Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hey both!

Just heard back from POPLA with a successful appeal Thank you ever so much, here is their response:


Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The Notice to Hirer (NtH) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 & 14, meaning liability cannot be transferred to the Hirer. • To transfer liability from the Keeper to the Hirer, PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2) explicitly requires that the operator provides a copy of the hire agreement, a copy of the statement of liability signed by the Hirer and a statement signed by or on behalf of the hire company confirming that the vehicle was on hire during the alleged contravention which they state the parking operator has failed to provide with the NtH and therefore without full compliance with these mandatory conditions, the Hirer cannot be held liable under PoFA. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal as well as raises new grounds of appeal in relation to: • The parking operator’s reliance on prohibitive signage is irrelevant making reference to the parking operator claims that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) arose from a breach of the terms and conditions of parking, stating that the vehicle was parked in a "no-parking area" in contravention of the site's terms and conditions stating this claim is fundamentally flawed because the signage at the site does not create a contractual agreement, but instead imposes a prohibition on parking altogether. Furthermore, they say for a valid contract to exist, the signage must contain terms that provide an offer to park and an invitation for the motorist to accept the terms. A prohibitive sign, such as the one described here, does not meet these legal requirements and cannot form a binding agreement. • The NtoH also fails PoFA for another reason as it does not specify any period of parking, as required by Paragraph 9(2)(a) (which applied to the Notice to Keeper). • The contract provided by the operator appears to be broadly compliant with the legal requirements for establishing standing and the named signatories are identified as directors of the managing agent and leaseholder, and the contract is dated and signed appropriately, however the operator’s right to issue PCNs at the location was never in dispute and as such, the inclusion of the contract is superfluous and unnecessary.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:
I will be allowing the appeal, and my reasoning is outlined below: It is the responsibility of the parking operator to provide POPLA with sufficient and clear evidence to demonstrate that it issued the parking charge notice correctly. In this case the PCN was issued for parking in a no parking area. The parking operator is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA), which has a code of practice detailing the standards that it needs to uphold as a part of its membership. The appellant states the Notice to Hirer (NtH) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4, more specifically Paragraph 14(2) which states: 14(2) The conditions are that— (a) the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper. 13(2) The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a) 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; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. While the parking operator has provided this evidence from Paragraph 13(2) to POPLA, there is no evidence to support this was provided to the appellant, as per Paragraph 14(2) of PoFA, when the PCN was issued to the appellant. As such, I am in agreement the PCN is not compliant with PoFA and therefore I am not satisfied that the parking operator has adequately rebutted the appellant’s grounds of appeal. The appellant has referenced other points within their comments to POPLA, but as I have allowed the appeal, I do not feel that it is necessary to address them.


You both are providing an amazing service to the people!

What a great rebuttal thank you!

Just one point, you mentioned:

Their evidence shows only one of the documents themselves, but that is not proof that even that was served correctly. There is no covering letter, no declaration, no statement from the operator – nothing.

However the hire agreement PDF does seem to contain all 3 of the required documents (statement on page 1, and signed liability for parking on the last page, shall I omit this part?

Land owner agreement with PPS.

Note, the statements are available in the hire agreement

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I submitted the appeal and PPS have responded to POPLA with the following, along with the NtH, NtK, Hirer agreement, statement signed by or on behalf of the hire company confirming that the vehicle was on hire, a copy of the liability agreement and copy of contract with land owner:

"Dear Assessor,

The contract that we are seeking payment on has arisen from a breach of the notified terms and conditions of parking stated on the signs that the landowner has requested us to erect and permitted to remain erected at this location. The evidence demonstrates that the signage is clearly located to make motorists aware of the terms and conditions and the potential consequences of non-adherence to the terms have been made fully available "No parking at any time. Private land, strictly no parking, waiting or loading at any time, unauthorised parking will result in the issue of a £100 parking charge notice".
The parking charge was issued because the appellant’s vehicle was parked in a no-parking area, which is a direct contravention of the site's terms and conditions. As there is no evidence of any circumstances forcing the driver to park in no parking at any time area, the warden acted in line with the signage in issuing the charge. As there are no rules in that a PCN has to be fixed to a windscreen, we then requested the registered keepers’ details from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK) to the registered keeper at the address listed.
The evidence shows that ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR LTD is the registered keeper of the vehicle. On *DATE* (17 days after the parking event), ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR LTD provided a Hire Agreement signed by *HIRER*. According to the hire agreement, *HIRER* had the option to add an additional driver but chose not to do so.  According to the same hire agreement, *HIRER* accepts responsibility for any parking charges that may be incurred with respect to the vehicle while it is hired by the hirer. Notice to Hirer was sent to *HIRER* in full compliance with PoFA 2012. Therefore, we have the right to pursue the appellant, *HIER*, for the unpaid parking charge, as they became liable by parking in an enforcement zone within a strictly no-parking area.
Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure they seek out and understand the terms and conditions of the car park before deciding to park."

