POPLA Verification Code: [Insert Code]
UKPC Parking Charge Reference: [Insert PCN Reference]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM]
Appellant: [Your Name]
Grounds for Appeal
I am appealing as the Hirer of the vehicle, and I contest this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the following grounds:1. UKPC’s Notice to Hirer (NtH) is non-compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), so the Hirer cannot be held liable.
2. UKPC has not established the identity of the driver.
3. The signage at the site is inadequate and does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice.
4. UKPC has not provided evidence of landowner authority to issue and enforce parking charges at this location.
1. UKPC’s Notice to Hirer (NtH) is non-compliant with PoFA, so the Hirer cannot be held liable
Under Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), a parking operator can only transfer liability to a vehicle's Hirer if they have fully complied with the requirements of the Act. UKPC has failed to do so, meaning I, as the Hirer, cannot be held liable for this charge.
Key Failures in UKPC’s Notice to Hirer:• UKPC did not include the mandatory documents required by Paragraph 13(2) of PoFA, which states that to transfer liability to the Hirer, the operator must provide copies of:• The Notice to Keeper (NtK)
• The hire agreement
• A statement of liability signed by the Hirer
• UKPC’s Notice to Hirer (NtH) does not comply with Paragraph 14(5), as it omits crucial statutory wording and fails to inform the Hirer of their liability conditions.
Since UKPC has failed to meet these legal requirements, they cannot transfer liability to me as the Hirer, and I am not liable for this charge.
2. UKPC has not established the identity of the driver
Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), the operator may only hold the Hirer liable for an unpaid parking charge if they fully comply with all the requirements outlined in Paragraph 14. As demonstrated above, the NtK issued by UKPC is non-compliant with PoFA in the following critical ways:• UKPC did not include the mandatory documents required by Paragraph 13(2) of PoFA, which states that to transfer liability to the Hirer, the operator must provide copies of:• The Notice to Keeper (NtK)
• The hire agreement
• A statement of liability signed by the Hirer
• UKPC’s Notice to Hirer (NtH) does not comply with Paragraph 14(5), as it omits crucial statutory wording and fails to inform the Hirer of their liability conditions.
Since UKPC has failed to meet these legal requirements, they cannot transfer liability to me as the Hirer, and I am not liable for this charge. I put the operator to strict proof that:• They have fully complied with all the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4, allowing them to transfer liability to the Hirer.
• The person being pursued (the Hirer) was, in fact, the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged contravention.
There is no presumption in law that the Hirer was the driver. In VCS v. Edward [2023], it was ruled that the operator must provide sufficient evidence to prove that the Keeper/Hirer and the driver are the same person. Without such evidence, the Keeper/Hirer cannot be held liable for the charge.
Without evidence of the driver’s identity and given the clear PoFA non-compliance, the operator has no lawful basis to pursue me, the Hirer, for this charge.
3. The signage is inadequate and does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice
The BPA Code of Practice (version 8, 2024), which still applies to existing car parks until the new Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCOP) comes into effect in 2026, outlines clear requirements for signage.
Section 18.3 of the BPA Code states that signs must be clear and legible, with terms and conditions clearly visible to drivers upon entering and throughout the site. UKPC has failed to meet these requirements:• The signs do not contain prominent terms regarding vehicles that exceed standard bay sizes.
• The charge amount is buried within a large block of text and is not prominent, contrary to Beavis v ParkingEye (2015) UKSC 67.
• Below is a comparison of the HUPC signage and the sign from the Beavis case:(https://i.imgur.com/kUoExmB.jpeg)
Given that the signage is inadequate and does not comply with the BPA Code, it cannot form the basis of a legally enforceable contract.
4. UKPC has not provided evidence of landowner authority
The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.
The operator is also put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules.
A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. I require UKPC to provide an unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner as evidence. If they fail to do so, this charge must be cancelled.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, this Parking Charge Notice must be cancelled. UKPC has:• Failed to comply with PoFA, so I, as the Hirer, cannot be held liable.
• Failed to identify the driver, so there is no enforceable claim against me.
• Failed to provide adequate signage, meaning no contract was formed.
• Failed to provide proof of landowner authority, meaning they have no legal standing.
As UKPC cannot enforce this charge, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel this PCN.
I'm not sure what's going on but Imgur keeps saying the file format is not supported and my Mac won't open it when I change the extension to .jpeg, but only this particular one, which is strange, so I have to just copy and paste their response.
Dear Appeals Department,
Thank you for your latest correspondence regarding Parking Charge Reference [Reference]. I see that you have once again chosen to ignore the clear points raised in my previous response and, instead, sent yet another request for the “full name and address of the driver.” This is beginning to feel like an exercise in futility.
In my original response, I advised you to pass the matter to a competent adult for proper handling. If this most recent letter is indeed the result of having done so, then I must express my deep concern. It would appear that what UKPC considers "competent" falls well below even the most generous definition of sub-standard.
Allow me to reiterate what I stated previously, as it seems to have escaped your comprehension: as the Hirer of the vehicle, I am under no legal obligation to provide the information you are requesting. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, upon which you seem to rely without fully understanding it, does not compel me to identify the driver. Instead, it requires you to meet strict statutory requirements to transfer liability to the Hirer. You have failed to do so.
For your benefit—and in the hope that someone at UKPC might eventually grasp this—I will again highlight your key failures under Schedule 4 of the Act:• You have not issued a compliant Notice to Keeper, as required by Paragraph 13(2).
• Your Notice to Hirer omits essential information and documentation, as mandated by Paragraph 14(5).
These are not minor oversights; they are fundamental requirements. Without fulfilling these obligations, you cannot lawfully transfer liability to me as the Hirer. Your repeated attempts to demand information that I am not required to provide only highlight the glaring inadequacies in your case and, frankly, in your understanding of the law.
Should you wish to continue this charade, I expect you to issue a POPLA verification code immediately. I am confident that an independent adjudicator will confirm what should already be obvious: your claim is invalid due to your failure to comply with the statutory requirements. However, if you wish to avoid further embarrassment (and unnecessary costs), I suggest cancelling this charge without further delay.
Your persistence in sending these nonsensical letters is becoming tedious. Repeating the same request in the hope of a different outcome is not a demonstration of competence or strategy—it is simply a sign of intellectual malnourishment.
In summary, I will not be providing the information you seek, nor am I obliged to do so. Please cancel this charge or issue a POPLA code so we can put an end to this farce. I suggest that, moving forward, you consider investing in staff training to avoid such glaring incompetence in future.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
Dear Appeals Department,
Thank you for your letter dated 14 November 2024 regarding Parking Charge Reference [Reference]. Unless there is a competent adult there that can assist you, I will explain why I will not be acceding to your request for the "full name and address of the driver." Asking for information that I am under no legal obligation to provide is, to put it kindly, ambitious.
As I already pointed out in my original appeal, I am appealing as the Hirer of the vehicle, and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not require me to identify the driver. Attempting to hold me liable without UKPC fully complying with all the requirements of Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 says a lot about what appears to be gross incompetence by your company. You might want to review the legislation to avoid similar errors in future.
Your failure to meet the statutory requirements, including the omission of key information and documents specified under Paragraphs 13(2) and 14(5), means that liability for this charge cannot be transferred to me as the Hirer. It seems you are now fishing for information in an attempt to correct these oversights. Sadly, for you, this isn't how the law works.
Additionally, should you choose to reject this appeal, you will be doing nothing more than confirming your own incompetence. I will immediately appeal to POPLA, where you have absolutely no chance of success due to your repeated failures to comply with the law. All you will achieve is wasting your money on the POPLA fee in the process.
I suggest that you consider passing this response to an adult who can actually deal with it properly and perhaps even comprehend why you have no hope at POPLA. Spouting Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act is all very well, but it means absolutely nothing if you have not complied with all the statutory requirements. I recommend researching Paragraphs 13 and 14, doing your homework, and understanding why your Notice to Hirer is not compliant. Until then, your continued insistence on pursuing this matter borders on comedic and says a lot about the levels of intellect within UKPC.
Since the outcome here is obvious, I suggest saving us both time and effort by cancelling this parking charge immediately. Should the intellectual malnourishment prevail and you refuse, I look forward to receiving a POPLA code so an independent appeals assessor can confirm what you clearly cannot grasp.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
'not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space'We sometimes see parking companies issuing 'outside of bay markings' tickets for marginal infringements, but they're not wrong here ;D