POPLA Verification Code: [Insert Code]
Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice: [Insert PCN Reference Number]
Vehicle Registration Number: [Insert Registration Number]
Date of Parking Event: [Insert Date]
Grounds of Appeal:
1. Unclear and Ambiguous Terms – Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 mandates that all terms of a contract must be fair, transparent, and prominently communicated. In this instance, the signage in the car park fails to clearly inform users of the terms applicable to Electric Vehicle (EV) charging bays, specifically whether parking tariffs apply to vehicles actively charging.
Key points:
• The EV bay is designated for charging, and the vehicle was actively charging during the 28-minute stay.
• No signage explicitly states that EV users must pay a parking fee in addition to charging fees.
• The lack of explicit, clear terms creates ambiguity. Section 69 of the CRA 2015 states that any ambiguity must be interpreted in favour of the consumer.
Should the POPLA assessor disagree with the clear presence of ambiguity, they risk undermining their position of impartiality. It must be emphasised that Section 69 of the CRA 2015 is indisputable in its application, and any contrary ruling would leave the appellant no choice but to pursue this matter in court. ParkingEye (PE) would face an unwinnable case, as the courts will unambiguously side with the appellant on this point of law. POPLA must carefully consider whether to proceed in supporting PE when the appellant is prepared to escalate this matter and has every confidence that PE would not succeed.
It is reasonable for an EV driver to assume that using a marked charging bay for its intended purpose does not require a separate parking payment. This ambiguity renders the parking charge unenforceable.
2. Failure to Clearly Mark or Specify Terms on Signage
The signage at this location fails to meet the requirements for clarity, legibility, and unambiguity under the new Private Parking Single Code of Practice introduced on 1 October 2024. While the transition period allows existing car parks until 2026 to fully conform with the updated signage requirements, the principles of transparency, fairness, and clear communication apply immediately to ensure compliance with consumer protection laws and contractual fairness.
Key deficiencies in the signage:
• There is no explicit notice on or near the EV charging bays indicating that parking charges apply while using the charging facilities.
• The terms and conditions lack sufficient detail to inform Electric Vehicle (EV) drivers that they are required to pay for parking in addition to charging fees.
• The signage does not meet the necessary standards of prominence and intelligibility required to ensure that the terms are brought to the consumer’s attention before they enter into a contract.
Even under the prior British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice v9, signage was required to be clear, unambiguous, and prominently displayed to comply with consumer law. The failure to meet these standards, regardless of the phased implementation timeline for the new Code, makes the signage inadequate for forming a valid contract with the driver.
The lack of compliance with signage standards and the ambiguity in the terms further supports the appellant’s claim that the Parking Charge Notice is invalid and unenforceable.
3. No Loss Suffered by the Landowner
The vehicle was actively using a paid-for service (EV charging). There was no free parking occupied without payment or misuse of the space. The driver acted in good faith, and the landowner did not incur any financial loss as a result of the stay. Consequently, the parking charge represents a punitive fee rather than a genuine pre-estimate of loss, which contravenes the principles established in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015].
4. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by ParkingEye fails to comply with the strict requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
While the NtK mentions that the keeper may be held liable if the driver is not identified, it fails to explicitly include the required invitation to the keeper to pay the charge, as mandated by Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). The specific requirement is clear in the legislation and cannot be dismissed as being “implied” simply because the NtK is addressed to the keeper. The law explicitly demands an unambiguous invitation to the keeper to pay the charge.
POPLA assessors have previously erred in this area by claiming compliance with Paragraph 9(2)(e), conveniently overlooking the critical and specific requirement of subsection (i). The requirement for an invitation is not satisfied by implication or inference; it must be expressly and explicitly stated within the NtK. In this case, ParkingEye has failed to meet that standard.
This omission is a material failure to comply with PoFA 2012, which renders the NtK non-compliant and invalid for the purpose of transferring liability to the registered keeper. As the keeper, I cannot be held liable for this Parking Charge Notice, and any attempt to do so would be contrary to PoFA’s statutory framework.
5. Request for Evidence
ParkingEye is put to strict proof of the following:
• A copy of the full signage terms, specifically relating to EV charging bays, including all locations within the car park where such signs are displayed.
• Evidence that the signage is visible, prominent, and compliant with the BPA Code of Practice.
• A breakdown of any genuine loss incurred as a result of the vehicle’s stay, particularly given that it was actively using a paid-for EV charging facility.
6. ParkingEye’s Contractual Authority and Its Relevance to EV Charging Bays
ParkingEye must demonstrate that they have the authority, flowing from the landowner, to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) at this location. While POPLA often accepts a signed witness statement from the parking operator asserting contractual authority, this case requires stricter scrutiny due to the specific circumstances surrounding the EV charging bays.
It is insufficient for ParkingEye to provide a generic statement of authority. To meet the burden of proof, ParkingEye must produce the actual, contemporaneous contract with the landowner or lawful occupier, signed and dated, that was in effect on the date of the alleged parking event. This contract must explicitly address the following points:
A. Definition of "Parking" vs. "Charging":
• The contract must specify whether vehicles using the EV charging bays are subject to the same parking tariffs as those occupying standard parking spaces.
• If EV charging is contractually separate from parking, the signage and enforcement at the location must reflect this distinction.
B. Inclusion of EV Charging Bays in Parking Enforcement:
• The contract must confirm whether ParkingEye has been authorised to issue PCNs for vehicles using the EV charging bays while actively charging.
• If no such authorisation exists, ParkingEye lacks the legal basis to issue PCNs in these circumstances.
C. Scope of Authority:
• The contract must delineate the terms under which ParkingEye operates at the location, including any specific provisions relating to signage, EV charging facilities, and enforcement practices.
Failure to provide this evidence would mean that ParkingEye cannot substantiate their claim of authority, nor can they demonstrate that the terms of their agreement encompass EV charging facilities. Any decision by POPLA without examining the actual contract in detail would be premature and unjustified in this case.
Conclusion
The parking charge is based on unclear and ambiguous terms, inadequate signage, a flawed NtK that fails to comply with PoFA 2012, and a lack of contractual evidence demonstrating ParkingEye’s authority to enforce parking charges for EV charging bays. Furthermore, no financial loss was incurred by the landowner. Based on these grounds, I request that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled.