Free Traffic Legal Advice

Could you post up the text of your appeal?

Did you use the individual appeal point?

Hello @ InterCity125,
Apologies for the delay to revert. here is the text of my POPLA appeal as submitted:

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice as keeper only, since the driver is not known to the operator. The driver has not been identified.
I understand that, under POPLA rules, I must set out my appeal points and the operator must rebut them.
APPEAL POINT ONE – Non-compliance with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii).
The operator’s Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the mandatory wording and requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(e).

In particular, the NtK does not contain the mandatory wording:
“the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver”.

Paragraph 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) sets out the following;

Paragraph 9(2)(e) requires that the notice must:
•   state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper -
(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii) if the keeper was not the driver, to notify the creditor of the name and current service address of the driver and to pass the notice to the driver.

An examination of the operator’s NtK reveals that the statutory wording is not present.
I therefore ask the operator to specifically rebut this appeal point by supplying a copy of the relevant NtK, to the PoPLA Assessor, with an orange rectangle around the wording, "the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" - for total clarity, please do not include any other notations on the provided NtK - just the orange rectangle.

APPEAL POINT TWO – That, subsequent to the statutory wording required by 9(2)(e), the operator’s NtK does not set out the mandatory two-limbed invitation to the keeper to either pay the unpaid
parking charges or nominate another driver.

An examination of the legislation surrounding 9(2)(e) reveals that compliance is achieved by the setting out of the statutory wording immediately followed by a two limbed 'invitation to the keeper' to either 'pay the unpaid parking charges' or 'nominate another driver'.

Once again here, Paragraph 9(2)(e) requires that the notice must:
•   state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver AND invite the keeper -
(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii) if the keeper was not the driver, to notify the creditor of the name and current service address of the driver and to pass the notice to the driver.

An examination of the operator’s NtK reveals that the NtK fails to provide the required two-limbed invitation to the keeper.
Both above conditions must be satisfied in order for the operator to rely on PoFA and transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. Once again, I ask the operator to specifically rebut this appeal point by supplying a copy of the NtK which clearly sets out, in an orange rectangle, the two-limbed legal invitation which the legislation requires in order to be compliant.

APPEAL POINT THREE - That, in accordance with 9(2)(e) and subsequently 9(2)(e)(i), the NtK must 'invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges'.
An examination of the operators NtK reveals that there is no clear invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges, as specifically required by paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
Once again, I ask the operator to prove that the NtK complies with this requirement - please demonstrate the 'invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid charges'. Please note that terminology such as “notified” or “advised” is not equivalent to the statutory requirement of an “invitation to the keeper” under paragraph 9(2)(e). The wording used in the legislation is specific and must be properly reflected in the Notice to Keeper.

Please also note that, the parking operator is required to meet ‘all applicable conditions' under Schedule 4 in order to hold the keeper liable for the unpaid charges.   
The operator’s references to keeper liability and paragraph 9(2)(f) do not remove the separate requirement to fully comply with paragraph 9(2)(e).

As the NtK does not comply with the mandatory requirements of PoFA, liability cannot be transferred from driver to keeper.
I therefore put the operator to strict proof of full PoFA compliance and ask the operator to specifically rebut these appeal points by identifying where the mandatory wording appears on the NtK.

APPEAL POINT FOUR – No evidence of the required period of actual parking.
The NtK relies solely on ANPR images showing entry and exit times. These do not establish the actual period of parking as required by PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a).
ANPR captures vehicle movements entering and exiting the site, rather than the actual period during which the vehicle was parked.

APPEAL POINT FIVE – Failure to account for non-parking time / grace periods.
The recorded duration includes time spent:
• locating a parking space in a busy car park
• queuing to exit due to congestion, traffic lights and the one-way system
This is not parking time and should not form part of any alleged parking period. The recorded time includes time spent entering the site, locating a parking space, manoeuvring, and exiting the site, including delays caused by congestion and traffic lights immediately outside the car park exit on what was a particularly busy bank holiday period.

APPEAL POINT SIX – Inadequate signage
There is inadequate signage in the small bay area near the exit of the car park where no visible terms and conditions signage is present.
The terms and conditions were not adequately brought to the attention of drivers using this specific area of the car park and therefore no contract could have been formed.

APPEAL POINT SEVEN – No evidence of landowner authority
The operator is put to strict proof that it has the necessary landowner authority to issue and enforce parking charges at this site.
The operator is required to produce an unredacted contemporaneous contract showing authority to issue parking charges and pursue them to recovery.

In the absence of such evidence, the operator has failed to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In light of all the above, I request that the charge be cancelled.

Hello,
Update on this case. I have now received the rejection letter from ECP following my initial appeal and they have provided a POPLA code. I am attaching the rejection letter (with address and number plate redacted). Hope you can see the letter through the link here:
https://ibb.co/XxmQcWCx

I would really appreciate it if someone experienced could comment on whether the points raised in my draft would be suitable for a POPLA appeal, whether anything important is missing, or if there is anything that could strengthen my chances. And if the format is also suitable.

Thank you very much

*******
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice.
The charge is disputed on the following grounds:

1. No evidence of the required “period of parking”
The Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a), as it fails to specify the period of parking.
The notice relies solely on ANPR images showing entry and exit times. These do not represent the period of parking, as they include time spent entering, locating a space, and exiting the car park.

