The evidence shows the vehicle stationary for 36 seconds, a clear breach of the Single Code of Practice (SCoP) Annex B1 which states that "Permit Areas must have a minimum consideration period of 5 minutes.
Under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must:
"Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates."
The NtK fails to comply with this requirement in the following ways:
No Period of Parking Specified. The NtK only specifies a single timestamp ("Time of Event: 08:08") and does not state a period of parking. Evidential photos showing the vehicle at 08:07:04, 08:07:20, and 08:07:40 are not part of the NtK and cannot establish a parking event.
Also, the lack of a defined period of parking renders the NtK invalid under PoFA. As the NtK fails to fully meet ALL the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA, NSGL Parking cannot transfer liability for this charge from the driver to the Keeper.
The notification of the £100 charge is in minuscule font embedded within the wall of text in the sign. It is incapable of forming a contract. Under Paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of PoFA, the notice must:
"Specify the amount of the parking charge and [...] adequately bring it to the attention of the driver."
The signage fails to meet the requirement of "adequate notice" under Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 4 of PoFA. The £100 charge is hidden in minuscule text, making it unlikely that any driver would notice it when entering or parking. As a result, the operator has not fully complied with the requirements of PoFA, and therefore, they cannot hold the Keeper liable for this charge.
AS NSGL will likely reject any appeal, you need to get a POPLA code. Use the following generic appeal, only as the Keeper in order to get your code:
I am the Keeper of the vehicle referenced in the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by your company. I dispute this charge and deny any liability or contractual agreement. I will also be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client, the landowner.
Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with all the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Specifically:
Failure to Specify the Period of Parking:
PoFA 2012, Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked AND the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
Your NtK does not specify any period of parking, providing only a single timestamp ("Time of Event: 08:08") with no reference to how long the vehicle was allegedly parked.
While evidential photos show the vehicle stationary for 36 seconds, these photos are not part of the NtK and cannot substitute the explicit requirement under PoFA to state a period of parking in the NtK itself. A single timestamp does not meet the statutory requirement to specify a period, and therefore, the NtK is non-compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA.
Also, PoFA 2012, Paragraph 2(2), requires that adequate notice of the parking charge is given to drivers. In addition, the BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice (SCoP) mandates that:
Charges must be clearly and prominently displayed on signage. Entrance signs must notify drivers that terms and conditions apply on private land, and the charges must be legible upon entry or parking.
The signage at this location fails to meet these standards:
The £100 charge is buried in dense, small text, making it difficult to read from a reasonable distance. There is no prominent display of the £100 charge on the signs, as required by the SCoP, leaving drivers unaware of the potential liability.
The failure to bring the charge to the driver’s attention means that adequate notice has not been given, invalidating any alleged contractual agreement.
Under Annex B1 of the Single Code of Practice (SCoP), a car park restricted to permit areas must provide a minimum consideration period of 5 minutes. This consideration period allows drivers sufficient time to:
• Enter the site,
• Locate the signage,
• Read and understand the terms, and
• Decide whether to stay or leave.
In this case, the observation period lasted only 36 seconds, far less than the mandated minimum of 5 minutes. This is insufficient for any driver to locate, read, and comprehend the terms and conditions. This lack of compliance with the SCoP invalidates the PCN and demonstrates that it was issued unfairly and prematurely.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the Keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. NSGL has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The Keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
Given the failure of your NtK to meet ALL the statutory requirements of PoFA 2012, the lack of adequate notice under the SCoP, and the absence of a proper consideration period, I suggest that you cancel this Parking Charge Notice immediately. If you decide not to cancel the PCN, I require the following:
1. A detailed explanation of how your NtK complies with all requirements of PoFA 2012, specifically Paragraph 9(2)(a) regarding the period of parking.
2. A full justification for issuing a charge based on photos showing a vehicle stationary for only 36 seconds without explicitly stating a parking period in the NtK.
3. Evidence of compliance with the BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice (SCoP), including signage and consideration period requirements.
4. A copy of the contract with the landowner authorising your company to issue PCNs at this site.
As NSGL have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.