Free Traffic Legal Advice

Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever eve, and I repeat EVER try and talk with a debt collector. I don't know how much more forcefully I can stress that point.

Debt collectors or Debt Recovery Agents (DRA) in these situations are powerless and their single purpose is to extort as much out of you as possible, relying on the already displayed gullibility of their victims. The DRAs are not a party to any contract allegedly breached by the driver with the PPC.

DRAs work on a no-win, no-fee basis for the PPCs. They use scary language with words like "CCJ" and "bailiff" knowing that the majority of the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree will simply pay up out of ignorance.

So, no, don't ever expect a DRA to be on your side. In this case, if it is the PPC still chasing you and you have solid evidence you have paid what they are claiming, then take the CAB advice on how to get them to stop or how to defend it should they try to make a court claim.

It's not clear from that letter whether the hire firm have actually paid anything yet. If they haven't, the hirer's priority for now is to get them to actually nominate the hirer.

True. I was going on the OPs statement that "If i`m not mistaken the PCN is paid already and if my friend wins the appeal they refund the credit." A scenario that is not uncommon.

If the PCN hasn't been paid by Tusker an urgent response to that mendacious letter claiming that Tusker are unable to transfer liability needs to be made and they should be instructed to follow CPMs and PoFA requirements to effect immediate transfer of liability and explaining that that is the only way that the hirer can comply with the PCN.

Tusker have until Monday 21st October to transfer liability correctly. After that, CPM will not give a rats bottom and will simply pursue Tusker.

Suggest sending the following as an URGENT letter (preferably as a PDF attachment by email) to Tusker:

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Date]

Fleet Admin Team
Tuskerdirect Limited
Building 4, Hatters Lane
Croxley Green Business Park
Watford, Hertfordshire, WD18 8YF

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Parking Charge Notice Reference [PCN Reference Number] for Vehicle Registration [Vehicle Registration Number]

I am writing regarding the above-referenced Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and Tusker's correspondence dated 25th September 2024, in which you claimed that "the private parking operator will not allow you to transfer liability and only provide Tusker with the option to pay the charge notice." This statement is patently false and misrepresents the process clearly set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

The Notice to Keeper issued by UK Car Park Management Ltd (CPM) clearly includes a very bold heading at the top of the reverse side: "Vehicle Hirers." This section explicitly outlines the procedure for transferring liability under Schedule 4, paragraph 13 of POFA, allowing the registered keeper to transfer liability by providing the hirer's details, the hire agreement, and a signed statement of liability. How could Tusker miss such a prominent instruction and then claim to me, in no uncertain terms, that it is not possible to transfer liability? This is mendacious and it demonstrates a disregard for the proper handling of this matter.

If Tusker does not follow the correct procedure to transfer liability by the deadline of 21st October 2024, then Tusker will remain liable for the PCN. Should Tusker choose to pay the charge notice instead of transferring liability correctly, this will amount to an admission of liability as the Registered Keeper. Any attempt to pass this charge on to me, the hirer, would be unlawful and would breach the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), as it would deprive me of my statutory right to appeal the PCN as the correct party. Under PoFA, the driver, the keeper and the hirer are separate legal entities.

Your handling of this matter has been wholly inadequate, and the misinformation provided undermines my ability to contest the PCN fairly. The CRA prohibits the imposition of unfair practices that deny consumers their legal rights, and Tusker’s conduct in this situation certainly falls into that category.

If the recipient of this letter is unable to grasp the seriousness and urgent nature of this issue, I strongly recommend forwarding it to Tusker's legal advisors for review, as any consequences arising from a failure to comply with the correct legal procedures will rest entirely with Tusker. I expect a written confirmation that the transfer of liability has been completed in line with POFA before 21st October 2024.

Failure to comply may result in further legal action and a formal complaint to regulatory authorities, as I will not hesitate to protect my rights under the law.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

So, in this case, the initial appeal to UKPC, assuming PALS doesn't get the PCN cancelled is an easy one to defeat... as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. UKPC has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. UKPC have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Absolutely moronic by the lease company Tusker. Completely breaches BVRLA guidelines and probably breaches the lease agreement. We need to see the exact terms in the lease agreement that refer to parking charges.

