The operator has failed to adequately address or rebut the key points raised in the appeal and has instead introduced irrelevant information in an apparent attempt to distract from the deficiencies in their case. Below is a response to their claims:
Signage and the £85 Charge
The operator claims that:
“The £85 charge is specifically highlighted alongside the terms of parking at both the entrance and within the car park, ensuring that drivers are sufficiently informed of the potential consequences of non-compliance.”
However, this statement does not rebut the keeper’s appeal point that the £85 charge is hidden within a dense wall of text on the main sign, written in a smaller font than all other key information, such as the parking tariffs and “Pay Here” instructions. The £85 charge, as the most significant term of the alleged contract, should have been displayed with equal or greater prominence than other elements on the sign to ensure it was brought to the attention of drivers. Instead, it has been buried in a poorly designed layout, making it difficult to notice and undermining the operator’s claim that the signage complies with the BPA Code of Practice.
The operator’s mention of the entrance sign is irrelevant. The point of an entrance sign, as defined in the BPA Code, is to alert drivers they are entering privately controlled land, not to display detailed terms. Even if the entrance sign included the £85 charge, it would be buried within the same unreadable wall of text, which no driver could reasonably be expected to read while manoeuvring their vehicle safely.
In summary, the operator has failed to rebut the keeper’s main appeal point: the £85 charge is insufficiently prominent, buried in small text on the main sign, and cannot form the basis of a valid contract. This lack of clarity renders the parking charge unenforceable.
Misleading Presentation of Tariffs
The operator has failed to address the specific point raised in the appeal regarding the misleading presentation of the Sunday tariff. While they claim that:
"all tariffs are clearly listed,"
they do not explain why the Sunday tariff is detached from the main daily tariff ("Monday - Saturday") and placed six lines further down the sign after unrelated information and instructions. The Sunday tariff is also displayed in a different coloured font, which reinforces the impression that it is not part of the primary terms for parking. This inconsistent formatting creates unnecessary ambiguity and could easily lead a reasonable driver to believe that parking on Sundays is free.
The separation of the Sunday tariff from the main list of tariffs suggests either poor design or a deliberate attempt to mislead or entrap drivers into non-compliance. This layout fails to meet the standards of clarity and transparency required under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. A reasonable driver would naturally focus on the prominently marked "Monday - Saturday" section and assume this covers all relevant terms. The detached placement of the Sunday tariff undermines this assumption and creates a risk of misunderstanding.
Despite this being a central point in the appeal, the operator has provided no explanation for the unusual placement of the Sunday tariff or its presentation in a different coloured font. This failure to rebut the appeal point only strengthens the conclusion that the signage is not fit for purpose.
In conclusion, the detached and inconsistent presentation of the Sunday tariff makes it highly unlikely that it would be noticed or understood by a reasonable driver. The operator’s failure to address this point highlights the deficiencies in their signage, rendering the parking charge unenforceable.
Notice to Keeper (NtK) Non-Compliance
The operator asserts that the NtK is compliant with PoFA, but their response is fundamentally flawed and insufficient. The appeal highlighted that the NtK fails to meet the specific requirement under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA, which mandates a clear “invitation” for the keeper to pay the parking charge. The NtK merely states:
“You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days...we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you.”
This statement is not an "invitation" to the keeper to pay the charge; it is simply an assertion of potential liability if the operator does not have the driver’s details. This does not satisfy Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), which explicitly requires the NtK to "invite" the keeper to pay. Without this, the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper, making the NtK non-compliant.
The operator entirely ignores this specific point raised in the appeal, instead repeating their claim that the NtK complies with PoFA. However, PoFA requires FULL compliance with ALL provisions, not partial or substantial compliance. The operator’s response relies on a partial quotation without addressing the lack of an invitation to pay, further highlighting their inability to rebut this key issue.
This failure renders the NtK non-compliant and invalidates any claim of keeper liability. The operator's inability to provide a satisfactory response only strengthens the position that they cannot lawfully pursue the charge against the registered keeper.
Breach of BPA Code of Practice
The operator claims their signage complies with the BPA Code but fails to provide meaningful evidence to support this. The appeal raised specific breaches, including the lack of prominence for the £85 charge, poor layout and positioning of terms, and inadequate contrast between text and background. Instead of addressing these points, the operator makes a blanket claim of compliance without demonstrating how their signage meets the requirements.
