning to the keeper that if, after 28 days, neither payment nor driver details are provided, the keeper will become liable. UKPC’s NtK fails to provide this warning clearly and in the correct format.
(iii) Paragraph 9(2)(a): The NtK must specify the relevant land on which the vehicle was parked. UKPC’s vague description of the location is insufficient under PoFA, as it does not clearly identify where the vehicle was allegedly parked, nor does it specify a defined area.
(iv) Paragraph 9(2)(b): PoFA requires that the NtK must inform the keeper of the reason for issuing the charge. In this case, UKPC fails to make the alleged breach of contract clear in their NtK. The NtK must inform the keeper why the parking terms were allegedly breached, but this is not sufficiently communicated.
Given these failures, UKPC has not complied with the requirements of PoFA, meaning they cannot transfer liability to the keeper.
Unanswered:
UKPC has not provided a detailed rebuttal showing how they have complied with the specific points of PoFA listed above. Their simple assertion of compliance is not enough. PoFA compliance requires meeting every one of the detailed conditions in Schedule 4, and they have demonstrably failed to do so.
Without strict compliance with PoFA, UKPC cannot hold the keeper liable, and this charge is therefore unenforceable.
3. **No Evidence That the Keeper is the Driver**
Original Appeal Argument:
As UKPC cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper, they must provide evidence that the keeper was the driver at the time of the alleged parking contravention.
UKPC's Evidence Response:
UKPC failed to address this point in their response. They have not provided any evidence to suggest that the registered keeper was the driver, nor do they offer any rebuttal to my challenge on this matter.
Unanswered:
UKPC has made no attempt to prove the identity of the driver, and they have not demonstrated why they believe the registered keeper should be held liable without PoFA compliance.
As there is no evidence that I, as the registered keeper, was the driver, UKPC has no legal grounds to pursue this charge against me.
4. **Breaches of BPA Code of Practice**
Original Appeal Argument:
UKPC's signage and operational practices fail to comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, including Section 18.1 (clear and prominent entrance signs), Section 18.3 (prominent display of parking charges), and Section 18.4 (contrast and positioning of signage).
UKPC's Evidence Response:
UKPC asserts that their signage complies with the BPA Code of Practice but provides no specific evidence to support this claim. They rely on generic statements that their signs meet the necessary standards without addressing the specific breaches I raised in my appeal.
Unanswered:
(i) Section 18.1: No evidence was provided of adequate entrance signage that clearly conveys the terms and conditions of parking. UKPC failed to show that the entrance sign made it clear that terms and conditions applied.
(ii) Section 18.3: UKPC has not shown that the parking charge is prominently displayed. As demonstrated by the image comparison with the Beavis case signage, the £100 charge is obscured in small print, violating Section 18.3 of the BPA Code.
(iii) Section 18.4: The parking charge is not sufficiently distinct from other information on the sign, making it easy to miss. This violates the requirement for important terms to be clearly distinguishable.
5. **No Evidence of Landowner Authority**
Original Appeal Argument:
UKPC is required to demonstrate that they have the authority to issue parking charges on this land. I requested an unredacted copy of the contract between UKPC and the landholder.
UKPC's Evidence Response:
UKPC provided a redacted "Contract Variation Form" instead of the full contract. This is inadequate, as it does not demonstrate the extent of their authority to manage parking on the land or issue charges. Additionally, their failure to provide a full and unredacted contract suggests they may not have the necessary authority.
Unanswered:
The redacted contract does not prove that UKPC has sufficient authority to issue parking charges in their own name. A 'Contract Variation Form' is not a full contract and does not show the boundaries of the land or who is responsible for signage.
Without full proof of authority, UKPC has no legal grounds to pursue this charge.
**Conclusion:**
In conclusion, UKPC has failed to address or rebut the key points of my original appeal. Their evidence submission does not provide sufficient proof of the following:
(a) Inadequate signage that fails to form a valid contract with the driver, particularly regarding the display of the £100 charge.
(b) Non-compliance with PoFA 2012, meaning they cannot hold the registered keeper liable.
No evidence that the registered keeper was the driver.
(c) Breach of the BPA Code of Practice, with inadequate entrance signage and unclear display of parking terms.
(d) Lack of landholder authority, as the redacted contract they provided is insufficient proof.
Based on these points, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
That link only shows that the file has been deleted.
