Free Traffic Legal Advice

Productive morning at work...



#1 - Driver not identified

The letter sent to me, the hirer, states that the driver is liable to pay a parking charge and that they have a right to recover the charge from the driver. I request that Premier Park Ltd (PP) provide evidence as to who the driver is.


#2 - PoFA NtH non-compliance

Hypothetically, even if PP had wanted to hold the hirer liable, their Notice to Hirer has failed to meet the conditions required in Section 14(2) of the PoFA 2012. Going point-by-point:

* 13(2)(a) - PP has not provided me with a statement signed by the vehicle-hire firm confirming the vehicle was on hire to me
* 13(2)(b) - PP has not provided me with a copy of the hire agreement
* 13(2)(c) - PP has not provided me with a copy of the statement of liability
* 14(5)(a, c) - PP has not informed me that any unpaid parking charges may be recovered from the hirer


#3 - No evidence of landowner authority

PP has not provided any evidence of their authority to carry out car park management at the location. They must submit a full and unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner that satisfies the BPA CoP Section 7.


#4 - Insufficient consideration period

I am assuming that the consideration period is 10 minutes based on PP's evidence of the vehicle being parked for 11 minutes. If the contract shows that it is longer, then I challenge PP to provide evidence of the vehicle being parked in excess of the consideration period.

The car park in question is strictly app-only, there is no provision for paying by phone/machine/etc (I ask PP to provide evidence of the signage to confirm this). This means that somebody has to download the app and register before they are even able to begin the process of paying for parking.

During the registration process for the 'Sippi' app, the user is prompted to read and accept its terms and conditions, a copy of which is available at https://sippi.app/policies/terms-app/. This is a 5000 word document, which alone takes 15 minutes to read. 

Per BPA CoP 13.1, a driver must have the chance to consider the terms and conditions before entering into the parking contract. By virtue of being required to pay for the parking at this location, the Sippi app's terms and conditions become a material part of the parking contract.

It is therefore unreasonable for the consideration period at this location to be 10 minutes when it takes at least 15 minutes to consider just one part of the parking contract before deciding whether to be bound by it or not.

Nope, just the attached sheet of paper; no extra evidence added online either.

Wording sounds good, although to be rock solid - the second point should refer to 14(2) rather than 13(2) right? (13 is for the hire company, 14 is for the hirer?)

Should delay my appeal until 21 days after the issue date so they can't come back and provide the documents within the 'relevant period' (per 14(3) ), or did they have to deliver it with the NtH?

To clarify, we're saying that the Finance Company (as the RK) names the Hire Company as the hirer; but the hire company is then unable to recursively name me as the hirer.

This is because the POFA only makes provision for the RK to name a hirer?

Could the Finance Company be able to name me as the hirer directly under guidance from the Hire Company perhaps? Presumably not as there isn't a statement signed by the Finance Company and I per 13(1)(a).

In any case, full wording of the Hire Companies email to me attached - some relevant bits highlighted, sounds like liability will pass from the Finance Company to the Hire Company; and then they'll pass the hirers details to Premier Park (I'm assuming their wording of driver is poorly chosen here, how can they know who was driving).

We'll ignore the fact that a private invoice is not a 'road traffic offence, penalty charge, or fine' for now - one case at a time (I've already said I don't authorise the deduction, will be disputing it, etc etc).


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Another potential angle, the postcode specified in the NtK is E20 1BA (Cheering Lane) but the vehicle was parked at E20 1FN (Scarlet Close), a number of streets away. Each cul-de-sac is private land/parking, connected by the main council-owned highways with standard council permit parking (ie. they are not connected/joined in any way, nor is the entire area private land).

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Recently the recipient of a parking ticket where they have evidence of my vehicle parked 11 minutes apart, exceeding the (presumably) 10 minute grace period. Not my first rodeo, know all the standard tricks from PePiPoo, MSE, etc.

Call me weird, but (as the keeper) I'm interested in exploring the novelty that this car park is strictly app-only (no machine, no call/text, etc) which means one has to create an account with some third party application before they're able to pay.

This (in theory) significantly increases the time required to pay for parking, as you have to get internet connectivity, download an app, register for it, and then actually go through the payment flow.

Of particular interest is the classic wall-of-text terms and conditions, which prospective payees have to agree to when creating an account; surely the grace period has to account for the time taken to diligently read and digest these terms (google says 5k words is ~15m of reading). In my mind, they form part of the parking contract (in conjunction with the sign wording) as there is no other way to pay.

I'm lucky enough that the prospect of losing at all of the appeal/court stages and having to pay a couple hundred pounds isn't too big of a financial hit; reckon it's worth a shot? Be nice to contribute some new 'case law' to the parking fine fighting community.


NTK and signage attached, don't see anything wrong with the NTK; the clarity of the PCN amount on the sign is a little unclear - looks more like an icon than an amount, in an attempt to stand out it actually blends in more.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]