Free Traffic Legal Advice

I've only changed few words within the copied appeal. Just want to make sure the template is Ok to use. Thanks

@b789

Hello There, do you think the one below would be sufficient? Many thanks for all your help!



POPLA Appeal
Verification Code:
Parking Charge Ref:
Vehicle Registration:
Operator: Euro Car Parks
Appellant: The Registered Keeper

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I submit this appeal on the following grounds:

1. The Notice to registered keeper is non-compliant with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraph 14.
2. The signage fails to comply with the requirements of PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii).
3. No Driver Liability – No Admission of Driving; Operator Attempting to Hold the Wrong Party Liable
4. The operator is put to strict proof that its signage complies with the BPA Code of Practice v9 (January 2024).
5. The operator is put to strict proof that it holds a valid and contemporaneous contract with the landowner authorising the issuing of PCNs in its own name.

No evidence has been provided as to the identity of the driver, and no liability can transfer to the Hirer in the absence of PoFA compliance.

1. The Notice to Hirer is non-compliant with PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 14 – No Liability Can Transfer to the Hirer

Euro Car Parks (ECP) has issued a Notice to Hirer (NtH) in an attempt to transfer liability for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). However, ECP has failed to comply with the mandatory statutory conditions under Paragraphs 13(2) and 14(2), and therefore cannot recover the charge from the Hirer.

Statutory Framework

PoFA Paragraph 14(1) provides that a creditor may recover unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s Hirer only if:

(a) the creditor is by virtue of paragraph 13(2) unable to recover from the keeper; and
(b) the conditions in paragraph 14(2) are met.

Paragraph 14(2) requires that the creditor must, within the relevant period, give the Hirer a Notice to Hirer, together with:

• A copy of the Notice to Keeper (NtK); and
• A copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2).
So what are those documents?

PoFA Paragraph 13(2) provides that a creditor loses the right to pursue the Keeper if, within 28 days, the hire company provides:

(a) A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm confirming that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b) A copy of the hire agreement;
(c) A copy of a statement of liability signed by the Hirer under that hire agreement.

It follows that to lawfully transfer liability to the Hirer, the operator must serve the following four documents with the NtH:

• A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (Paragraph 14(2)(a));
• A copy of the hire agreement (Paragraph 13(2)(b));
• A copy of the statement from the hire firm identifying the Hirer and confirming the hire (Paragraph 13(2)(a));
• A copy of the statement of liability signed by the Hirer (Paragraph 13(2)(c)).

These are not optional. PoFA imposes a strict statutory precondition for the transfer of liability. If any one of these documents is missing or not served with the NtH, liability does not and cannot transfer.

Operator Non-Compliance

Euro Car Parks has failed to include any of these documents with its NtH. In particular:

• No copy of the original NtK was enclosed;
• No copy of the hire agreement was enclosed;
• No signed statement by or on behalf of the hire firm identifying the Hirer and confirming the hire period was enclosed;
• No copy of a statement of liability signed by the Hirer under the hire agreement was enclosed.

This is not a trivial technicality. These documents are required as a matter of law. Their absence renders the NtH non-compliant with PoFA, and the operator has no statutory basis to pursue the Hirer.

Appeal point #1 Conclusion

Because Euro Car Parks has failed to provide the required documents under Paragraph 14(2) and 13(2), no liability can be transferred to the Hirer under PoFA Schedule 4. POPLA is therefore invited to allow this appeal and instruct the operator to cancel the Parking Charge in full.

2. The Signage Fails to Comply with PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii) – The Parking Charge Was Not Given Adequate Notice

Euro Car Parks (ECP) has failed to comply with the statutory requirement under Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). These provisions state that, to be enforceable, a parking charge must be adequately notified to the driver at the time the vehicle was parked.

PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(2):

“The reference in the definition of ‘parking charge’ to a sum in the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to drivers of vehicles (when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land).”

PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(3)(b)(ii):

“Adequate notice” means the display of one or more notices which:

“(i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and
(ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.”

It is not enough for a parking operator to simply claim that signs were present. The sum being demanded — here, £100 — must be clearly specified and prominent on those signs, and the signage must be adequate to bring that charge to the attention of drivers.