Can you please show us the redacted contract they have provided?
Have they rebutted all your points? Read and try and understand the appeal points made in your appeal. Go through each one and see if the reason
1. You state that no contract was formed for the reasons given. Have they rebutted that point and explained how a contract was formed through that sign? Just because there is sign, does not mean that it was sufficient to form a contract. As the sign fails to meet the requirements of a valid contract formation, any claim for a breach of contract is unfounded.
2. Have they explained how the parking charge of £100 is "adequately" brought to the attention of the driver? According to PoFA, Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(3)(b)(ii), “adequate notice” means that the parking charge must be prominently displayed and adequately brought to the attention of the driver at the time the vehicle is parked. This includes making the charge clear on all relevant signage. If any requirement of PoFA is omitted, then the Keeper cannot be liable. Have they explained why the Keeper is liable in light of the failure to comply with PoFA 2(3)(b)(ii)?
3. As the NtK is not fully compliant with PoFA, has the operator provided any evidence that the Keeper was the driver?
4. Has the operator explained why they are not in breach of the BPA Code of Practice, Section 18.3? Is the sign conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that it is easy to see, read, and understand? The Code requires that any parking charges, such as the charge for breaching terms and conditions, “must be in a font size large enough to be easily seen, read, and understood by drivers.” Is it? Has the operator rebutted the fact that it isn't?
The BPA Code further specifies that important information, such as the parking charge, must be easily distinguishable from other text and must not be hidden in smaller print. UKPC’s signage fails to meet this requirement, and the £100 charge is not made conspicuous to the driver, in clear breach of Section 18.4. Has that point been rebutted?
5. Have they provided an unredacted copy of the contract that flows from the landowner that permits UKPC to operate and issue PCNs or have they simply said that they have one or just shown a signed statement saying they do? How do you know that the actual contract is still valid? Simply saying that if they didn't have a valid contract then the landowner would not permit them to operate there is not evidence a valid contract exists. There are numerous cases of operators continuing to operate without a valid contract.
So, unless each point has been rebutted satisfactorily, you simply point out that, irrespective of what UKPC has submitted, they are required to show that each point made by you is incorrect or not valid. Failure by them to counter any single point made in your appeal is grounds for POPLA to dismiss the PCN as will have been issued incorrectly.
Put together your proposed response based on the advice above and we'll check it.
Other
Here is a slightly modified version that may help you a bit better (I think):QuotePOPLA Verification Code: [Verification Code]
UKPC PCN Number: [PCN Number]
Re: Appeal against UKPC Parking Charge Notice
I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXX and am writing to appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by UKPC on XXX at XXX. This appeal is based on the following detailed grounds, which demonstrate that the charge is invalid, unfair, and unenforceable:
1. Inadequate and Unclear Signage – No Contract Formed
For a valid contract to be formed between the driver and UKPC, there must be clear offer, acceptance, and consideration. However, the signage at the location fails to meet the necessary requirements to form a contract:No Clear Offer:
The signage at the site does not clearly convey the terms and conditions of parking, which is a fundamental requirement for a contract. The parking charge of £100 is buried within a wall of text, making it almost impossible for any driver to understand that they are entering into a contract that includes such a penalty. Additionally, the signage is poorly positioned and not conspicuous, meaning a driver could enter the site without being aware of the terms.
No Valid Acceptance:
As the offer was unclear, the driver cannot be said to have accepted the terms. Acceptance requires full awareness of the terms of the contract, which could not have been achieved due to the inadequate signage.
No Consideration:
If the parking charge is not sufficiently communicated, there can be no exchange of consideration. The driver could not have knowingly agreed to pay a penalty they were unaware of. Therefore, no valid contract was formed between the driver and UKPC.
As the signage fails to meet the requirements of a valid contract formation, any claim for a breach of contract is unfounded.
2. No Keeper Liability – Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012
UKPC has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4, which means that they cannot transfer liability for the alleged parking charge from the driver to the keeper.
According to PoFA, Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(3)(b)(ii), “adequate notice” means that the parking charge must be prominently displayed and adequately brought to the attention of the driver at the time the vehicle is parked. This includes making the charge clear on all relevant signage.No Prominent Display of the Parking Charge:
The parking charge of £100 is not displayed in a manner that complies with PoFA’s requirements. It is hidden in small text within a larger block of information, making it impossible for a reasonable person to be aware of it. In comparison, the signage in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 prominently displayed the charge in large, bold text. UKPC's signage does not meet this standard, meaning the parking charge was not adequately brought to the attention of the driver.
