Their evidence shows only one of the documents themselves, but that is not proof that even that was served correctly. There is no covering letter, no declaration, no statement from the operator – nothing.
Rebuttal to the operators response and evidence pack
1. The NtH as given did not comply with PoFA 14(2)
The operator’s claim that the Notice to Hirer was issued “in full compliance with PoFA 2012” is completely untrue. It is an outright lie – and not an unexpected one from this rogue firm with a long track record of disregarding legal requirements in pursuit of easy money from unsuspecting motorists.
The operator has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that copies of the mandatory documents required under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 were enclosed with the Notice to Hirer at the time it was served (given). These documents are:
- A copy of the hire agreement;
- A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer;
- A statement signed by or on behalf of the hire company confirming that the vehicle was on hire to the hirer at the time of the alleged contravention.
Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2) of PoFA is absolutely clear on this point. It states:
“The conditions are that—
(a) the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a ‘notice to hirer’), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper.”
This is not a guideline. It is a statutory requirement. Unless all three of the listed documents were enclosed with the Notice to Hirer, liability cannot be transferred to the hirer under any circumstances.
The operator has not even attempted to demonstrate that these documents were enclosed. Their evidence shows only one of the documents themselves, but that is not proof that even that was served correctly. There is no covering letter, no declaration, no statement from the operator – nothing. They have simply dumped the document into their evidence pack long after the fact and asserted, without proof, that the NtH was compliant. That is legally meaningless.
It is not the job of the assessor to speculate or give the operator the benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof is entirely on the operator to demonstrate compliance. They haven’t. In fact, by ignoring this issue completely in their response, they have effectively conceded it.
They served a Notice to Hirer in isolation – without copies od ALL the documents required under Paragraphs 13 and 14 of PoFA – and therefore they failed the statutory test. They cannot pursue the hirer, and this appeal must now be upheld.
2. Operator’s reliance on prohibitive signage is irrelevant
In their evidence, the operator claims that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) arose from a breach of the terms and conditions of parking, stating that the vehicle was parked in a "no-parking area" in contravention of the site's terms and conditions. However, this claim is fundamentally flawed because the signage at the site does not create a contractual agreement, but instead imposes a prohibition on parking altogether.
The operator refers to the sign stating: "No parking at any time. Private land, strictly no parking, waiting or loading at any time, unauthorised parking will result in the issue of a £100 parking charge notice." This is not a contractual offer but a prohibitive term. Under contract law, a prohibition cannot form the basis of a contract, as there is no offer to park, no invitation to treat, and therefore no contract formed between the motorist and the operator.
For a valid contract to exist, the signage must contain terms that provide an offer to park and an invitation for the motorist to accept the terms. A prohibitive sign, such as the one described here, does not meet these legal requirements and cannot form a binding agreement. The operator’s own admission in their evidence demonstrates their reliance on prohibitive signage, and this directly contradicts their claim of contractual agreement.
This is a key point: a contract cannot exist where the signage only prohibits parking, and as the signs do not contain an offer or invitation to park, no contract was formed. The operator’s argument that they issued a valid parking charge for a breach of terms is therefore completely invalid.
Additionally, the operator has not provided any evidence that the driver actually parked in breach of any enforceable contract, given that no such contract could have been formed under the terms of the signage. Their claim for the parking charge is therefore unenforceable, and the appeal must be upheld.
3. Although this appeal focused solely on the operator’s failure to comply with PoFA by omitting the required documents with the Notice to Hirer, it must also be noted that the Notice to Hirer itself fails PoFA for another reason: it does not specify any period of parking, as required by Paragraph 9(2)(a) (which applied to the Notice to Keeper).
If, as the operator is now claiming, the signs were contractual (they are not), and that the PCN was issued for breach of those terms, then there is absolutely no evidence that the vehicle was parked for longer than the minimum consideration period that must be allowed for a driver to find, read, understand, and either accept the terms of the supposed contract or reject them and leave.
So if the signs were contractual, there is no evidence that the driver breached any contractual term, because there is no evidence the vehicle was parked beyond the allowed consideration period.
Or, if—as the wording of the signs makes plain—the signage is prohibitory in nature (“No parking at any time”), then no contract could have been formed in the first place, and the operator’s position collapses on that basis instead.
In short, the operator has boxed themselves into a corner. Either way, their claim fails and the charge must be cancelled.
4. The operator’s contract is irrelevant to the actual grounds of appeal
The contract provided by the operator appears to be broadly compliant with the legal requirements for establishing standing. The named signatories are identified as directors of the managing agent and leaseholder, and the contract is dated and signed appropriately.