Why the Signage at Whale Bone Lane South – Dagenham Fails to Meet These Requirements

The signage at this location falls far short of what is required to satisfy Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii). Specifically:

• The £100 charge is buried in small print within a densely worded sign and is not legible or visible from a moving vehicle or from a reasonable distance.
• The signage does not specify the charge in a manner that is prominent or apparent to drivers at the point of decision (i.e. when entering or parking).
• The charge is not brought to the attention of the driver in a manner that could fairly be described as “adequate” under the statutory definition.
• There is no large, clear warning that a failure to purchase a pay-by-phone session will incur a £100 charge.
• The charge is not immediately obvious, nor is it specified as a penalty for unauthorised parking in a conspicuous manner.

Accordingly, ECP is attempting to enforce a parking charge that does not meet the legal definition of a ‘parking charge’ under PoFA Schedule 4. The sum was not adequately notified, and therefore cannot be recovered from the driver (if known), or the Hirer (which in this case they are not entitled to pursue regardless — see Point 1).

Relevant Standards and Best Practice

These defects also breach:

• The British Parking Association Code of Practice v9 (January 2024), Section 19.3 and Appendix B, which require that the parking charge must be prominently displayed and clearly legible, with core contractual terms (including the charge) being immediately apparent.
• The Consumer Rights Act 2015, which mandates that any term likely to disadvantage the consumer (such as a £100 penalty) must be transparent and prominent.

This was reaffirmed in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the £85 charge was prominently displayed and therefore enforceable. The contrast with this case is stark: ECP’s charge is not prominent and would not withstand equivalent judicial scrutiny.

Appeal point #2 Conclusion

The signage at Whale Bone Lane South – Dagenham fails to satisfy PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii) because the £100 charge was not adequately brought to the attention of the driver. As such, no enforceable parking charge exists, and the appeal must be allowed on this basis alone.

3. No Driver Liability – No Admission of Driving; Operator Attempting to Hold the Wrong Party Liable

The Hirer has made no admission as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. No such admission is required, and no lawful presumption can be made. The operator is not entitled to infer, assume, or speculate that the Hirer was the driver.

This appeal is made strictly in the capacity of Hirer, and Euro Car Parks is fully aware that their ability to pursue the Hirer relies on strict compliance with Schedule 4, Paragraph 14 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As established in Section 1 of this appeal, ECP has not complied with the mandatory conditions of Paragraph 14. Therefore, they have no lawful basis to transfer liability to the Hirer.

Where liability cannot transfer, the only party potentially liable is the driver. However, where the driver has not been identified — and no lawful inference can be drawn — the operator is left without a liable party.

The law is unequivocal. PoFA does not permit a parking operator to simply pursue the most convenient or likely person. Liability must lie either with:

•The driver (if known or admitted); or
• The keeper or hirer, but only if full and correct PoFA compliance has been achieved.

In this case, the Hirer is not shown to be the driver, and the operator has failed to meet the statutory gateway for pursuing the Hirer. Therefore, no party is lawfully liable, and the charge must be cancelled.

Additional Authority

This position is consistent with established legal precedent, including VCS v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C], where the court held that mere keeper status does not infer liability unless PoFA is fully complied with, and the driver is not otherwise identified.

Attempts to use flawed reasoning about agency, implied authority, or routine use of the vehicle are misplaced and have no basis in PoFA or binding case law. POPLA is reminded that it must assess whether the correct legal process has been followed — not whether a guess can be made about who might have driven the vehicle.

Appeal point #3 Conclusion

The Hirer has made no admission as to being the driver, and the operator has not complied with the strict statutory requirements needed to hold the Hirer liable under PoFA. As such, Euro Car Parks is attempting to hold the wrong party liable, in direct contravention of the statute. The charge is therefore unenforceable, and the appeal must be allowed.

4. The Operator is Put to Strict Proof that its Signage Complies with the BPA Code of Practice v9 (January 2024)

Euro Car Parks is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and is therefore required to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice Version 9 (January 2024). The operator is put to strict proof that the signage at Whale Bone Lane South – Dagenham fully complies with the relevant provisions of this Code.