Given the failure to comply with PoFA Schedule 4, UKPC cannot hold the registered keeper liable. This PCN is therefore not enforceable against the keeper of the vehicle.
3. No Evidence That the Keeper is the Driver – Burden of Proof
As UKPC has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, they cannot transfer liability to the keeper. Therefore, the operator is put to strict proof that the person they are pursuing is the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged contravention.
UKPC is required to provide evidence that the keeper of the vehicle was also the driver. They cannot simply assume or infer that the keeper and driver are the same person. Mere assumptions are not sufficient grounds for liability.
In the absence of clear, compelling evidence that the registered keeper was the driver at the time, UKPC has no legal basis to pursue this charge. Therefore, I put UKPC to strict proof that the person they are pursuing was indeed the driver. Failing this, the charge must be cancelled.
4. Failure to Comply with BPA Code of Practice
UKPC, as a member of the British Parking Association (BPA), must comply with its Code of Practice (CoP). Several breaches of this Code have occurred in this case:Section 18.1 – Clear and Prominent Entrance Signs:
The BPA Code of Practice requires that entrance signs clearly convey that the car park is managed and that terms and conditions apply. In this case, the signage at the entrance was inadequate and did not provide a clear indication of any charges. This means that no contract could have been formed upon entry, as the driver would not have been informed of the essential terms governing their use of the site.
Section 18.3 – Prominent Display of the Parking Charge:
The BPA Code of Practice, Section 18.3, specifically states that signs “must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read, and understand.” Furthermore, the Code requires that any parking charges, such as the charge for breaching terms and conditions, “must be in a font size large enough to be easily seen, read, and understood by drivers.”
The signage provided by UKPC does not comply with this requirement. The charge of £100 is buried within a block of small text and does not stand out. It is not “obvious” as required under BPA CoP Section 18.3. This failure to make the charge clear and prominent invalidates the assumption that the driver entered into a contract and accepted the parking charge.
(https://i.imgur.com/9QlqeDB.jpeg)
Section 18.4 – Contrast and Positioning of the Signage:
The BPA Code further specifies that important information, such as the parking charge, must be easily distinguishable from other text and must not be hidden in smaller print. UKPC’s signage fails to meet this requirement, and the £100 charge is not made conspicuous to the driver, in clear breach of Section 18.4.
5. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
UKPC is required to provide strict proof that they have the authority to issue parking charges on this land. As a third-party operator, UKPC must demonstrate that they have a valid contract with the landholder, giving them the right to manage parking and pursue charges in their own name.I request that UKPC produce an unredacted copy of their contract with the landholder, demonstrating that they have the legal authority to issue PCNs and enforce parking charges. This contract should clearly outline:- The boundaries of the land they are authorised to manage.
- The restrictions and conditions on parking enforcement.
- Who is responsible for signage and its maintenance.
If UKPC cannot provide this evidence, they have no legal grounds to issue or enforce this PCN.
Conclusion
In light of the above points, it is clear that:UKPC failed to form a valid contract with the driver due to inadequate and unclear signage.
UKPC cannot transfer liability to the keeper as they have not complied with PoFA.
UKPC has no evidence that the registered keeper was the driver.
UKPC’s signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice.
UKPC has not provided evidence of their authority to issue parking charges on the land.
Given these significant failings, I request that POPLA uphold my appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
POPLA Verification Code: [Verification Code]
UKPC PCN Number: [PCN Number]
Re: Appeal against UKPC Parking Charge Notice
I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXX and am writing to appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by UKPC on XXX at XXX. This appeal is based on the following detailed grounds, which demonstrate that the charge is invalid, unfair, and unenforceable:
1. Inadequate and Unclear Signage – No Contract Formed
For a valid contract to be formed between the driver and UKPC, there must be clear offer, acceptance, and consideration. However, the signage at the location fails to meet the necessary requirements to form a contract:No Clear Offer:
The signage at the site does not clearly convey the terms and conditions of parking, which is a fundamental requirement for a contract. The parking charge of £100 is buried within a wall of text, making it almost impossible for any driver to understand that they are entering into a contract that includes such a penalty. Additionally, the signage is poorly positioned and not conspicuous, meaning a driver could enter the site without being aware of the terms.