Photos of the signage highlight these breaches. The £85 charge is buried in a block of text far less prominent than other elements such as payment instructions or tariffs, violating Paragraphs 18.3 and 19.1 of the BPA Code, which require key terms to be clear and prominently displayed. The signs are cluttered, poorly organised, and difficult to read, further failing the Code’s standards.
The operator has provided no evidence to rebut these points, such as font measurements or explanations of compliance with the BPA Code. Their vague claims are unsupported and fail to demonstrate that their signage meets the required standards.
In conclusion, the signage does not meet the BPA Code of Practice’s requirements for prominence, clarity, or readability. The operator’s failure to address these deficiencies renders the parking charge unenforceable.
Grace Periods – Relevance?
The operator devotes significant effort to discussing compliance with grace periods, which is irrelevant to this appeal. The appellant does not dispute that no permit was purchased or whether the vehicle exceeded any grace period. The appeal concerns unclear signage that failed to inform the driver that a tariff was due on a Sunday.
This focus on grace periods does not address the appeal’s core argument and appears to distract from their inability to rebut the substantive points raised. Such irrelevant detail highlights the weaknesses in their case.
Conclusion
The operator has failed to rebut or adequately address the points raised in the appeal. Their signage does not meet the required standards for clarity, prominence, or transparency, nor does it adequately communicate key terms. Their NtK fails to comply with PoFA, and their inclusion of irrelevant arguments further highlights the deficiencies in their case. The Parking Charge Notice must be cancelled.
I was not improperly parked
The appeal is submitted strictly as the keeper, with no obligation to identify the driver
I selected the reason as signage not being clearLast time I appealed to POPLA (which was fairly recently) I'm fairly sure that was not one of the options. The top line options were:
Awaiting you kind suggestion of what to do next.
Update: I have now submitted my appeal to POPLAYou didn't wait very long for any kind suggestions! Why the rush?
Update: I have now submitted my appeal to POPLA
Will keep you updated if/when I hear back.If you don't hear back, chase them.
Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice [PCN Number]
As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I am appealing the above-referenced Parking Charge Notice issued at the Clock Tower Car Park, Maidenhead, on [date of incident]. The appeal is submitted strictly as the keeper, with no obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company. I fully expect the Parking Charge Notice to be cancelled for the following reasons:1. Failure to Adequately Bring the £85 Charge to the Attention of the Driver (PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(3)(b)(ii))
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(3)(b)(ii), requires that the parking charge be adequately brought to the attention of the driver. The signage at the Clock Tower Car Park does not comply with this requirement. The £85 charge is buried within smaller text towards the bottom of the sign, and it is not prominently displayed to sufficiently alert drivers to the potential penalty for non-compliance.
A significant term such as the £85 charge should be presented in a clear, prominent manner, similar to how the main tariff rates are displayed, to ensure it is adequately communicated to motorists before they choose to park.
2. Misleading Presentation of Tariffs (Consumer Rights Act 2015)
Under Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, terms must be transparent and prominently displayed. In this case, while the Monday-Saturday rates are in green at the top, the Sunday and bank holiday tariff is placed at the bottom in black text, below other less crucial information. This separation and difference in formatting mislead the driver into assuming that parking is free on Sundays, as the Sunday tariff is not presented with the same prominence as the other tariffs. Such a presentation fails to meet the requirement of transparency.
3. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Requirements for the Notice to Keeper
The Notice to Keeper issued does not meet the requirements of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA, as there is no invitation for the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge. This omission makes the NtK non-compliant with PoFA, invalidating any claim to hold the registered keeper liable for the parking charge if the driver is not identified.
4. Breach of BPA Code of Practice Regarding Signage (Paragraphs 18.1, 18.3, and 19.1)
The British Parking Association Code of Practice stipulates that signage must be clear, legible, and positioned so that terms are easily understandable by drivers. Paragraph 18.3 specifically requires that parking charges be clearly highlighted on signage, while Paragraph 19.1 mandates that signs must make it easy for drivers to understand the terms before parking. The £85 charge is buried in small print, failing to comply with these requirements.
Conclusion
Given these breaches of PoFA, the BPA Code of Practice, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Parking Charge Notice is unenforceable. I fully expect the immediate cancellation of the PCN. Should you choose not to cancel the charge, I will escalate the matter to POPLA, where the arguments above will demonstrate that the signage and Notice to Keeper are not compliant with the relevant regulations.