On the back of the NtK they received it specifically says:

Vehicle Hirers

If you are a vehicle-hire firm and the vehicle was on hire at the time of the parking incident please let us know and provide us with a copy of the hire agreement and a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

So, Tusker are lying when they state in their letter that "...the private parking operator will not allow them to transfer liability and only provide Tusker with the option to pay the charge notice."

CPM have correctly advised exactly what Tusker need to do to transfer liability away from them to the Hirer. PoFA paragraph 13 explains how once this has been complied with, there is no more liability on Tusker, irrespective if the Hirer disputes of fails to engage with CPM.

For the Hirers education (and obviously the morons at Tusker), here is the relevant section of Paragraph 13:

13(1)This paragraph applies in the case of parking charges incurred in respect of the parking of a vehicle on relevant land if—

(a)the vehicle was at the time of parking hired to any person under a hire agreement with a vehicle-hire firm; and

(b)the keeper has been given a notice to keeper within the relevant period for the purposes of paragraph 8(4) or 9(4) (as the case may be).

(2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given—

(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and

(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

(3)The statement of liability required by sub-paragraph (2)(c) must—

(a)contain a statement by the hirer to the effect that the hirer acknowledges responsibility for any parking charges that may be incurred with respect to the vehicle while it is hired to the hirer;

(b)include an address given by the hirer (whether a residential, business or other address) as one at which documents may be given to the hirer;

So, now that you know you are dealing with morons and intellectually malnourished liars, you need to understand the situation. The PCN has been paid and CPM are in hysterics on their way to the bank.

Tusker has stupidly assumed that the PCN was the same as a "Penalty" Notice which is issued under statutory law, not civil law. CPM are not an authority of any kind that can issue "penalties" of "fines" which are issued by councils and the police. No "offence" was committed. A PCN is simply a speculative invoice issued by an unregulated private parking company. Once the PCN is paid, liability has been accepted and there is no appeals process that can be used to try and get that money back. It's gone.

Without having seen the actual terms of the hire (lease) agreement regarding parking charges, Tusker will still have breached the CRA 2015. The only way to recover the money Tusker have unlawfully charged the hirer will be to get them to admit their mistake and pay the hirer back and if they still want to recover the money they threw away at CPM will be for them to sue CPM (good lick with that). If Tusker refuse or try and evade liability for their stupid mistake, you would have to sue them in the county court where you would have an incredibly solid case.

The hirer could dispute any funds taken by Tusker with their bank if it was then by direct debit or with their credit card company if it was taken by that method. The Keeper is in dispute with Tusker.

Had the utter feckwits at Tusker simply transferred liability as advised, CPM would have been required to issue an NtH to the hirer ad they would have screwed up because these scammers always omit to include copies of the documents that were provided by the hire company with the transfer of liability, and the hirer would have zero liability as long as they don't identify the driver.

I shudder at the thought of how many hirers (or lessees) end up forfeiting their hard earned money because of the stupidity of the hire/lease companies ignorance and have absolutely no idea how to properly challenge it.

So many problems with their NtK and the failure to apply the "consideration time". Here is an appeal you should make initially, but only as the Keeper. Do NOT under any circumstances identify the driver. There is no legal obligation for the Keeper to identify the driver, even if they were driving themselves. You are responding only as the Keeper who received the Notice to Keeper (NtK). PE have no idea who was driving the vehicle at the time.

Based on the information provided by the OP, here is a suggested appeal to PE:

Re: Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice [PCN Reference Number]

This is a formal appeal by the Registered Keeper for the above-referenced Parking Charge Notice, issued to vehicle registration [Vehicle Registration Number] on [Date of Incident], for an alleged breach of parking terms at "Park Road, Peterborough."