However, the operator’s right to issue PCNs at the location was never in dispute. As such, the inclusion of the contract is superfluous and unnecessary.
More importantly, this contract does nothing to address or rebut the actual ground of appeal – namely, the operator’s failure to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Specifically, it provides no explanation or evidence that the Notice to Hirer was served with the documents required under Paragraphs 13 and 14, which is a statutory precondition for pursuing a hirer.
Whether or not the operator has the right to issue parking charges is irrelevant in circumstances where they have failed to meet the legal conditions to pursue this appellant. This contract, even if accepted at face value, does not repair or excuse the fatal PoFA breach already set out. As such, it cannot assist the operator in defending this charge.
I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd (PPS) as the Hirer on the following grounds:
The Notice to Hirer (NtH) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 & 14, meaning liability cannot be transferred to the Hirer.
The Notice to Hirer (NtH) Fails to Comply with PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 & 14. To transfer liability from the Keeper to the Hirer, PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2) explicitly requires that the operator provides:
A copy of the hire agreement.
A copy of the statement of liability signed by the Hirer.
A statement signed by or on behalf of the hire company confirming that the vehicle was on hire during the alleged contravention.
PPS has failed to provide any of these documents with the NtH. Without full compliance with these mandatory conditions, the Hirer cannot be held liable under PoFA.
Legal Reference: PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2) states:“The creditor may not recover the charge from the hirer under paragraph 4 unless the creditor has given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) (and for the purposes of this paragraph, a reference in paragraph 6(1) or (2) to a notice to the keeper includes a reference to a notice to the hirer).”
Given the failure to comply with PoFA 2012, meaning liability cannot be transferred to the Hirer, this Parking Charge Notice is unenforceable. Therefore, I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the charge immediately.
I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd (PPS) as the Hirer on the following grounds:
The Notice to Hirer (NtH) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 & 14, meaning liability cannot be transferred to the Hirer.
The NtH does not reference PoFA and fails to establish liability.
The notice contains misleading and contradictory payment deadlines.
The NtH misrepresents liability and unlawfully threatens debt escalation.
The charge is disproportionate and does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
For the reasons detailed below, this PCN is unenforceable, and I request that POPLA uphold my appeal.
1. The Notice to Hirer (NtH) Fails to Comply with PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 & 14
To transfer liability from the Keeper to the Hirer, PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2) explicitly requires that the operator provides:
A copy of the hire agreement.
A copy of the statement of liability signed by the Hirer.
A statement signed by or on behalf of the hire company confirming that the vehicle was on hire during the alleged contravention.
PPS has failed to provide any of these documents with the NtH. Without full compliance with these mandatory conditions, the Hirer cannot be held liable under PoFA.
Legal Reference: PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2) states:“The creditor may not recover the charge from the hirer under paragraph 4 unless the creditor has given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) (and for the purposes of this paragraph, a reference in paragraph 6(1) or (2) to a notice to the keeper includes a reference to a notice to the hirer).”
Since PPS has not met these legal requirements, liability cannot be transferred to the Hirer, and this appeal must be upheld.
2. No Reference to PoFA in the NtH
The NtH does not even mention PoFA, which means PPS is not relying on it and therefore has no legal basis to enforce the charge against the Hirer. If they later attempt to rely on PoFA, they have already failed compliance by issuing a defective and improperly formatted NtH.
3. Misleading & Contradictory Payment Deadlines
The NtH is misleading and contradictory, creating confusion about when payment is actually due:
The top of the NtH states: “Amount due within 28 days: £100.”
However, the body text contradicts this by stating: “You are advised that if, after 21 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the Parking Charge referred to in the Notice to Keeper has not been paid in full, the case will then be passed to our Debt Recovery Agent which may escalate to court proceedings to recover the amount owed.”
This is misleading and non-compliant with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR 2008) because it creates uncertainty about when payment is due.
4. Misrepresentation of Liability & Unlawful Debt Escalation Threats
The NtH falsely implies that liability has been transferred to the Hirer without meeting PoFA’s mandatory conditions. Additionally, the statement:
“The overdue charge will increase to £170”
is an unfair penalty and an unlawful attempt at double recovery.
POPLA and the courts do not accept arbitrary extra charges beyond the original £100 unless specifically justified, which PPS has failed to do.
5. The Charge is Disproportionate and Not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
PPS has not demonstrated how this charge reflects a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Supreme Court ruling in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 established that a parking charge must serve a legitimate interest and be proportionate. This charge is excessive and not justified.
Conclusion
Given the multiple legal failures identified above, this Parking Charge Notice is unenforceable. As the operator has failed to:
Comply with PoFA 2012, meaning liability cannot be transferred to the Hirer.
