6
« on: July 27, 2026, 10:45:56 am »
Here is a draft response; what do you guys think - any changes required ?
Thanks
I respectfully submit the following comments in response to the operator's evidence.
1. The operator has failed to address the principal ground of my appeal
The central issue in this appeal is not whether payment was made, nor whether the signage was adequate. The issue is whether the operator has established liability against me as the hirer of the vehicle.
I made it clear in my appeal that I am the hirer of the vehicle, I was not the driver, and that the operator had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA") required to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the hirer.
Rather than addressing this point, the operator has devoted almost its entire evidence pack to discussing ANPR images, payment, signage and contractual terms.
Those matters do not establish liability against me.
2. There is no legal obligation to identify the driver
The operator repeatedly states that I have not identified the driver and appears to rely upon that fact as justification for pursuing me.
This is a misstatement of the legal position.
There is no legal obligation requiring a hirer or keeper to identify the driver.
Parliament enacted Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to provide operators with a statutory mechanism to recover unpaid parking charges from someone other than the driver, but only where the operator has complied strictly with every statutory requirement.
The operator cannot circumvent those statutory requirements simply because I have exercised my legal right not to identify the driver.
3. The operator has failed to establish hirer liability
This vehicle was supplied under a hire/lease arrangement.
Accordingly, the operator was required to comply with Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The only document received by the hirer was the Parking Charge Notice / Notice to Hirer.
The mandatory accompanying documents required by Schedule 4 were not served, including the prescribed documentation necessary to transfer liability from the driver to the hirer.
The operator's evidence before POPLA does not demonstrate that these statutory requirements were ever complied with.
Instead, it merely asserts that liability transferred from xxxxx to xxxxxx without producing evidence that the statutory conditions for such transfer were satisfied.
An assertion is not evidence.
If the operator had complied with Schedule 4, it would have been a straightforward matter to produce:
the Notice to Hirer as served;
evidence of the documents enclosed with that notice; and
evidence demonstrating compliance with the statutory requirements.
The operator has failed to do so.
The burden of proof rests with the operator. It has failed to discharge that burden.
4. The operator's evidence is largely irrelevant
The operator's evidence concentrates upon:
alleged non-payment;
ANPR records;
contractual terms;
signage; and
duration of stay.
Even if those matters were accepted (which is not admitted), they concern only the conduct of the unknown driver.
They do not establish that I, as the hirer, have any legal liability.
Accordingly, the evidence fails to address the principal issue before POPLA.
5. Inconsistent evidence regarding the operation of the site
The operator's rejection correspondence described this location as operating a "pay on entry" system.
That is factually incorrect.
The site operates as a pay-on-exit system.
This calls into question the accuracy of the operator's consideration of my appeal and the reliability of the evidence presented to POPLA.
If the operator cannot accurately describe the operation of its own parking system, its conclusions regarding the alleged contravention should be treated with caution.
6. Misleading operation of the exit barriers
Historically, the exit barriers at this location would only open once payment had been made or where no payment was required.
The barriers now open automatically regardless of whether payment has been made.
There is no clear or prominent signage informing motorists that this significant operational change has occurred.
A motorist familiar with the previous operation of the site could reasonably interpret the automatic opening of the exit barrier as confirmation that no further action is required before leaving.
If the operator has fundamentally altered the operation of the site, it is incumbent upon it to ensure that this change is communicated clearly and prominently.
The evidence supplied does not demonstrate that this has been done.
7. Signage fails to provide adequate clarity
Should POPLA conclude that hirer liability has somehow been established (which is denied), I submit in the alternative that the operator has failed to demonstrate that a clear and enforceable parking contract was formed.
The operator relies heavily upon photographs of signage.
However, the issue is not simply whether signs exist.
The question is whether the signage clearly communicates the current operation of the site to a reasonable motorist.
The operator has failed to demonstrate that motorists are clearly informed that:
the site operates on a pay-on-exit basis;
the automatic opening of the exit barriers is not confirmation that payment has been made; and
the previous operation of the barriers has changed.
In the absence of clear and prominent information, any alleged contractual terms are ambiguous and should be interpreted in favour of the consumer.
Conclusion
The operator has failed to establish liability against me as the hirer by demonstrating strict compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Instead, its evidence focuses almost entirely upon matters relating to the unidentified driver, whilst failing to address the principal legal issue raised in my appeal.
In the alternative, the operator has failed to demonstrate that the operation of the site and its signage clearly communicated the applicable parking terms to motorists, particularly following the change to the operation of the exit barriers.
For all of the above reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal and directs the operator to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
Show Posts