The appeal is based on the following grounds:

1. Failure to Fully Comply with All Requirements of PoFA:

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with all the requirements set out in Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), which are necessary to hold the keeper liable for the charge. The following points highlight the failures:

• Ambiguity Regarding Relevant Land:

The NtK identifies the location only as "Park Road, Peterborough," which is not specific enough because there are two separate locations named "Park Road" within the city. Under Paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA, the notice must clearly specify the relevant land on which the vehicle was parked. The failure to provide a precise location means the NtK does not meet the statutory requirements necessary to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.

• Failure to Convey an Invitation to Pay:

The NtK does not convey an invitation to the registered keeper to make payment of the outstanding parking charge, as required by Paragraph 9(2)(e) of PoFA. While the NtK does not need to specifically use the word "invite," it should use language that clearly conveys an invitation or a synonym thereof. Simply stating that the charge is due is insufficient to meet this requirement. As a result, the NtK fails to transfer liability to the keeper in accordance with PoFA.

2. Lack of Transparency Regarding the Consideration Period (Breaches of the Consumer Rights Act 2015):

The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) specifies that a consideration period must be a minimum of five minutes, allowing drivers to decide whether to accept the parking contract. However, the CoP does not define a maximum consideration period, and the actual allowed duration is not indicated anywhere on the signage at this car park. This lack of transparency violates several provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), which protects consumers from unfair contract terms.

• Section 68 – Requirement for Transparency:

The CRA requires that terms of a consumer contract must be transparent, meaning they should be expressed in plain and intelligible language and made available to the consumer. In this case, the consideration period is not displayed on the signage, which fails the transparency requirement, as drivers are left unaware of how much time they have to consider the terms. This could lead to confusion and unfair penalisation based on unclear or undisclosed terms.

• Section 62 – Unfair Contract Terms:

Under the CRA, a term is considered unfair if it creates a significant imbalance between the trader and the consumer, to the detriment of the consumer. If the consideration period is specified only in a private landowner contract or site agreement that is not publicly accessible, it places the driver at a disadvantage, as they could not reasonably be aware of the time limit for considering the terms. This makes the term potentially unfair and unenforceable under Section 62 of the CRA.

• Where is the Consideration Period Defined?

If the actual consideration period is hidden in a private agreement, this constitutes a breach of the CRA, as consumers cannot be expected to comply with terms that are not communicated. The BPA CoP requires that terms and conditions be clearly conveyed at the time of parking, not buried in private contracts that drivers have no access to. As such, the absence of any indication on the signage regarding the consideration period means that the parking charge notice is based on conditions that were not communicated to the driver.

• Consideration Period as per BPA CoP:

Although the BPA CoP mandates a minimum five-minute consideration period, there is no upper limit specified. In the absence of clear guidance on the signage, the seven-minute stay in this instance could reasonably be considered within an acceptable consideration period, particularly given the circumstances where the driver attempted to comply with the payment terms but could not due to the lack of available payment options.

3. Ambiguity in the NtK's Allegation:

The NtK suggests that a breach occurred either by failing to purchase a parking ticket or by overstaying the permitted time. However, if the operator is alleging that the driver remained too long, there is no evidence provided in the NtK that clearly defines the permitted time, nor is there any indication of a defined consideration period on the signage. This ambiguity undermines the operator's claim and provides grounds for challenging the validity of the PCN.

4. No Contract Formed Due to Inability to Comply with Payment Terms and Inadequate Signage:

For a parking contract to be valid, the driver must be able to comply with the payment terms. In this instance, the payment machine at the car park accepted only cash, with no alternative payment options (such as card or app-based payments) available. The driver did not have cash and, after attempting to pay and verifying the absence of other payment options, left the car park promptly to park elsewhere where card payment was possible.

• Inadequate Signage:

The signage at the entrance to the car park does not indicate that this is a "cash only car park." There was also no signage within the car park indicating that charges could be paid online or through any alternative payment methods. The failure to provide clear information about the payment methods limits the driver's ability to enter into a parking contract knowingly and reasonably. This lack of transparency breaches the requirements of the CRA for fair and clear terms and also fails to meet the BPA CoP standards for adequate signage.

