Free Traffic Legal Advice

Continue to only appeal as the Registered Keeper (RK). They have no idea who the driver is and you are under no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company.

If we put it together, PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a) states:

Quote

9 (1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2) The notice must—

(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

So, is there anything in the NtK you received that "specifies" the "period of parking"? You tell me.

Unless ALL the requirements of PoFA are fully complied with, then they cannot hold the Keeper liable. So, don't identify the driver.

Are they wrong about the clear implication of the period? Am I being pedantic, or are they taking liberties?

Hi all
Have just been sent this through Popla. Along with proof that manage the land etc. Have been given 7 days to respond - do I reply?
Thanks again
E

When submitting the challenge, do I include photos of the signage in the pdf, or just make my points about the signs not complying and let them look for themselves?

Hey. Am posting this tomorrow so it's not hanging over me on Christmas. Wish me luck!..
E

Apologies. Messaged again as I thought I'd sent this draft on Saturday. But clearly not!

The time and date of the breach? (you've obscured this).
The back of the PCN pl.

There's no BPA Code of Practice as such, there's the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice if the event took place on or after 1 Oct.

So I suggest you re-read your draft and remove references to an out of date CoP, I also suggest you remove reference to TSRGD which has nothing whatsoever to do with contracts for parking on private land(it applies to traffic authorities), I also suggest you aggregate and don't repeat points under PoFA and CoP breaches, and remove the double negative here:

I contest that the Notice to Keeper (NTK) issued by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd does not specify the "period of parking" as required under Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the PoFA.

I am writing to appeal a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued to my vehicle on ********* by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and have not disclosed the identity of the driver.

The basis of my appeal is the failure of the parking company to comply with the requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and the inadequacy of the parking signage. Specifically, I contest that the Notice to Keeper (NTK) issued by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd fails to specify the "period of parking" as required under Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the PoFA.

Key points of my appeal are as follows:

1. Lack of Specified Period of Parking:
   According to Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the PoFA, for the NTK to be valid, it must specify "the period of parking to which the notice relates." The NTK issued by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd only mentions a single point in time, rather than a specific period during which the vehicle was parked. This omission is a clear failure to comply with the PoFA requirements, rendering the NTK invalid. As such, the parking company does not have the legal right to claim unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper.

2. Inadequate Signage:
   The parking signage does not comply with the regulations required for enforceable private parking contracts. The signage fails to clearly display the terms and conditions, including the potential £100 Parking Charge Notice, in a manner that meets the standards of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.

   Lack of Adequate Illumination:
     The sign is mounted on a pole with no provision for adequate lighting. It is difficult to read in low-light conditions, rendering it impossible for motorists to see and understand the terms at night. This does not comply with the requirement that parking terms must be clearly visible and legible under all conditions, including at night or in poor weather.

   - **Insufficient Notice of Key Terms:** 
     The terms and conditions are written in small, dense text. Key information such as the penalty amount and conditions for enforcement is not prominent or clearly displayed.

   Ambiguous Time Restrictions:
     The sign lists a complex schedule of restricted parking hours for each day. This schedule is excessively convoluted, making it unreasonable to expect drivers to understand and comply within the short time they have to park and assess the situation.

3. Lack of Clear Authority:
   The sign lacks clear evidence of Private Parking Solutions' authority to manage parking on this land. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice requires parking operators to display evidence of their contractual right to issue parking charges on the site. This is absent from the sign.

Given these points, I respectfully request that POPLA upholds my appeal and instructs Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully

I am writing to appeal a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued to my vehicle on ------ by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and have not disclosed the identity of the driver.

The basis of my appeal is the failure of the parking company to comply with the requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and on the grounds that the parking signage does not comply with the regulations required for enforceable private parking contracts. Specifically, I contest that the Notice to Keeper (NTK) issued by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd does not specify the "period of parking" as required under Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the PoFA.

While the NTK mentions the time of the alleged parking contravention, it fails to state the actual "period of parking" during which the vehicle was purportedly parked. The PoFA clearly differentiates between the time of issue and the period of parking, and the NTK must include the latter to meet the statutory requirements. Similarly, the deficiencies in the signage mean that no contract was formed between the driver and Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd.

**Key points of my appeal are as follows:**

1. **Lack of Specified Period of Parking:** 
   According to Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the PoFA, for the NTK to be valid, it must specify "the period of parking to which the notice relates." The NTK issued by [parking company's name] only mentions a single point in time, rather than a specific period during which the vehicle was parked. This omission is a clear failure to comply with the PoFA requirements, rendering the NTK invalid.

2. **Non-Compliance with PoFA:** 
   The failure to specify the "period of parking" invalidates the NTK under the PoFA 2012. As such, the parking company does not have the legal right to claim unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper.

3. **Requirement for Strict Adherence:** 
   As the registered keeper, I am entitled to expect that the parking company adheres strictly to all statutory requirements when issuing a NTK. Non-compliance with these requirements invalidates any claim against me.

4. Lack of Adequate Illumination
The sign is mounted on a pole with no provision for adequate lighting. The photograph clearly shows that the sign is difficult to read in low-light conditions, rendering it impossible for motorists to see and understand the terms at night. This does not comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, Section 19.3, which requires that parking terms must be clearly visible and legible under all conditions, including at night or in poor weather.

5. Insufficient Notice of Key Terms
The sign fails to meet the standards of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and BPA Code of Practice. The terms and conditions, including the potential £100 Parking Charge Notice, are written in small, dense text. Key information such as the penalty amount and conditions for enforcement is not prominent or clearly displayed.

The ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case stressed the importance of clear and prominent signage for creating a binding parking contract. Here, the terms are obscured due to poor design and positioning, undermining their enforceability.

6. Ambiguous Time Restrictions
The sign lists a complex schedule of restricted parking hours for each day. This schedule is excessively convoluted, making it unreasonable to expect drivers to understand and comply within the short time they have to park and assess the situation. As per the BPA Code of Practice (Section 19.4), terms must be clear and concise. This sign clearly fails this standard.

7. Non-Compliance with Regulatory Design Standards
The sign does not adhere to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD) standards, which apply to private parking signage. While TSRGD is not legally binding on private operators, compliance is often cited as a benchmark for clarity and enforceability.

8. Lack of Clear Authority
The sign lacks clear evidence of Private Parking Solutions' authority to manage parking on this land. The BPA Code of Practice, Section 7, requires parking operators to display evidence of their contractual right to issue parking charges on the site. This is absent from the sign.

Given these points, I respectfully request that POPLA upholds my appeal and instructs Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,