2. Failure to account for time not spent parked (grace periods and congestion)
The recorded duration includes time spent:
- locating a parking space in a busy car park, and
- queuing to exit due to congestion and a one-way system with traffic lights
This is not parking time and must not be included in any calculation of a parking period.

3. Inadequate signage in the area where the vehicle was parked
The vehicle was parked in a small bay (approximately 6 spaces) near the exit where there was no visible signage at all.
Signage in other parts of the car park does not sufficiently bring the terms and conditions to the attention of drivers parking in this specific area.
As such, no clear contract could have been formed.

4. Non-compliance with Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012
The Notice to Keeper appears not to fully comply with the mandatory wording and requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, including the requirement to clearly and properly set out the conditions under which keeper liability may apply.
As such, the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper.

5. No evidence of landowner authority
The operator is put to strict proof that it has the necessary authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charges at this site.
There appears to be inconsistency regarding the land ownership and management arrangements. Signage suggests the site is managed on behalf of Marks & Spencer, while it has been indicated that the land may be owned by a third party.
The operator is required to demonstrate that it has a valid and current contract with the landowner (or authorised agent), including the authority to:
- issue parking charge notices, and
- pursue them to recovery

In the absence of such evidence, the charge is invalid.

Quick update, the keeper went back to M&S and asked again about cancelling, but was told they can’t cancel as it’s managed separately. So looks like the only option now is to proceed with an appeal.
Draft appeal below, any obvious issues before submitting, please?

Also, one more thing that came up when speaking to the store staff, they mentioned that the land is actually owned by a church, not M&S, which is why they said they couldn’t get involved. However, the signage on site says it’s managed on behalf of M&S.
Would that kind of inconsistency be worth raising in terms of landowner authority, i.e. asking Euro Car Parks to prove they have the right to operate and issue charges there? Or is that unlikely to add much in this case?

***
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice.
The charge is disputed on the following grounds:

1. No evidence of the required “period of parking”
The Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a), as it fails to specify the period of parking.
The notice relies solely on ANPR images showing entry and exit times. These do not represent the period of parking, as they include time spent entering, locating a space, and exiting the car park.

2. Failure to account for time not spent parked (grace periods and congestion)
The recorded duration includes time spent:
- locating a parking space in a busy car park, and
- queuing to exit due to congestion and a one-way system with traffic lights
This is not parking time and must not be included in any calculation of a parking period.

3. Inadequate signage in the area where the vehicle was parked
The vehicle was parked in a small bay (approximately 6 spaces) near the exit where there was no visible signage at all.
Signage in other parts of the car park does not sufficiently bring the terms and conditions to the attention of drivers parking in this specific area.
As such, no clear contract could have been formed.

4. Non-compliance with Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012
The Notice to Keeper appears not to fully comply with the mandatory wording and requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, including the requirement to clearly and properly set out the conditions under which keeper liability may apply.
As such, the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper.

5. No evidence of landowner authority
The operator is put to strict proof that it has the necessary authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charges at this site.
There appears to be inconsistency regarding the land ownership and management arrangements. Signage suggests the site is managed on behalf of Marks & Spencer, while it has been indicated that the land may be owned by a third party.
The operator is required to demonstrate that it has a valid and current contract with the landowner (or authorised agent), including the authority to:
- issue parking charge notices, and
- pursue them to recovery

In the absence of such evidence, the charge is invalid.

***

Thank you very much once again.

Hi, thank you very much for your advice. I really appreciate you taking the time to respond.
Just to clarify a couple of points:
The keeper did contact M&S to see if they could help cancelling the charge, but they advised that it is not their car park and is privately managed, so they were unable to help.

Regarding the layout, the bay where the driver parked is actually just before the exit. What is quite unusual is that all the signage appears to be positioned on the opposite side of that bay. On the side where the vehicle was parked, there are no visible signs at all, despite there being plenty of space for them. It does feel somewhat disconnected from the rest of the car park in that sense. I take your point about signage being present elsewhere, though.

Also, thank you for mentioning the wording point on the notice. Looking at it more closely, it seems to include some elements of the requirements under Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, but the wording appears somewhat fragmented and spread out rather than set out clearly in one place. Would it be correct to understand that this part needs to meet a fairly strict standard in terms of how the “invitation” is presented?
Thank you very much again for your help.

@ stamfordman hello! I wanted to thank you for your advice and support. Today, I received the council’s response, finally, they looked into my formal representation and the huge bundle of evidence I provided to prove the sign is poorly maintained. They withdrew their unfair fine!!! It’s a huge victory for me!! 🎉Thank you @stamfordman 🙌🏻

Hello,
@stamfordman, I received a Notice to Owner (NTO) today and would be grateful if you could advise on the best course of action.
I intend to make formal representations and would like to ensure I follow the correct procedure. Please could you advise whether there is a standard format or specific points I should address to make sure my representation is submitted properly?
here are the letter images:
https://ibb.co/B5bdG59X
https://ibb.co/CKstzQHz
https://ibb.co/1fwjgV9j

Thank you very much

Thank you, Stamfordman, I would be happy to get a chance to fight this ticket. How would I proceed with the appeal? Would you be able to advise please?

@stamfordman, hello, would you be able to advise on the protocol for the NtO stage, and how to argue the bad signage (relevant law etc) or please point to the right place to get more info on that, as I tried to search in the pinned posts and couldn’t find it. Thank you very much