Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hey I'm back
Popla just messaged rejecting my appeal

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the vehicle was parked on the site and failed to display a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • As the registered keeper they are not responsible for the requested fee. • Due to improper signage and lack of compliance with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a), they neither believe that any contract was entered into, nor that there is any burden on them to identify the driver or pay on their behalf. • The signage is not illuminated. • The operator does not have authority to issue charges on the site. In the comments the appellant reiterates and expands on their grounds of appeal in that the PCN does not comply with PoFA 2012. They say that in their original appeal that the operator had failed to demonstrate that they have the necessary contractual authority to issue parking charges on behalf of the landowner at this site. They say that the PCN does not clarify the period of parking and the single timestamp is not sufficient. The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal which includes images of signage.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The operator has provided evidence of the vehicle parked on the site on the day in question. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators are required to comply with. The sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. It is stipulated in the Code that the parking operator needs to comply with all elements relating to signage by 31 December 2026. Therefore, for any aspects of this case relating to signage, I will be referring to version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. This is applicable for parking events that occurred from 1 February 2024. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. The appellant advises that the signage is inadequate and not illuminated. Section 19.2 advises that entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Section 19.3 of the code states that signs must be placed throughout the car park so that drivers have the chance to review the terms and conditions. The code confirms that these signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see read and understand. The operator has provided a site map and multiple images of the signs within the car park and after reviewing these, I am satisfied that there are plenty of signs located within the car park and that these signs meet the requirements of section 19.2 and 19.3 of the Code of Practice. The signage on the site clearly advises that failing to display a valid permit in the windscreen will result in a PCN being issued. I note that the appellant has advised that the signage is not illuminated however as they had parked on the site during daylight hours I am satisfied that the operator is not required to rebut this The images of the vehicle provided by the operator show that the permit on view is not the relevant permit for the site. The appellant states that the PCN Is not PoFA compliant. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. The appellant questions whether the operator has authority to issue PCNs on the site. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. The operator has provided a contract and I am satisfied that the operator has the authority to issue and pursue PCN’s on this site. The operator does not need to provide a full copy of the full contract as it may contain commercially sensitive information. After considering the evidence from both parties the vehicle was parked on the site and failed to display a valid permit and therefore the driver did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly therefore, I must refuse the appeal. This means the appellant is required to pay the full parking charge to the operator.

Thoughts on where to go from here?
Thanks as always
E

Continue to only appeal as the Registered Keeper (RK). They have no idea who the driver is and you are under no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company.

If we put it together, PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a) states:

Quote

9 (1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2) The notice must—

(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

So, is there anything in the NtK you received that "specifies" the "period of parking"? You tell me.

Unless ALL the requirements of PoFA are fully complied with, then they cannot hold the Keeper liable. So, don't identify the driver.

Are they wrong about the clear implication of the period? Am I being pedantic, or are they taking liberties?

Hi all
Have just been sent this through Popla. Along with proof that manage the land etc. Have been given 7 days to respond - do I reply?
Thanks again
E

When submitting the challenge, do I include photos of the signage in the pdf, or just make my points about the signs not complying and let them look for themselves?

Hey. Am posting this tomorrow so it's not hanging over me on Christmas. Wish me luck!..
E

Apologies. Messaged again as I thought I'd sent this draft on Saturday. But clearly not!

The time and date of the breach? (you've obscured this).
The back of the PCN pl.

There's no BPA Code of Practice as such, there's the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice if the event took place on or after 1 Oct.

So I suggest you re-read your draft and remove references to an out of date CoP, I also suggest you remove reference to TSRGD which has nothing whatsoever to do with contracts for parking on private land(it applies to traffic authorities), I also suggest you aggregate and don't repeat points under PoFA and CoP breaches, and remove the double negative here:

I contest that the Notice to Keeper (NTK) issued by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd does not specify the "period of parking" as required under Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the PoFA.

I am writing to appeal a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued to my vehicle on ********* by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and have not disclosed the identity of the driver.

The basis of my appeal is the failure of the parking company to comply with the requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and the inadequacy of the parking signage. Specifically, I contest that the Notice to Keeper (NTK) issued by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd fails to specify the "period of parking" as required under Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the PoFA.

Key points of my appeal are as follows:

1. Lack of Specified Period of Parking:
   According to Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the PoFA, for the NTK to be valid, it must specify "the period of parking to which the notice relates." The NTK issued by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd only mentions a single point in time, rather than a specific period during which the vehicle was parked. This omission is a clear failure to comply with the PoFA requirements, rendering the NTK invalid. As such, the parking company does not have the legal right to claim unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper.

2. Inadequate Signage:
   The parking signage does not comply with the regulations required for enforceable private parking contracts. The signage fails to clearly display the terms and conditions, including the potential £100 Parking Charge Notice, in a manner that meets the standards of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.

   Lack of Adequate Illumination:
     The sign is mounted on a pole with no provision for adequate lighting. It is difficult to read in low-light conditions, rendering it impossible for motorists to see and understand the terms at night. This does not comply with the requirement that parking terms must be clearly visible and legible under all conditions, including at night or in poor weather.

   - **Insufficient Notice of Key Terms:** 
     The terms and conditions are written in small, dense text. Key information such as the penalty amount and conditions for enforcement is not prominent or clearly displayed.

   Ambiguous Time Restrictions:
     The sign lists a complex schedule of restricted parking hours for each day. This schedule is excessively convoluted, making it unreasonable to expect drivers to understand and comply within the short time they have to park and assess the situation.

3. Lack of Clear Authority:
   The sign lacks clear evidence of Private Parking Solutions' authority to manage parking on this land. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice requires parking operators to display evidence of their contractual right to issue parking charges on the site. This is absent from the sign.

Given these points, I respectfully request that POPLA upholds my appeal and instructs Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully