Re: Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice [PCN Reference Number]
This is a formal appeal by the Registered Keeper for the above-referenced Parking Charge Notice, issued to vehicle registration [Vehicle Registration Number] on [Date of Incident], for an alleged breach of parking terms at "Park Road, Peterborough."
The appeal is based on the following grounds:
1. Failure to Fully Comply with All Requirements of PoFA:
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with all the requirements set out in Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), which are necessary to hold the keeper liable for the charge. The following points highlight the failures:
• Ambiguity Regarding Relevant Land:
The NtK identifies the location only as "Park Road, Peterborough," which is not specific enough because there are two separate locations named "Park Road" within the city. Under Paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA, the notice must clearly specify the relevant land on which the vehicle was parked. The failure to provide a precise location means the NtK does not meet the statutory requirements necessary to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.
• Failure to Convey an Invitation to Pay:
The NtK does not convey an invitation to the registered keeper to make payment of the outstanding parking charge, as required by Paragraph 9(2)(e) of PoFA. While the NtK does not need to specifically use the word "invite," it should use language that clearly conveys an invitation or a synonym thereof. Simply stating that the charge is due is insufficient to meet this requirement. As a result, the NtK fails to transfer liability to the keeper in accordance with PoFA.
2. Lack of Transparency Regarding the Consideration Period (Breaches of the Consumer Rights Act 2015):
The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) specifies that a consideration period must be a minimum of five minutes, allowing drivers to decide whether to accept the parking contract. However, the CoP does not define a maximum consideration period, and the actual allowed duration is not indicated anywhere on the signage at this car park. This lack of transparency violates several provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), which protects consumers from unfair contract terms.
• Section 68 – Requirement for Transparency:
The CRA requires that terms of a consumer contract must be transparent, meaning they should be expressed in plain and intelligible language and made available to the consumer. In this case, the consideration period is not displayed on the signage, which fails the transparency requirement, as drivers are left unaware of how much time they have to consider the terms. This could lead to confusion and unfair penalisation based on unclear or undisclosed terms.
• Section 62 – Unfair Contract Terms:
Under the CRA, a term is considered unfair if it creates a significant imbalance between the trader and the consumer, to the detriment of the consumer. If the consideration period is specified only in a private landowner contract or site agreement that is not publicly accessible, it places the driver at a disadvantage, as they could not reasonably be aware of the time limit for considering the terms. This makes the term potentially unfair and unenforceable under Section 62 of the CRA.
• Where is the Consideration Period Defined?
If the actual consideration period is hidden in a private agreement, this constitutes a breach of the CRA, as consumers cannot be expected to comply with terms that are not communicated. The BPA CoP requires that terms and conditions be clearly conveyed at the time of parking, not buried in private contracts that drivers have no access to. As such, the absence of any indication on the signage regarding the consideration period means that the parking charge notice is based on conditions that were not communicated to the driver.
• Consideration Period as per BPA CoP:
Although the BPA CoP mandates a minimum five-minute consideration period, there is no upper limit specified. In the absence of clear guidance on the signage, the seven-minute stay in this instance could reasonably be considered within an acceptable consideration period, particularly given the circumstances where the driver attempted to comply with the payment terms but could not due to the lack of available payment options.
3. Ambiguity in the NtK's Allegation:
The NtK suggests that a breach occurred either by failing to purchase a parking ticket or by overstaying the permitted time. However, if the operator is alleging that the driver remained too long, there is no evidence provided in the NtK that clearly defines the permitted time, nor is there any indication of a defined consideration period on the signage. This ambiguity undermines the operator's claim and provides grounds for challenging the validity of the PCN.
4. No Contract Formed Due to Inability to Comply with Payment Terms and Inadequate Signage:
For a parking contract to be valid, the driver must be able to comply with the payment terms. In this instance, the payment machine at the car park accepted only cash, with no alternative payment options (such as card or app-based payments) available. The driver did not have cash and, after attempting to pay and verifying the absence of other payment options, left the car park promptly to park elsewhere where card payment was possible.
• Inadequate Signage:
The signage at the entrance to the car park does not indicate that this is a "cash only car park." There was also no signage within the car park indicating that charges could be paid online or through any alternative payment methods. The failure to provide clear information about the payment methods limits the driver's ability to enter into a parking contract knowingly and reasonably. This lack of transparency breaches the requirements of the CRA for fair and clear terms and also fails to meet the BPA CoP standards for adequate signage.
Since the driver was unable to comply with the payment requirements and the signage did not adequately inform them of the available payment methods, no parking contract was formed. The driver acted reasonably by leaving the car park shortly after entry once payment could not be made.
Conclusion:
The Parking Charge Notice is unenforceable due to multiple failures to comply with PoFA, the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and BPA requirements. The NtK's lack of full compliance with PoFA, the absence of a specified consideration period, the ambiguity in the alleged breach, and the inadequate signage collectively justify the immediate cancellation of this charge.
I request that you cancel this Parking Charge Notice and confirm the cancellation in writing.