Since the driver was unable to comply with the payment requirements and the signage did not adequately inform them of the available payment methods, no parking contract was formed. The driver acted reasonably by leaving the car park shortly after entry once payment could not be made.

Conclusion:

The Parking Charge Notice is unenforceable due to multiple failures to comply with PoFA, the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and BPA requirements. The NtK's lack of full compliance with PoFA, the absence of a specified consideration period, the ambiguity in the alleged breach, and the inadequate signage collectively justify the immediate cancellation of this charge.

I request that you cancel this Parking Charge Notice and confirm the cancellation in writing.

A suggestion:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) – [PCN Number], Received 23/09/2024

I write to dispute the above-referenced PCN on the grounds that the signage at the location was inadequate to properly inform the driver of the alleged terms and conditions. The signs were neither prominent, clear, nor legible from all parking spaces. There were no defined parking boundaries, nor sufficient signage to indicate that the area was private land, as evidenced by the photographs you provided.

1. Signage Inadequacy

The signage at the site fails to meet the necessary standards of visibility and clarity. The signs are sporadically placed and often obscured, with the wording crowded and difficult to read. The size of the lettering is insufficient to be legible from a driver's seat, especially considering the £100 charge, which is not prominently displayed. The signs are positioned high up on poles or walls, making the terms less readable due to the angle and distance.

2. Legal Grounds

Under the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, 'adequate notice' of the parking charge must be given. This requires displaying notices that clearly specify the charge and are visible enough to bring the terms to the attention of drivers. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice similarly demands that signage be clear and legible, with the parking charge displayed prominently.

Furthermore, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires that terms in consumer contracts are expressed in plain and intelligible language and are legible. The signs at this site do not meet these standards.

3. Comparison to the Beavis Case

The Supreme Court's decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) turned on the fact that the signage in that case was unusually clear, with the £85 charge in large, legible font against a contrasting background. The present case, by contrast, involves signs that are neither of similar size nor clarity, with the terms hidden in small print. Thus, the Beavis case is not applicable here.

4. Request for Evidence

I put the operator to strict proof regarding the following:

• The font size and style of the signage wording, particularly the most onerous term (the parking charge).

• The exact locations and number of signs required for a driver to fully comprehend the parking terms.

• Evidence demonstrating that the parking charge and terms were clearly displayed in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice.

5. Relevant Case Law

In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000], it was established that if signage is not visible, a driver cannot be deemed to have entered into a contract. The lack of clear and adequate signage at this site mirrors the circumstances in Vine, further supporting my claim that no contractual agreement was established.

Conclusion

Considering the above points, I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld, and the PCN is cancelled. The signage was insufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of the driver, and thus, the charge is unenforceable.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

It's an exercise in futility. I really don't know why you're bothering with the IAS.

No one pays Excel and an IAS rejection has zero bearing on anything going forward. You're wasting effort and stressing abut something that has almost no chance of being successful when dealing with this mafia.

Get on with your life until, if/when they send you a Letter of Claim (LoC). Everything else until then, especially any reminders or Debt Recovery Agent (DRA) letters can be safely ignored. Never, ever, ever communicate with a DRA. We don't want to know about their scary letters. They can be safely ignored as they are powerless to do anything except scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying.

Your appeal letter is strong and covers the essential points well. However, refining it for clarity and emphasis can strengthen the arguments. Here's a revised version for submission which includes the "kitchen sink":

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle [XXXX] and wish to appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by [Operator Name] based on the following four grounds:

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.
3. Lack of Adequate Signage – No Clear Notice of Parking Terms and Charges.
4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

1. The operator's Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with POFA 2012.

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by the operator fails to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Specifically, the NtK does not meet the mandatory criteria under Paragraph 9(2)(f), which states:

"The notice must warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid."

The NtK issued in this case lacks this essential warning, rendering it non-compliant with PoFA.

The inclusion of the phrase "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)" is critical. It means that all other requirements of Schedule 4 must be fully satisfied for the operator to have the right to recover the charge from the keeper. The operator has already admitted in their correspondence that they are not relying on PoFA to establish keeper liability (see attached evidence [XX]). This admission unequivocally confirms that they acknowledge the NtK does not meet the statutory requirements. Therefore, as a matter of law, the operator cannot hold the registered keeper liable for this parking charge.

