This GSV image from October 2024 shows a lack of signage within the car park:
(https://i.imgur.com/2AfheIj.jpeg) (https://maps.app.goo.gl/mHVKncEQoUZYtF8r6)
However, a stay of 13 minutes is difficult to reconcile with this statement that it was just a "drop off":
- The driver proceeded to stop in a bay facing the entrance to Sainsbury's to let the passenger out - no signs were visible from this perspective.
- The passenger got out, fetched some possessions from the back seat and boot.
- After this, the driver exited the car park (i.e. they did not wait for the passenger, it was merely a "drop off").
I would suggest the following as an initial appeal which worked for another case I handled with CE at a different location:
Re: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) No. [PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration No: [VRM]
Issue Date: 29/12/2024
I am appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am under no legal obligation to provide
the driver’s details, and I decline to do so.
Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) has failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, which are necessary to hold the keeper liable. I outline the following points of non-compliance:
1. Failure to comply with PoFA paragraph 2(2):
PoFA paragraph 2(2) states that 'adequate notice' of the parking charge must be given to
drivers. In this case, no adequate notice was provided. There were no visible signs at the
entrance, at the location where the vehicle stopped or along the route to the entrance of
the Sainsbury's store, communicating the parking terms and conditions.
2. Failure to comply with PoFA paragraph 2(3):
Paragraph 2(3) further clarifies that 'adequate notice' means signs must clearly specify the parking charge and be positioned in such a way that the charge is brought to the attention of drivers. In this case, CEL did not display sufficient signage to meet this requirement.
3. Failure to comply with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(c):
PoFA paragraph 9(2)(c) requires that the Notice to Keeper describe how the parking charge arose and how the requirement to pay was brought to the attention of the driver. Given that CEL has failed to provide adequate notice as defined in paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3), the Notice to Keeper does not comply with this requirement. CEL’s partial or substantial compliance with PoFA is insufficient to establish keeper liability, as full compliance with all PoFA requirements is mandatory.
In addition, should CEL reject my appeal, I will expect them to provide the following evidence to POPLA:
• A detailed layout of the car park showing the location of all signage.
• Proof of the exact location where the vehicle was parked, and how this relates to any signage.
• Evidence that the signage used to display the parking terms and conditions is fully compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.
CEL will be put to strict proof of the vehicle’s parking location and the relationship of that location to any signs passed between the parking space and the store entrance.
In light of these clear breaches of PoFA and the inadequate signage, I request that the Parking Charge Notice be cancelled.