1. Who are you representing / appealing the Notice of Unpaid Tariff on behalf of? - The options provided are: Myself ORAnother person.
You are the Hirer and the appeal is in your own name, not on behalf of another person.
2. Are you being held liable for the charge? - The options provided are:YesOR No.
You are being pursued, but liability cannot transfer to you because the NtH is not PoFA‑compliant. The correct answer is “No” — you are not liable.
3. Were you the driver at the relevant time? - The options provided are:YesORNoOR I am not prepared to say.
You must not identify the driver. PoFA allows a creditor to pursue the Hirer only if they comply with paras 13/14. Since they haven’t, you decline to answer.
4. Were you the keeper at the relevant time? - The options provided are:YesOR No.
You were the hirer, not the registered keeper. The hire company is the keeper. You should answer “No.”
When you say they will issue a claim, does this mean CPM will try to take me to court but it is unlikely I will have to actually attend court? I ask as I really can't afford a lawyer.Basically, yes. Even if you were one of the unlucky few who did have to go to a hearing, you can attend as a litigant in person, there is no need to engage a lawyer (and in small claims cases, the cost of hiring a lawyer is generally higher than the amount at stake, making it not worth doing).
We have issued Parking Charge 70112670 to a vehicle you have been named as hiring because on...
I am the hirer of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
The operator’s rejection letter contains the statement that “a new notice will automatically be generated and sent to you, as the liability has been transferred into your name”. This is legally wrong.
I, as Hirer, had already received a Notice to Hirer (NtH) and exercised my internal right of appeal against that notice. Liability in a hire-vehicle case can only pass to a Hirer if the operator strictly complies with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), paragraphs 13 and 14, by serving an NtH within the statutory time limit together with copies of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK), the hire agreement, and the Hirer’s statement of liability.
Those mandatory documents were not supplied with the original NtH and cannot be retrospectively added after an appeal rejection. Any “new notice” sent now is either a duplicate with no legal effect or an out-of-time attempt to repair fatal PoFA defects.
In either case, liability has not, and cannot, lawfully be “transferred into my name”, and the operator’s contrary assertion is a clear misrepresentation of the legal position and an abuse of process. It will be interesting to see how a supposedly legally trained IAS assessor will deal with this point.
The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to provide the following:1. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font size, positioning, and the communication of key terms.
2. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
3. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace period as defined by the PPSCoP.
4. Strict proof that the NtH complies with PoFA, if the operator is attempting to rely on Hirer liability. In a hire-vehicle context this includes full compliance with paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4, including the mandatory enclosures with the NtH. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording, documents, or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders hirer liability unenforceable.
5. Strict proof that the NtH was posted in time for it to have been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)
6. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers”. Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that Hirer liability under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions are met.
If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator, that will speak for itself and lend further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.
In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles.
Subject: Dispute of Administration Charge Relating to Private Parking Charge Notice – Rental Agreement No. [Insert Number]
Dear Enterprise Rent-A-Car UK Customer Services,
I am writing regarding my recent rental (Agreement No. [Insert Number]) and the proposed administration charge in relation to a private parking charge notice (PCN) allegedly incurred during the rental period.
Please note that I will dispute the validity of any administrative charge applied in connection with this private parking invoice and will instruct my card provider to initiate a chargeback in the event of any deduction.
My reasoning is as follows:1. A private parking charge notice is a civil contractual sum, not a statutory fine or penalty. The rental agreement at Clause 1 under “Traffic Violations, Parking and Tolls” states that the renter is liable for “traffic violations; parking fees, fines and/or penalties; toll fees and/or penalties; and any associated administrative costs.” These terms clearly refer to public-law liabilities such as fixed penalties or statutory fines, not civil invoices issued by private parking operators.
2. Clause 4(a)(viii) of the Rental Terms and Conditions (page 4 of the January 2025 edition) requires the renter to pay “any administrative fines, fees, charges, costs, penalties, or other fines … such as fines or fees for illegal parking or speeding, non-compliance with bus lane, congestion charges, tolls or violations of the rules of the highway or traffic offence or contravention in any country, in all cases, and not caused by Owner.” Every example given concerns a public-law traffic or road regulation offence. Applying the ejusdem generis principle, the broad words “charges” or “costs” must be interpreted in line with those examples, meaning statutory or regulatory liabilities, not private contractual claims.
3. The British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (BVRLA) guidance confirms that private parking charge notices are civil contractual matters, not statutory fines or penalties. The BVRLA instructs rental firms to transfer liability for private PCNs to the hirer under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, rather than paying them. The guidance also states that a hire company may only pay and recharge a private PCN (and levy any related administrative fee) if the rental agreement expressly authorises it.
4. After reviewing Enterprise’s current Rental Terms and Conditions (January 2025, pages 1–8), I have found no clause that expressly permits an administration fee to be charged for a private parking charge notice issued by a private parking company. All references to administration charges are framed in the context of statutory traffic or toll violations.
Accordingly, any deduction of an administration fee in connection with a private parking charge notice would be unauthorised and contrary to the written terms of the agreement. Please ensure that no such fee or payment is taken from my account. Should a deduction nevertheless occur, I will dispute the charge in full and initiate a formal chargeback without delay.
Please confirm in writing that no administration fee will be charged in relation to any private parking notice, or alternatively, provide the precise clause reference from your Rental Terms and Conditions that you believe authorises such a fee.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
Rental Agreement No.: [Insert Number]
Date of Rental: [Insert Date]
Contact Email: [Insert Email]
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 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. [Operator] 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. CPM have no hope should you ever attempt to litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
• a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;then as long as the driver is not identified, the liability can not be transferred from the driver to the hirer.
• a copy of the hire agreement;
• a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement; and
• a copy of the original NtK.