Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi - underneath is my POPLA appeal, if there's any suggestion on top of this or changes, then please let me know. Thanks!

Grounds for Appeal

1. Non-compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) – No Hirer Liability Established

UKPC has failed to establish hirer liability under Schedule 4 of PoFA. As the hirer, I am not liable for this charge, and the operator has not met the strict requirements to transfer liability from the driver to the hirer.

2. Inadequate Signage – Failure to Form a Contract

The signage within the car park is insufficiently clear to form a contract with the driver. The terms and conditions are not prominently displayed or legible, especially regarding the requirement to park within bay markings.

3. No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss – Charge is Punitive

The charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore punitive, contravening the principles established in case law.

---

Detailed Appeal Statement

1. Non-compliance with Schedule 4 of PoFA

I am the Hirer of the vehicle and I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice issued by UKPC.

UKPC is attempting to transfer liability to me as the Hirer under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). They can only do this if they comply fully with Paragraph 14 of that Schedule.

As of the date of this appeal, UKPC has failed to provide copies of the documents required under PoFA to transfer liability to the hirer.

There are four documents that must be provided with the Notice to Hirer in order to comply with Paragraph 14 of PoFA:

1. 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;
2. A copy of the hire agreement;
3. A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement; and
4. A copy of the Notice to Keeper (NtK).

To date, UKPC has not provided all four documents. Without all four of these documents, UKPC has not met the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4. Therefore, they cannot transfer liability to the Hirer and may only pursue the driver, who has not been identified.

If UKPC attempts to rely on any new documents in their evidence pack to POPLA, it is now too late as they were required to have been provided together with the Notice to Hirer within the relevant period of 21 days of the liability having been transferred from the Keeper.

2. Inadequate Signage

The signage in the car park managed by UKPC does not meet the standards set by the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Specifically:

The signs are not prominently placed or easily readable.

The terms and conditions, including the requirement to park within bay markings, are not clearly stated.

Without clear signage, no contract can be formed between the operator and the driver, rendering the charge unenforceable.

<will add the image shared by b789>

3. No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss

The £100 charge does not reflect any genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred by UKPC due to the alleged parking breach. In the case of ParkingEye v. Beavis, the Supreme Court held that charges must not be punitive or unconscionable. In this instance:

There is no evidence of loss suffered by UKPC. The charge is disproportionate to any potential loss. Therefore, the charge is punitive and unenforceable.

---

Conclusion

Given the above points:

UKPC has not established hirer liability under PoFA.

The signage is inadequate to form a contract.

I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

Hello - I've dug around and did receive a Notice To Hirer ("you were the hirer (your information has been supplied to us by the registered keeper) of the vehicle...etc etc.

It's just the letter, not the other docs required by the PoFA.

Back to the appeal, any comments on that?

Hi - here's the appeal drafted, appreciate any help on it:

I am the hirer of the vehicle and wish to appeal this Parking Charge Notice issued by UKPC on the following grounds:
1. The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) and therefore liability cannot be transferred to the hirer.

Under Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), a parking operator seeking to transfer liability to a vehicle hirer must provide the following documentation with the Notice to Hirer (NtH):
•   A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK).
•   A copy of the relevant hire agreement.
•   A statement, signed on behalf of the hire company, confirming the name and address of the hirer and the duration of the hire period.

UKPC’s Notice to Hirer failed to include the above documentation in full. In particular:
•   No copy of the original Notice to Keeper was enclosed.
•   No signed statement from the hire company identifying me as the hirer was provided.
•   No copy of the hire agreement was included.

PoFA stipulates that all these documents must be provided for a parking operator to establish keeper/hirer liability. Without full compliance, UKPC is unable to pursue the hirer and can only seek recovery from the driver, who has not been identified.
 
As such, liability cannot be transferred to me under statute.

2. The photographic evidence does not demonstrate a clear breach of parking terms.

The images provided by UKPC do not clearly show that the vehicle was parked in contravention of the stated terms and conditions.
•   There is no clear evidence that the vehicle was parked outside the lines of a marked bay.
•   The images are inconclusive due to the angle, lack of reference points, and poor clarity.
•   No timestamped series of images has been provided to establish the duration or nature of any alleged contravention.

As such, UKPC has not discharged the burden of proof required to demonstrate a contractual breach. The absence of reliable and objective evidence weakens the basis of the charge.

3. Lack of clear, prominent signage on site.

If UKPC allege that the parking terms were breached, it is necessary for them to provide dated photographs of the relevant signage near the location of the alleged contravention. These should show:
•   That signs were visible, legible, and prominent from the location where the vehicle was parked.
•   That the terms and conditions were clear and accessible at the time of parking.
•   A site map showing the position of signs relative to the bays.

Without sufficient evidence of visible and readable signage, no contract can be deemed to have been established with the driver.

4. UKPC’s conduct appears disproportionate and predatory.

The issuing of a Parking Charge Notice under ambiguous circumstances, with unclear evidence and without statutory compliance, may be seen as inconsistent with guidance issued by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities regarding fair and proportionate parking enforcement.

The approach adopted in this case—particularly the lack of due diligence in evidencing the alleged contravention—raises concerns over the fairness and transparency of UKPC’s conduct. It is respectfully submitted that this undermines confidence in the integrity of private parking enforcement.

5. UKPC may be in breach of data protection principles under the UK GDPR.

As the Notice to Hirer does not meet the statutory conditions under PoFA, UKPC has no lawful basis under Article 6(1)(f) of the UK GDPR to pursue the hirer using their personal data.

The principle of data minimisation and lawful processing requires that data controllers (in this case, UKPC) only process personal information when there is a legitimate legal basis to do so. As UKPC has not met the legal requirements to establish hirer liability, the use of my personal data obtained from the hire company may constitute unlawful processing.

In light of the above, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the Parking Charge Notice. The failure to comply with PoFA Schedule 4, the absence of clear evidence, concerns regarding signage, and potential data protection issues provide multiple, independent reasons why this charge should not stand.

Hello! So the popla code has now come through.

Any thoughts/advice on the appeal?

Thanks

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I got this now, "demanding" the driver. Any help with the response appreciated. Thanks

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Hi - we received a note from the leasing company (business lease) that there was an impending notice to hirer coming our way some time back. We then received the attached, a final reminder about parking outside the markings of the bay. 

It doesn't look like in the imgur pics that the lines are even there to be honest.

Just need help with the appeal, a) i didn't receive the first notice, b) it's a lease car so is there a requirement to send the lease agreement or details? c) the lines are worn out and the images don't show the details?

Any help much appreciated.

Thanks

Pics

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]