Free Traffic Legal Advice

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the driver parked on the site after the expiry of the paid time.
Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided the following grounds of appeal: • The operator has not proven that it has planning consent or landowner consent to issue PCNs on the site. • The signage is poor and inadequate and is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, digital markets, competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC Act). • The PCN is not compliant with The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. • The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. In the comments the appellant has reiterated that the signage is non-compliant as it is misleading and ambiguous. They say that they have taken legal advice and they maintain that the PCN is not PoFA compliant. They say that as the registered keeper they had already provided their name and email address in an appeal which the operator had acknowledged. Despite this the operator had contacted the DVLA and the KADOE contract prohibits operators from accessing keeper details where the details are already known. The operator had no legal cause to obtain their details and they have made a formal complaint to the DVLA. The appellant has provided a document with images of the signs as evidence.
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. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. The operator has provided evidence of the vehicle parked on the site on the day in question. I am allowing this appeal and my reasons are shown below: The appellant has advised that the signage is poor and inadequate. In their appeal to the operator the appellant has explained that the signage does not advise motorists that payments made before 8am will be split into the evening and daytime tariffs. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators are required to comply with. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. I have reviewed the evidence of the signage on the site provided by the operator, and I am not satisfied that the issues the appellant has raised are fully rebutted. The tariffs on the signage do show that the evening tariff is applicable from 6pm to 8am however it is not clear on the signage that the daytime tariff should only be purchased from 8am and that any payments made before 8am will be allocated to the evening tariff. Due to this I am not satisfied that the terms of payment are clear and unambiguous. Further to this I am of the opinion that it would be unreasonable to expect a driver to return to the site to purchase a further ticket. I am aware that the operator has provided an image of the ticket displayed in the vehicle and this shows that the payment made by the motorist expired at 12 noon. It is important to note that the terms and conditions should be clearly relayed to the motorist on the signage which forms the parking contract. As I have explained previously after reviewing the signage I am not satisfied that this fully complies with Section 3.1.3 of The Code. Accordingly, I am allowing this appeal. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal and comments in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them.
 

Thank you.

I have looked at some previous POPLA appeals and tried to do some research. I have now drafted a POPLA appeal and would be grateful for any comments. Many thanks.

POPLA Appeal

Re: Parking Charge reference number xxxxxx
Vehicle registration: xxxxxx

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and received the above demand from Corporate Services Parking Management (CSPM) on the 14/04/2025

I appealed to CSPM on the 09/05/2025 via e mailand my appeal was subsequently rejected via e mail on the 21/05/2025. CSPM provided POPLA code xxxxxx

As the registered keeper of the above vehicle I contest that I am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal on the following grounds. I would ask that all of these are considered.

    1. Neither the parking company or their client have proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.
    2. Poor and inadequate signage non compliant with BPA Code of Practice and the Digital Markets, competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC Act).
    3. Non compliance with keeper lability under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.
    4. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

1. Neither the parking company or their client have proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention: CSPM have not demonstrated that they have clear authorisation from the landowner to issue tickets on their land. Signage merely states that they manage the car park on behalf of the landowner. The landowner has not been identified. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner. I require CSPM to provide a full copy of this contract. It will not be sufficient for CSPM merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent.
(Photographs of signage taken on day of alleged breach presented as evidence)

2. Poor and inadequate signage non compliant with BPA Code of Practice and the Digital Markets, competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC Act): Signage at the car park entrance and at the pay machine is misleading and unfair. It is not only non‐compliant with the BPA Code of Practice but also with the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC Act) which replaced The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 on the 5th April 2025.
The tariff on the sign at the car park entrance clearly displays “£4.00 All Day”. It gives no indication of what actually constitutes all day parking. The sign at the pay machine states the charge for all day parking is £4.00 and that this expires at 6:00 pm.
The Parking Charge Notice was issued on the basis of “Parked after expiry of paid time.” The driver paid £4.00 at the machine, which according to the signage is the tariff for “all day” parking. The sign states this expires at 6:00pm. There is no indication that “all day” parking only applies from 8:00am, nor any explanation that £4.00 would be broken up into separate night and day charges. Yet the ticket issued by the machine expired at 12:00 noon, because it had apportioned £1.50 to an 'overnight' charge (prior to 8:00am) and only £2.50 to a four-hour daytime session. This allocation is not disclosed anywhere on the signage. The driver acted in reliance on the clearly advertised £4.00 “all day” rate and had no reason to expect that they were only paying for parking up to noon.
This is misleading and unfair. CSPM signage is not only non-compliant with the BPA Code of Practice but also with the The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (2024) clearly states that “Signs and surface markings must be designed, applied and maintained in such a way as to be visible, legible and unambiguous to drivers.” Signage was not clear and unambiguous regarding the £4.00 all day tariff. Under The DMCC Act “Traders should not provide misleading information relating to a product, a trader or any other matter relevant to a transactional decision. This includes information which, although true, is presented in a misleading way and, is likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision.” The driver made the decision to park based on an all day tariff of £4.00. This decision was based on misleading information.
(Photographs of signage taken on day of alleged breach presented as evidence)

3. Non compliance with keeper lability under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4: The Notice to Driver fails to meet the mandatory requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 (PoFA). It does not specify the period of parking, nor does it identify the creditor. These omissions prevent any keeper liability from arising.
CSPM have not met the requirements for keeper liability under PoFA. As they have not fully complied with PoFA, they cannot hold the registered keeper liable for the alleged parking charge. Their Notice to Driver can only hold the driver liable. Since they have failed to establish the driver’s identity and have not provided sufficient evidence to meet PoFA requirements, the liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper.

4. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss: The British Parking Association Code of Practice states “If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.” The Terms and Conditions on the car park signage state that the Parking Charge of £100 is incurred by a breach of contract. Therefore this must reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I require CSPM to provide proof that there has a demonstrable loss.
(Photographs of Terms and Conditions on signage taken on day of alleged breach presented as evidence)

I made an appeal against this PCN clearly stating I was the Registered Keeper. The appeal was turned down (see above) I am currently working on my POPLA appeal. However, I recieved this letter in the post today (attached). This is beginning to feel like harassment! Should I reply stating that I have already appealed as the registered keeper and that they should check their records. Thanks (feeling stressed by all this, but perhaps that was the intent!)
I have attempted to find out who the landowner is, but without success. The Horse and Groom Pub appears to be empty and there is no-one answering letters or phone calls.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I have made an appeal using against the PCN as advised. I recieved a reply today (attached) turning down my appeal - no suprises there. I guess my next move is a POPLA appeal. I would appreciate your advice.
Thanks again.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

In reply to b789. Thank you for your advice. I am not sure if the Horse and Groom pub owns the pay and display car park. Would it be wise to contact them and ask? The machine does not ask for the VRM.