In particular:

• Section 19.3 requires that signs must be clear and intelligible to drivers, and visible from a distance.
• Section 19.5 requires that the parking charge itself must be prominently displayed and not hidden within terms and conditions.
• Appendix B of the Code sets out minimum standards for font size, contrast, lighting, and the positioning of signage, such that drivers are given a fair opportunity to see, read, and understand the terms before parking.

The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with these requirements as they stood at the time of the alleged contravention, including:

• The exact wording and appearance of the signage at the site;
• A site plan showing the location and orientation of each sign;
• Evidence that all signs were clearly legible, properly positioned, and visible from all entry points;
• Whether the signs were illuminated or otherwise visible during hours of darkness.

Failure to provide such evidence should be taken by POPLA as confirmation that the signage was not compliant, and therefore no contractual charge is enforceable.

5. Strict Proof of Landowner Authority – No Locus Standi Without Full and Evidenced Rights

Euro Car Parks (ECP) is put to strict proof that it holds a valid, contemporaneous, and fully executed contract with the landowner (or a duly authorised agent) granting it the authority to manage parking, issue PCNs, and enforce those charges in its own name at Whale Bone Lane South – Dagenham.

It is not sufficient for the operator to rely on:

• a generic witness statement;
• a short letter merely asserting that a contract exists;
• or any heavily redacted or undated document lacking legal specificity.

To establish locus standi, the operator must supply the full, unredacted contract, which must include all of the following:

• The full commencement and expiry dates of the contract, confirming the precise period for which authority was granted;
• Confirmation that the agreement was in force on the date of the alleged contravention;
• The full terms and conditions originally agreed between the operator and the landowner or agent, including the exact terms to be imposed on drivers;
• A clear definition of the land covered by the agreement, including plans or maps where applicable;
• Explicit confirmation within the contract that ECP has the authority to:

• manage the site;
• issue Parking Charge Notices;
• and pursue payment and legal action in its own name;

Details of any material amendments to those terms since the contract’s inception, including:

• What those changes were;
• When they were agreed;
• And confirmation that the contract was formally varied and remains binding in its amended form.

This level of documentary scrutiny is essential to confirm that any contractual terms relied on in the signage (and any related PCN) were valid and properly authorised at the relevant time. POPLA is therefore respectfully reminded that it must not accept generic, redacted, or vague evidence in support of such a fundamental claim of legal standing.

Applicable Code of Practice

While the signage at the site is governed by the BPA Code of Practice v9 (January 2024), all other operator conduct — including contractual authority — is now governed by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which requires that operators:

“...must on request provide evidence of the written authorisation from the landholder (or their appointed agent) to manage the relevant site... including the scope, terms, and effective dates of such authority.”

Legal and Evidential Position

The principle that a private parking operator must hold either a proprietary interest in the land or a clear, legally binding agreement conferring enforcement authority has been repeatedly confirmed by the courts. Notably, in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186, it was made clear that a mere licence to access the land is insufficient for contract formation and enforcement.

If Euro Car Parks cannot supply all of the above in full and unredacted form, then it has no legal standing to issue or pursue any PCN at this location, and the appeal must be allowed in full.

Conclusion

In summary, Euro Car Parks has failed to meet the statutory requirements necessary to hold the Hirer liable under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Notice to Hirer is non-compliant; the signage does not give adequate notice of the charge; no admission has been made as to the identity of the driver; and the operator has not provided evidence of either signage compliance with the BPA Code of Practice v9 (January 2024) or valid landowner authority as required by the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).

On all grounds presented, the charge is unenforceable, and POPLA is invited to allow this appeal in full and direct the operator to cancel the Parking Charge.

Thanks very much for your reply! The address apparently is mentioned on the second page of the PCN.
I failed to attach the second page of the PCN which I attach now. Does that change anything in your view?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Hello There,

I’ve received PCN for over staying at Co-op car park. Would you please advice me how to respond?

Very many thanks!

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

MY car was used for a drop off at Luton Express drop off in Dec 2024, the driver forgot to pay the charge.

PCN was never received by APCOA, instead a Debt Recovery Plus notice came demanding payment.

The V5 was updated and there is no reason for the PCN not to come through the post. Would you suggest what to do please?

Many thanks for you time!

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]