You have 33 days from the date of the rejection of your initial appeal to submit your POPLA appeal. As this is a clear cut case, you only have to appeal on the ambiguity of the relevant land and therefore a breach of PoFA 9(2)(a) and also put them to strict proof of their contract flowing from the landowner.
Appeal to POPLA with the following:
POPLA Verification Code: [Insert Code]
PCN Reference Number: [Insert PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert Registration]
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am challenging this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Euro Car Parks.
This PCN is invalid. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4, because it does not identify the relevant land. The location stated is simply Lidl Ilford, which is vague and ambiguous. There are multiple Lidl sites in Ilford:
Lidl 308-310 High Rd, Ilford IG1 1QP
Lidl 1-11 High Rd, Ilford IG1 1DA
Lidl 1-3 Clements Rd, Ilford IG1 1BA
PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to specify the land on which the vehicle was parked. A generic label like Lidl Ilford does not meet this requirement. Because the NtK fails to specify the actual location, it is not PoFA compliant.
This is not a technicality. The entire basis for keeper liability under PoFA depends on full compliance with its conditions. Partial or substantial compliance is not enough. If the NtK fails on any mandatory point, liability cannot transfer from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
As the keeper, I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver. Since the NtK is non-compliant, I cannot be held liable. The PCN is invalid.
The operator is also put to strict proof that they held a valid contract with the landowner to operate and issue PCNs at Lidl Ilford. Any evidence submitted must be unredacted and must include all elements required under Section 14.1(a) to (j) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
Before issuing any parking charges, the operator must hold written confirmation from the landowner that includes:
1.Identity of the landowner
2. A boundary map of the managed land
3. Any applicable byelaws
4. Permission granted and its duration
5. Parking terms and conditions (e.g. free periods, tariffs, exemptions)
6. Method of issuing charges (e.g. windscreen or post)
7. Responsibility for obtaining consents (e.g. planning, signage)
8. Documentation to be supplied to authorised bodies on request
9. Approach to handling appeals
All of the above must be evidenced in full and unredacted if the operator relies on landowner authority. A simple letter of authority does not satisfy the requirements of section 14.
As there is no lawful basis to pursue the keeper, the PCN is invalid and this appeal must be upheld.
No one ever pays ECP if they follow our advice. However, this one has a good chance offing cancelled at POPLA stage, as long as the drivers identity is not revealed. This is because the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not compliant with PoFA 2012 and so liability cannot be transferred from the unknown driver to the known Keeper.
The NtK must identify the "relevant land" where the alleged contravention took place. The NtK states the location as "Sainsbury's - Ilford". So, which of these three Sainsbury's is it?
Sainsbury's - 55 Roden St, Ilford IG1 2AA
Sainsbury's - King George Ave, Ilford IG2 7SH
Sainsbury's - 168-170 High Rd, Ilford IG1 1LL
For now, simply follow this advice:
There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:
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. ECP 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. ECP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
When they reject the appeal, you will have a POPLA code where you can explain the breach in more detail.