Does the above have your approval?

Hello!

Please find below what I intend to submit to POPLA when I get to the deadline:

I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd (PPS) as the Hirer on the following grounds:

The Notice to Hirer (NtH) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 & 14, meaning liability cannot be transferred to the Hirer.
The NtH does not reference PoFA and fails to establish liability.
The notice contains misleading and contradictory payment deadlines.
The NtH misrepresents liability and unlawfully threatens debt escalation.
The charge is disproportionate and does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


For the reasons detailed below, this PCN is unenforceable, and I request that POPLA uphold my appeal.

1. The Notice to Hirer (NtH) Fails to Comply with PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 & 14

To transfer liability from the Keeper to the Hirer, PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2) explicitly requires that the operator provides:

A copy of the hire agreement.
A copy of the statement of liability signed by the Hirer.
A statement signed by or on behalf of the hire company confirming that the vehicle was on hire during the alleged contravention.

PPS has failed to provide any of these documents with the NtH. Without full compliance with these mandatory conditions, the Hirer cannot be held liable under PoFA.

Legal Reference: PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2) states:“The creditor may not recover the charge from the hirer under paragraph 4 unless the creditor has given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) (and for the purposes of this paragraph, a reference in paragraph 6(1) or (2) to a notice to the keeper includes a reference to a notice to the hirer).”

Since PPS has not met these legal requirements, liability cannot be transferred to the Hirer, and this appeal must be upheld.

2. No Reference to PoFA in the NtH

The NtH does not even mention PoFA, which means PPS is not relying on it and therefore has no legal basis to enforce the charge against the Hirer. If they later attempt to rely on PoFA, they have already failed compliance by issuing a defective and improperly formatted NtH.


3. Misleading & Contradictory Payment Deadlines

The NtH is misleading and contradictory, creating confusion about when payment is actually due:

The top of the NtH states: “Amount due within 28 days: £100.”

However, the body text contradicts this by stating: “You are advised that if, after 21 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the Parking Charge referred to in the Notice to Keeper has not been paid in full, the case will then be passed to our Debt Recovery Agent which may escalate to court proceedings to recover the amount owed.”

This is misleading and non-compliant with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR 2008) because it creates uncertainty about when payment is due.

4. Misrepresentation of Liability & Unlawful Debt Escalation Threats

The NtH falsely implies that liability has been transferred to the Hirer without meeting PoFA’s mandatory conditions. Additionally, the statement:

“The overdue charge will increase to £170”

is an unfair penalty and an unlawful attempt at double recovery.

POPLA and the courts do not accept arbitrary extra charges beyond the original £100 unless specifically justified, which PPS has failed to do.

5. The Charge is Disproportionate and Not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss

PPS has not demonstrated how this charge reflects a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Supreme Court ruling in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 established that a parking charge must serve a legitimate interest and be proportionate. This charge is excessive and not justified.


Conclusion

Given the multiple legal failures identified above, this Parking Charge Notice is unenforceable. As the operator has failed to:

Comply with PoFA 2012, meaning liability cannot be transferred to the Hirer.
Issue clear and consistent payment terms, making the demand misleading and unfair.
Justify the charge as a legitimate contractual agreement or genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Therefore, I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the charge immediately.

Got my appeal rejection, is there a template for the POPLA appeal (for an NtH that did not come with any supporting documents)?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Wasn't even aware that was a feature of the RM, the more your know!

Ok will do all that, and then let's see...

Thank you again