The hirer helped a friend move into new flat at this location with a van from enterprise. Upon arrival noticed a lot of cars with number plates removed but were in a rush so unloaded quickly and left. Found one sign in regards to parking which wasn't very clear and attached below.

https://imgpile.com/p/PTQ58iw  - PCN
 https://imgpile.com/m/BaO9IN9 - signage where hirer

According to google a copy of the hire agreement and transfer of liability should have been sent along with the invoice, but was not.

Please find my draft appeal for your feedback:

I appeal this Parking Charge Notice. I make no admission as to who was driving the vehicle at the material time. This appeal should not be treated as identifying the driver.

1. No hirer liability established (Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4)
Your notice states that the vehicle was hired and that liability was transferred to myself as the hirer. To pursue a hirer, the operator must serve a notice to hirer that complies with Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. That notice must be accompanied by a copy of the hire agreement and a copy of the hirer's signed statement of liability. Neither document was enclosed with your notice. The statutory conditions for transferring liability to the hirer have therefore not been met, and you cannot rely on the PoFA to hold me liable.

2. Notice does not meet the statutory wording
The notice says the driver of the vehicle is responsible and that the charge may be recovered "from the driver of the vehicle". Schedule 4 requires a notice to the hirer to state that the creditor has the right to recover unpaid charges from the hirer, subject to the conditions in the Schedule. The notice does not say this, so it does not meet the statutory requirements.

3. Driver not identified
Without PoFA protection, you can only pursue the driver, and you have not identified who that was. There is no legal presumption that the hirer was the driver, and a hirer has no duty to name the driver. There is therefore no basis to pursue me for this charge.

4. Unclear reason for charge
The stated reason, "Vehicle Not Registered (ANPR)", does not explain what registration was required, where or how it was to be done, or how a visitor would have known. The vehicle was on site for 30 minutes. Please explain what loss you claim to have suffered.

5. Strict proof required
Please provide:

the landowner contract showing your authority to issue and enforce charges at this site, in your own name
a site plan and signage map
clear photographs of all signage at the entrance and where the vehicle stopped, showing the terms and charge amount
the full ANPR data, timestamps and images
I request that this charge be cancelled. If you reject this appeal, please send the details for appealing to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) and a full copy of your evidence.

Yours faithfully,


Thanks in advance!

Apologies I didn't see your latest reply, yes I am the registered keeper.

They replied to me by post basically saying it doesn't matter what the code says= but if I pay up now I still get the discount. Can scan the reply later and upload if you want

Waiting for the NTO now

They only printed the one copy, I just realised after posting that the original picture I took wasn't very clear so added some more at a closer angle.

Amazing, thanks for noticing that.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/z9Y4en823G7LDHDT8  - the google maps link requested

https://imgpile.com/p/6eTNiJJ

PCN unredacted

Thank you for the formal complaint, that seems to have done the trick as I now have the POPLA code. Below is a template for my appeal in case anyone wishes to read:



Dear POPLA Adjudicator,


I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXXX and below are my 4 points of appeal:


1. The operator has failed to deliver a Notice To Keeper that is POFA compliant.

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

4. Lack of Adequate Signage.


1 The operator cannot transfer the driver’s liability (if any) to the keeper as they have failed to serve a Notice to Keeper that complies with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012  In particular (without limitation) the  notice does not contain the warning required by PoFA paragraph 9(2)(f)


Furthermore, the operators email response to the keepers original appeal confirms that they are not relying on POPA (see attached evidence XX). This means that they cannot pursue the keeper.


2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge


In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.


In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.


As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.


The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.


Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:


Understanding keeper liability

'There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.


There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.'


Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.


This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''


3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice


As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.


The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.


It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).


Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.


Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.


Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:


7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.


7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:


a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined


b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation


c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement


d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs


e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement


4. Lack Of Adequate Signage


Lack Of Adequate Signage


The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:


''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, 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''.


Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all in the photos of the vehicle - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.


The parking operator is put to strict proof that this signage is adequate, and that the evidence they provide is from the same location that the alleged contravention occurred.

Update:

No response or POPLA code provided, however have received several letters from 'ZZPS' (same address as Bridge pam security who sent the original invoice) claiming they will escalate to debt collection agency of some sort if I don't contact them or pay the £170.

Happy to ignore them but would prefer to get the POPLA code as a straight forward appeal would save me more time than potentially going to court for this nonsense.

Is there anyway I can MAKE them send the POPLA code?

Thanks

Thanks, will include that in the reply which I will leave till nearer the deadline.

No evidence of the contravention or option to view any when I log in, just the option to pay or appeal!