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver.

Without compliance with PoFA, the registered keeper cannot be presumed to be the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. In fact, there is no legal basis for pursuing the registered keeper in this instance. The burden of proof rests squarely on the operator to establish that the person they are pursuing was the driver at the time of the alleged parking incident.

Persuasive appeals case law supports this position. In VCS v Edward 2023 [H0KF6], the court ruled that the burden is on the operator to prove that the individual being pursued was indeed the driver. In that case, it was determined that no assumptions or inferences could be made about the registered keeper's liability to overcome a failure to meet the requirements set out in PoFA. This principle applies directly to the present appeal, as the operator has provided no evidence to establish that I, as the registered keeper, was the driver on the date in question and there is absolutely no legal obligation on me to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company.

Therefore, as no assumptions or inferences can be made regarding the registered keeper's liability when the Notice to Keeper fails to comply fully with PoFA, POPLA should allow this appeal because the operator has no lawful right to pursue the registered keeper for the unpaid parking charge, and they have failed to demonstrate that the person being pursued was the driver.

3. Lack of Adequate Signage – No Clear Notice of Parking Terms and Charges.

The signage at the location in question does not meet the standards required to form a binding contract with drivers. For a parking charge to be enforceable, the signage must be clear, prominent, and easily readable so that motorists can understand the terms of parking. In this case, the signs do not comply with the requirements set out in both the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and the BPA Code of Practice.

3.1 Insufficient Notice of the Parking Charge
PoFA 2012 mandates that a driver must be given "adequate notice" of the parking charge, which is defined as signage that specifies the amount of the charge in a manner that is visible and readable to drivers from a distance. The signage at this location fails to meet this standard, as the £[sum] charge is written in a font that is too small and positioned in a way that is not easily noticeable. Motorists should not have to search for or strain to read the terms of parking. The signage must be displayed prominently, with the charge amount clearly visible to a driver as they enter the site and park.

The BPA Code of Practice, Section 18.3, further states that signs "must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand." This is not the case here, as the signs are difficult to read due to poor placement, small font size, and inadequate lighting, particularly during night-time or low-light conditions.

3.2 Lack of Prominence and Visibility of the Signs
The positioning of the signs is another significant issue. They are either too high, obscured by objects such as trees or other structures, or located in areas where drivers are unlikely to notice them while entering the car park or parking. This violates the BPA Code of Practice, which stipulates that entrance signs must "make it clear that the motorist is entering private land" and that terms and conditions should be displayed at a level and angle where they can be read without difficulty.

Photographs of the location (attached as evidence) demonstrate that the signage is not positioned in a manner that ensures visibility from all parking spaces or along the access route to the car park. In some cases, motorists may park without seeing a sign at all, meaning they are not given a fair opportunity to review the terms and decide whether to accept them.

3.3 Inadequate Lighting and Visibility During Low Light Conditions
The BPA Code of Practice, Section 18.4, emphasizes that signs must be "illuminated or have lighting which reflects off them if parking enforcement takes place at night or in poorly lit areas." At this location, there is insufficient lighting to ensure that the signs can be read during hours of darkness. In low light or adverse weather conditions, the signage fails to meet the visibility standards necessary to convey the parking terms effectively.

3.4 The Terms and Conditions Are Not Clearly Defined
Even if the signage were visible, the content itself does not provide clear and concise terms. The small print and excessive amount of text make it difficult for a driver to understand the parking terms at a glance. Important terms such as grace periods, payment methods, and restrictions are not prominently displayed, meaning that a motorist cannot be reasonably expected to understand the implications of parking at this site.

3.5 No Clear Indication of Contract Formation
For a contract to be formed, there must be a clear offer and acceptance, with the terms unequivocally communicated to the driver. In Vine v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2000] EWCA Civ 106, the court ruled that "drivers cannot be considered bound by terms on signage that they have not seen or had the opportunity to read." The inadequate signage in this case means there was no clear indication that the motorist was entering into a contract, and thus no agreement to pay the charge.