No Valid Acceptance:
As the offer was unclear, the driver cannot be said to have accepted the terms. Acceptance requires full awareness of the terms of the contract, which could not have been achieved due to the inadequate signage.
No Consideration:
If the parking charge is not sufficiently communicated, there can be no exchange of consideration. The driver could not have knowingly agreed to pay a penalty they were unaware of. Therefore, no valid contract was formed between the driver and UKPC.
As the signage fails to meet the requirements of a valid contract formation, any claim for a breach of contract is unfounded.
2. No Keeper Liability – Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012
UKPC has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4, which means that they cannot transfer liability for the alleged parking charge from the driver to the keeper.
According to PoFA, Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(3)(b)(ii), “adequate notice” means that the parking charge must be prominently displayed and adequately brought to the attention of the driver at the time the vehicle is parked. This includes making the charge clear on all relevant signage.No Prominent Display of the Parking Charge:
The parking charge of £100 is not displayed in a manner that complies with PoFA’s requirements. It is hidden in small text within a larger block of information, making it impossible for a reasonable person to be aware of it. In comparison, the signage in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 prominently displayed the charge in large, bold text. UKPC's signage does not meet this standard, meaning the parking charge was not adequately brought to the attention of the driver.
Given the failure to comply with PoFA Schedule 4, UKPC cannot hold the registered keeper liable. This PCN is therefore not enforceable against the keeper of the vehicle.
3. No Evidence That the Keeper is the Driver – Burden of Proof
As UKPC has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, they cannot transfer liability to the keeper. Therefore, the operator is put to strict proof that the person they are pursuing is the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged contravention.
UKPC is required to provide evidence that the keeper of the vehicle was also the driver. They cannot simply assume or infer that the keeper and driver are the same person. Mere assumptions are not sufficient grounds for liability.
In the absence of clear, compelling evidence that the registered keeper was the driver at the time, UKPC has no legal basis to pursue this charge. Therefore, I put UKPC to strict proof that the person they are pursuing was indeed the driver. Failing this, the charge must be cancelled.
4. Failure to Comply with BPA Code of Practice
UKPC, as a member of the British Parking Association (BPA), must comply with its Code of Practice (CoP). Several breaches of this Code have occurred in this case:Section 18.1 – Clear and Prominent Entrance Signs:
The BPA Code of Practice requires that entrance signs clearly convey that the car park is managed and that terms and conditions apply. In this case, the signage at the entrance was inadequate and did not provide a clear indication of any charges. This means that no contract could have been formed upon entry, as the driver would not have been informed of the essential terms governing their use of the site.
Section 18.3 – Prominent Display of the Parking Charge:
The BPA Code of Practice, Section 18.3, specifically states that signs “must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read, and understand.” Furthermore, the Code requires that any parking charges, such as the charge for breaching terms and conditions, “must be in a font size large enough to be easily seen, read, and understood by drivers.”
The signage provided by UKPC does not comply with this requirement. The charge of £100 is buried within a block of small text and does not stand out. It is not “obvious” as required under BPA CoP Section 18.3. This failure to make the charge clear and prominent invalidates the assumption that the driver entered into a contract and accepted the parking charge.
(https://i.imgur.com/9QlqeDB.jpeg)
Section 18.4 – Contrast and Positioning of the Signage:
The BPA Code further specifies that important information, such as the parking charge, must be easily distinguishable from other text and must not be hidden in smaller print. UKPC’s signage fails to meet this requirement, and the £100 charge is not made conspicuous to the driver, in clear breach of Section 18.4.
5. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
UKPC is required to provide strict proof that they have the authority to issue parking charges on this land. As a third-party operator, UKPC must demonstrate that they have a valid contract with the landholder, giving them the right to manage parking and pursue charges in their own name.I request that UKPC produce an unredacted copy of their contract with the landholder, demonstrating that they have the legal authority to issue PCNs and enforce parking charges. This contract should clearly outline:- The boundaries of the land they are authorised to manage.
- The restrictions and conditions on parking enforcement.
- Who is responsible for signage and its maintenance.
If UKPC cannot provide this evidence, they have no legal grounds to issue or enforce this PCN.
Conclusion
In light of the above points, it is clear that:UKPC failed to form a valid contract with the driver due to inadequate and unclear signage.
