However, as it is brought up by the operator in their evidence, the appellant can raise those points in their response to that evidence.Agreed, although by not being including those points in the initial appeal, it does open the door to the assessor arguing they are fresh grounds of appeal and not considering them.
The operator claims to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) to hold the keeper liable. However, the location of the alleged contravention is Horfield Leisure Centre, which is situated in the middle of Horfield Common—land that is under statutory control by Bristol City Council. As such, the land is not “relevant land” as defined under Schedule 4 of PoFA, and the operator is therefore not entitled to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.
Although the byelaws made in 1910 for Horfield Common were revoked, they were replaced by updated byelaws adopted by Bristol City Council. Schedule 1 of those byelaws clearly lists “Horfield Common Open Space, Gloucester Road, Horfield, Bristol” as land to which the current byelaws apply. Therefore, the site remains subject to statutory control, meaning PoFA cannot apply.
The operator has also included a generic “Confirmation of Authority” document, which is wholly inadequate as evidence of any contractual right to operate at this specific location. The document makes no mention of Horfield Leisure Centre or Horfield Common, and refers vaguely to “multiple sites,” with the specifics allegedly contained in a missing “Schedule 1.” Without that annex, the document is incomplete and lacks any site-specific relevance.
Moreover, the document fails to meet the requirements of Section 14.1 of the Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP). That section mandates that before any parking charge can be issued, written confirmation must be obtained from the landowner that includes:
- the identity of the landowner;
- a boundary map of the land to be managed;
- any byelaws that apply to the land;
- the permission granted to the parking operator and its duration;
- the parking terms and conditions, including permitted exemptions;
- the means by which parking charges will be issued;
- responsibility for obtaining relevant consents;
- the obligations under which the operator is working;
- documentation that may be required by authorised bodies; and
- the operator’s approach to handling appeals.
The operator has failed to provide any of the above. There is no landowner identified, no boundary map, no proof that the parking management arrangements are compatible with the statutory byelaws, and no evidence of planning consents or proper governance.
Further, the “Confirmation of Authority” is signed by someone named Gary Teagle, but the operator has provided no evidence as to who this person is or what authority he holds. His job title is not given, nor is there any confirmation that he is a director or authorised officer of Sports and Leisure Management Ltd. In the absence of any verification of his authority to act, the document carries no evidential weight.
Finally, even if Sports and Leisure Management Ltd were entitled to manage the leisure centre building, they are not the landowner of Horfield Common. The land remains under the control of Bristol City Council, and no chain of authority has been shown from the statutory landowner to the operator. As such, the operator cannot demonstrate any lawful authority to issue PCNs at this location.
In conclusion, the operator is not entitled to rely on PoFA, and has failed to provide sufficient evidence of any lawful contractual right to issue parking charges at Horfield Leisure Centre.
Addendum:
For the avoidance of doubt, the so-called "Confirmation of Authority" presented by the operator is wholly inadequate and cannot, under any reasonable scrutiny, constitute strict proof of any contractual rights to issue Parking Charge Notices at Horfield Leisure Centre.
It is a generic document, signed by an unverified individual but not printed on company letterhead. There is no indication of the signatory's position or authority within the company, nor any evidence that they have the legal capacity to grant enforcement rights. Crucially, the document contains no reference to the specific location in question and refers instead to “multiple sites,” with any relevant detail supposedly contained in a missing “Schedule 1.” In the absence of that schedule, this document proves nothing.
Given the ease with which such a vague and unheaded document could be fabricated, and the track record of some operators in cutting evidential corners, the possibility that it was manufactured for the purpose of this appeal cannot be ruled out. It would be wholly irrational to consider this as constituting strict proof of contractual authority—particularly in light of the standards laid out in Section 14.1 of the Private Parking Code of Practice, all of which the operator has failed to meet.
Should the POPLA assessor consider this document sufficient, the appellant will treat such a decision as a clear error of fact and law. The appellant reserves the right to challenge any such finding before a court, where evidential rigour and legal standards are applied properly—unlike the superficial analysis that would be required to accept this document as credible or binding.
The OP could use an (the) example, if there is one, of why the NTK does not comply with PoFA.
At present, they'll simply be writing words but not understanding their application.
IMO, I think you should take a stab at the creditor not having authority to demand parking charges in their own name. This arises because their client, Everyone Active, manage the leisure centre under contract from Bristol City Council and occupy the site under licence which does not entitle Everyone Active and therefore their agent to demand parking charges as creditor.
You might as well. IMO, it's a better punt than 'byelaws'.
I am the keeper 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 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. CEL has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered 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. CEL have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
If byelaws don't apply then do I have any other options
Is this the only/most likely option of a successful appeal? Thanks
Just posted an FOI. Quick reply would be necessary for me to use this info in my appeal
The council are hopeless...no phones picked up and I assume an email response will take weeks
Photo of sign attached. Thanks
Charitynjw...I think someone posted a photo of the sign previously...but will retake one later
Is the leisure centre on Horfield Common?
Subject: Request for Assistance – Parking Charges Issued at Horfield Leisure Centre
Dear [Manager’s Name],
I am a regular member of Horfield Leisure Centre and am writing to request your urgent support regarding three Parking Charge Notices issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd in relation to the vehicle registered [insert registration]. The charges relate to alleged overstays on:24 March 2025 – PCN Ref: [insert]
26 March 2025 – PCN Ref: [insert]
27 March 2025 – PCN Ref: [insert]
Copies of all three PCNs are attached for your reference.
These visits occurred during a period when I was admitted as an inpatient at Southmead Hospital for cardiac tests. During that time, my vehicle was used by close family members to attend the leisure centre — where we hold valid memberships — and to remain nearby for hospital-related reasons.
We were not aware that ANPR enforcement was active at the site, nor did we realise that a stay beyond the three-hour member allowance could result in enforcement action. There was no intention to misuse the car park or breach any terms. The vehicle was parked solely in relation to leisure centre use and proximity to the hospital.
Given the circumstances and our status as regular members, I am asking whether the centre is able to support a request to cancel these charges. If you are able to confirm our membership and advise Civil Enforcement Ltd that the vehicle was being used by authorised members, it may assist in having these PCNs withdrawn. I can also provide documentation confirming the hospital admission, should this be required.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this request. Any assistance or guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
Kind regards,
[Your Full Name]
[Vehicle Registration]
[Membership Number, if available]
[Contact Details]