Issue clear and consistent payment terms, making the demand misleading and unfair.
Justify the charge as a legitimate contractual agreement or genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Therefore, I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the charge immediately.
I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd (PPS) as the Hirer on the following grounds:
The Notice to Hirer (NtH) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 & 14, meaning liability cannot be transferred to the Hirer.
The NtH does not reference PoFA and fails to establish liability.
No ‘period of parking’ is stated in the NtH, rendering it non-compliant.
The notice contains misleading and contradictory payment deadlines.
The NtH misrepresents liability and unlawfully threatens debt escalation.
The charge is disproportionate and does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The operator has breached the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
For the reasons detailed below, this PCN is unenforceable, and I request that POPLA uphold my appeal.
1. The Notice to Hirer (NtH) Fails to Comply with PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 & 14
To transfer liability from the Keeper to the Hirer, PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2) explicitly requires that the operator provides:
A copy of the hire agreement.
A copy of the statement of liability signed by the Hirer.
A statement signed by or on behalf of the hire company confirming that the vehicle was on hire during the alleged contravention.
PPS has failed to provide any of these documents with the NtH. Without full compliance with these mandatory conditions, the Hirer cannot be held liable under PoFA.
Legal Reference: PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2) states:“The creditor may not recover the charge from the hirer under paragraph 4 unless the creditor has given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) (and for the purposes of this paragraph, a reference in paragraph 6(1) or (2) to a notice to the keeper includes a reference to a notice to the hirer).”
Since PPS has not met these legal requirements, liability cannot be transferred to the Hirer, and this appeal must be upheld.
2. No Reference to PoFA in the NtH
The NtH does not even mention PoFA, which means PPS is not relying on it and therefore has no legal basis to enforce the charge against the Hirer. If they later attempt to rely on PoFA, they have already failed compliance by issuing a defective and improperly formatted NtH.
3. No ‘Period of Parking’ – Only a Single Timestamp
PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires that a Notice must specify the actual period of parking, not just a single moment in time.
The NtH states:“The period of parking to which this notice relates is the period that immediately preceded the Incident Date and Time.”
This is vague and non-compliant. A timestamp does not prove that the vehicle was parked for any specific period. The Court of Appeal in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E ruled that stopping and parking are distinct activities. Without a defined period of parking, the charge is unenforceable.
4. Misleading & Contradictory Payment Deadlines
The NtH is misleading and contradictory, creating confusion about when payment is actually due:
The top of the NtH states: “Amount due within 28 days: £100.”
However, the body text contradicts this by stating: “If, after 21 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the Parking Charge referred to in the Notice to Keeper has not been paid in full, the case will then be passed to our Debt Recovery Agent which may escalate to court proceedings to recover the amount owed.”
This is misleading and non-compliant with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR 2008) because it creates uncertainty about when payment is due.
5. Misrepresentation of Liability & Unlawful Debt Escalation Threats
The NtH falsely implies that liability has been transferred to the Hirer without meeting PoFA’s mandatory conditions. Additionally, the statement:
“The overdue charge will increase to £170”
is an unfair penalty and an unlawful attempt at double recovery.
POPLA and the courts do not accept arbitrary extra charges beyond the original £100 unless specifically justified, which PPS has failed to do.
6. The Charge is Disproportionate and Not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
PPS has not demonstrated how this charge reflects a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Supreme Court ruling in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 established that a parking charge must serve a legitimate interest and be proportionate. This charge is excessive and not justified.
7. Breaches of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)
The operator has breached multiple provisions of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), including but not limited to:
Failure to provide clear and prominent signage as required under Section [Insert Relevant Section] of PPSCoP.
Misleading payment deadlines in breach of transparency principles outlined in PPSCoP.
Failure to comply with PoFA 2012, which is a fundamental expectation under PPSCoP for BPA members.
Operators are expected to comply fully with PPSCoP, and these breaches further demonstrate that this PCN is unenforceable.
Conclusion
Given the multiple legal failures identified above, this Parking Charge Notice is unenforceable. As the operator has failed to:
Comply with PoFA 2012, meaning liability cannot be transferred to the Hirer.
Provide a compliant period of parking, rendering the notice defective.
Issue clear and consistent payment terms, making the demand misleading and unfair.
Justify the charge as a legitimate contractual agreement or genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Follow the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), further discrediting their claim.
Therefore, I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the charge immediately.
I am the Hirer of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Hirer (NtH) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the Hirer 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. PPS has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only. The Hirer cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtH can only hold the driver liable.
PPS have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN. If you do not wish to do so, please send me a POPLA appeal number along with your rejection.