UKPC cannot transfer liability to the keeper as they have not complied with PoFA.
UKPC has no evidence that the registered keeper was the driver.
UKPC’s signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice.
UKPC has not provided evidence of their authority to issue parking charges on the land.
Given these significant failings, I request that POPLA uphold my appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
The attempt above is not a POPLA appeal. It is simply an operator appeal and should not be used.
The NtK is basically PoFA compliant. So no point going on about that. The only PoFA point that I can see that could be argued is the fact the the charge for breaching the terms is not adequately brought to the attention of the driver.
That is why I gave you the sign comparison images. PoFA 2(3)(b)(ii) is the bit that applies. You’ll have to look it up yourself and try to explain it to the POPLA assessor. They are quite moronic when it comes to understanding the minutae of PoFA so is not likely to help much at this stage.
You appear to be overly worrying about this appeal. If it is not successful, it is no big deal. It has no bearing on anything going forward. This would end up as court claim and if the advice is followed, has a greater than 99.9% of being discontinued.
If point 2 re PoFA compliance does not hold any water, happy to remove itIt's not that point #2 doesn't hold any water, it's that it doesn't advance a ground of appeal on its own. All it does is point out that neither UKPC nor the POPLA assessor reading the appeal know who the driver is, and that it would be unacceptable to make any assumptions as to the driver's identity without any evidence to support them.
This is a useful point to make, if you are also claiming that UKPC's notice does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, meaning that they are unable to recover the charges from the keeper. But your current draft doesn't make any claims about a lack of PoFA compliance.
If point 2 re PoFA compliance does not hold any water, happy to remove itIt's not that point #2 doesn't hold any water, it's that it doesn't advance a ground of appeal on its own. All it does is point out that neither UKPC nor the POPLA assessor reading the appeal know who the driver is, and that it would be unacceptable to make any assumptions as to the driver's identity without any evidence to support them.
You still haven't explained why the NtK is not PoFA compliant or why PoFA cannot apply. Simply rambling on about PoFA and Keeper liability does not show why your PCN does not comply with PoFA (assuming it doesn't and I can't be bothered to go back through the thread to see whether it des or not).
The Harry Greenslade commentary only highlights why there can be no inference or assumption that the Keeper must also be the driver. You need to specifically enlighten the POPLA assessor why they cannot rely on PoFA in your case. If the NtK is fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA, then you can be held liable as the Keeper if the drivers identity is not known.
Also, your references to the BPA CoP do not make any sense, at least in the version I am looking at. Version 9, January 2024 (https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/Version91.2.2024Highlight.pdf) is the one you should be looking at.
There is no "grace" period before parking. Only an "consideration period" and that is not added to the time allowed once the contract has been accepted by parking.
What part of PoFA hasn’t been complied with? You can’t just say it isn’t PoFA compliant. You have to explain why it isn’t.
Signs are going to be a lot more likely to win rather than landowner authority.
The example of the signs I provided is just that, an example. You will need your own photo of a sign from the actual location.
Pre estimate of loss is not relevant to POPLA. They couldn’t care about that. Ot is for a claim defence. POPLA are only interested if the PCN was issued correctly.
A lot of that will not interest POPLA and is more akin to a defence against a claim in the county court.
List all the points you intend to argue and then expand on each one after. Make sure that they follow a logical path and the most obvious and likely ones to be winners first.
For example, if you are going to argue no PoFA compliance, that would go just before no keeper liability and no evidence that the person being pursued is the driver. For UKPC, it is always going to be a problem with their signage as it never conforms to the BPA CoP requirements.
THe £100 charge is never adequately brought to the drivers attention. Use a phot of one the signs at the location and show it alongside the sign from the Beavis case pointing out the obvious difference in how the £100 charge is brought to the attention as in this example:
(https://i.imgur.com/VvJkpUi.jpeg)
Things such as landowner authority are not leading points. They are included only to either catch them out. So, leading with that is not advised. Also, there is a much longer landowner authority point in many of the newer recent POPLA appeals.
In the search box at the top of this page, type in "popla appeal" (include the quotation marks) and see what you get.
On the website they provided the same sign which was time stamped.
Unfortunately the driver just wasn't paying attention, saw an empty bay and parked
29th August is the appeal rejection letter
I keep getting this error when trying to upload a pic of the fine
The upload folder is full. Please try a smaller file and/or contact an administrator.