Conclusion
The operator has failed to provide adequate signage that meets the standards required to form a binding contract with the driver. Given the lack of visibility, prominence, and clarity of the signs, no reasonable person would have been made aware of the parking terms. Consequently, the appeal should be allowed on the basis that the signage does not comply with PoFA 2012 and the BPA Code of Practice, meaning no valid contract was formed.

4. No evidence of landowner authority.

The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires that an operator must have clear, written authorization from the landowner to issue parking charge notices and carry out enforcement. As the operator does not have proprietary interest in the land, I put them to strict proof to provide an unredacted copy of the original landowner contract. This contract must clearly set out the following:

• The definition of the land on which the operator may operate, specifying the boundaries where parking enforcement applies. This is essential to confirm that the area where the alleged contravention occurred is covered by the operator's authorization.

• The conditions and restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any limitations on hours of operation, charges, grace periods, or exemptions. This should also cover any restrictions on the types of vehicles that may be subject to enforcement.

• The responsibilities of each party, including who is responsible for maintaining signage and whether any exemptions, such as for "genuine customers" or "residents," apply.

• The effective date and duration of the agreement, indicating whether the contract is current and was valid on the date of the alleged parking incident. If the contract has since expired or has terms indicating it is void, the operator would have no standing to issue or pursue parking charges.

• The name and position of the signatories, confirming that the person who signed the contract has the authority to do so on behalf of the landowner.

Without an unredacted copy of the landowner agreement, the operator cannot prove that they were authorized to issue parking charge notices and enforce them on the date in question.

Mere witness statements or generic letters from the operator claiming they have authority are insufficient evidence. Witness statements often do not specify the site in question or detail any specific terms and conditions that apply, making them unreliable. The BPA Code of Practice explicitly states that operators must have written authority from the landowner, which must be kept on file and made available to POPLA if requested.

The need for such proof was highlighted in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where it was confirmed that a parking operator must be able to show that they have the authority to enter into contracts with drivers and issue parking charges. This case law supports the requirement that evidence of landowner authority is fundamental in determining whether the operator has a lawful basis to enforce a parking charge.

If the operator cannot provide an unredacted, dated, and signed copy of the landowner agreement showing all the terms outlined above, the appeal should be allowed because there would be no evidence of the operator's right to enforce charges on the land.

Conclusion: Grounds for Allowing the Appeal

In summary, I submit that this appeal should be allowed for the following reasons:

1. Non-compliance with PoFA 2012: The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to meet the statutory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, particularly Paragraph 9(2)(f). The operator's own admission confirms that they are not relying on PoFA to establish keeper liability, meaning they have no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper for the unpaid parking charge. Without full compliance with PoFA, liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper, and no assumptions can be made about who was driving at the time.

2. Failure to Identify the Driver: The operator has not provided any evidence showing that the person being pursued was the driver at the time of the alleged parking incident. Case law such as VCS v Edward establishes that the burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate the driver's identity, and without such evidence, the registered keeper cannot be held liable.

3. Inadequate Signage: The signage at the site is not sufficiently clear, visible, or legible to form a binding contract with drivers. The signs fail to comply with the requirements of PoFA 2012 and the BPA Code of Practice, meaning that no reasonable driver would have been aware of the parking terms or the charge being imposed. Poor placement, small font size, and inadequate lighting further contribute to the signage's insufficiency, making it impossible to conclude that a valid contract was formed.

4. Lack of Landowner Authority: The operator has not demonstrated that they have the authority to issue parking charges at this location. The BPA Code of Practice mandates that operators must possess a valid and enforceable agreement with the landowner. The operator has not provided any unredacted evidence of such an agreement, nor details proving that the necessary contractual terms were in place on the date of the alleged contravention.

Given the operator's inability to satisfy the legal requirements necessary to enforce this parking charge on all the grounds mentioned above, I urge POPLA to allow this appeal and cancel the Parking Charge Notice.