Free Traffic Legal Advice

You need to make it publicly accessible as I do not wish to provide you with my Google log ID and email address.

You need to redact your name, address, email address from ALL documents. You have not done so and expose yourself to identity theft. Go over all the pages in that pack and redact your personal info.

Where is their landowner contract or letter of authority? Did they not provide it in that pack?

Yes, we know that you have 7 days to respond. Give us a chance to go through it all whilst also dealing wth a multitude of other posts on here.

So they have failed to provide any evidence of landowner authority to issue PCNs at the location in their evidence pack.

Respond with the following which you simply copy and paste into the response webform as it is under the 10,000 character limitation.:

1. No Evidence of Landowner Authority

One of the main grounds of appeal was that ParkingEye (PE) has failed to provide any evidence of a valid and current contract with the landowner, or with a party who has clear authorisation to act on the landowner’s behalf. This issue was clearly and prominently raised under section 4 of the appeal, which put PE to strict proof that they hold the necessary legal authority to operate on this land, and to issue and enforce parking charges in accordance with the signage in place at the time of the alleged contravention.

The importance of this point is supported by the PPSCoP. Under Section 7.1.1, it is a mandatory requirement that:

"The parking operator must have written authority from the landowner (or their appointed agent) that provides clear authorisation to undertake parking management, control, and enforcement (including issuing and enforcing parking charges) on the land in question."

Furthermore, PPSCoP Section 7.1.3 goes further and states that:

"The written authority must include the duration of the contract and any conditions or restrictions placed on parking enforcement and operational activity, including any changes to the terms of parking applicable to drivers."

This means that a mere assertion of authority is not enough. A signed contract or witness statement must be produced as evidence, and it must cover all relevant aspects, including the specific terms PE is now attempting to enforce.

Despite this clear requirement, PE’s response pack contains no such evidence. There is no copy of a landowner agreement, no witness statement, and no indication of the scope, duration, or specific permissions granted to PE to operate and issue charges at ASDA Quinton. Without this evidence, there is no way for POPLA to be satisfied that PE has the legal standing to pursue this charge.

This omission is fatal to PE’s case. Their failure to include a contract or witness statement in their evidence bundle means they have not met the burden of proof. Since POPLA cannot verify that the operator has authority to issue and enforce charges at this location, the charge cannot be upheld.

Therefore, it is submitted that on this ground alone, the appeal must be allowed.

2. No Keeper Liability – Breach of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)

It is important to emphasise that PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) sets out a mandatory and unambiguous requirement. It states that the Notice to Keeper 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 — (A) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (B) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to provide the creditor with a statement...”

The key phrase here is “invite the keeper...to pay the unpaid parking charges.”

This requirement is not optional, and there is no allowance in law for this obligation to be met by implication or assumption. The law does not say that a notice may merely “imply” that the keeper is being invited to pay, nor does it say that the fact the NtK is addressed to the keeper is somehow enough. The statute uses the word must—meaning that an explicit, unambiguous invitation must be present within the wording of the notice itself.

In this case, the Notice to Keeper fails to meet that condition. It does not state anywhere that the keeper is invited to pay the charge. The only references made are to the effect that the keeper should either provide the driver’s details or pass the notice to the driver. There is no direct, clear statement inviting the keeper themselves to make payment. That is a fundamental omission.

To be absolutely clear for the avoidance of doubt:

• The Notice is not compliant simply because it is addressed to the keeper.
• It is not compliant because it implies that someone should take action.
• It is only compliant if it specifically and expressly invites the keeper to pay.

Adjudicators cannot rewrite or gloss over statutory language. Parliament deliberately included this requirement in Schedule 4 to ensure that the transition of liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper only occurs when all strict statutory safeguards are met. These safeguards are not technicalities—they are legal thresholds.

Whilst some assessors choose to simply gloss over PoFA 9(2)(e), they fail to take into account that sub para (i) is also required to be considered. It is a binary matter and here it is clear that it hasn't been complied with.

In failing to include the required wording, PE has not met the requirements of PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). It is irrelevant what the operator intended to imply. What matters is whether the statutory wording is present on the face of the notice. It is not.

Therefore, POPLA must find that the NtK does not comply with PoFA and that keeper liability has not been established. The charge cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.

3. Misleading Payment Deadline – Breach of PoFA Paragraphs 9(2)(f) and 9(6)

The appeal identified that the Notice to Keeper contains a misleading statement on the front, in bold:
“Payment to be made within 28 days of the date issued.”
This contradicts the statutory wording in PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(f), which makes clear that the 28-day period begins on the day after the notice is deemed given, as defined by Paragraph 9(6) — normally two working days after posting.

This misstatement creates ambiguity about when liability may arise and contradicts any correct wording elsewhere on the notice. The front-facing deadline is more prominent and will be relied upon by a reasonable recipient. This engages the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires transparency and resolves ambiguity in favour of the consumer.

This point was raised explicitly in the appeal, yet ParkingEye has made no attempt to rebut it in their evidence pack. They have not explained or justified the incorrect deadline nor addressed the legal consequences of presenting conflicting information.

Since PoFA compliance must be absolute, this ambiguity means the Notice to Keeper is non-compliant. Liability cannot be transferred to the keeper, and the appeal must be allowed.

4. No Evidence the Keeper was the Driver – Keeper Cannot Be Held Liable

PE has provided no evidence whatsoever that the appellant was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. The appeal made it clear that the identity of the driver has not been disclosed, and PE has not disputed this or provided any evidence to the contrary.

This leaves the operator with just one legal route: to pursue the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). However, that mechanism only becomes available if the operator fully complies with every single mandatory condition set out in PoFA. As demonstrated earlier in this appeal, the Notice to Keeper does not comply with several key requirements of PoFA, including:

Failure to include the required invitation to the keeper to pay (Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i));
Issuing a misleading payment deadline that contradicts Paragraphs 9(2)(f) and 9(6);
Failing the overall test of absolute and unambiguous compliance with the statutory scheme.
And this is where the analogy must be stated clearly: just as a person cannot be partially or even mostly pregnant, a Notice to Keeper cannot be partially or even mostly PoFA compliant. It is a binary point. It either is or it isn't — and in this case, it isn’t. That is the law.

This means PE cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper. With PoFA compliance off the table, the only remaining option would be to prove — with actual evidence — that the keeper was also the driver. They have not done so.

There is no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver. The appeal cited VCS v Edward (2023), a persuasive County Court judgment in which HHJ Gargan explained precisely why it is not appropriate to infer driver identity from registered keeper status. PE has made no attempt to rebut this point, nor have they presented any evidence to support such an inference.

POPLA is not entitled to make assumptions in the operator’s favour, nor is it permitted to apply a lower evidential threshold than the law requires. Keeper liability only arises if PoFA is complied with. It is not a default position, and it does not arise by implication.

Accordingly, the only lawful conclusion is that PE cannot pursue the appellant as keeper. There is no PoFA compliance, no driver identification, and therefore no legal basis for continuing enforcement of this charge. The appeal must be allowed.

5. Flawed Assumption Regarding Signage and Landowner Authority

The operator has provided an undated site plan and generic signage templates, but no contemporaneous photographs showing how the signs actually appeared on-site at or around the date of the alleged contravention. There is no evidence the signage was present, visible, or reflected any landowner-approved terms at that time.

This issue was clearly raised in the appeal, yet the operator has not rebutted it in their evidence pack. They have not shown that the signage was authorised by the landowner, nor that it matched any valid, current agreement. A layout plan without a date and file images of signs prove nothing in isolation.

It is inappropriate for POPLA to assume that signage is valid or authorised simply because it exists. Contracts often remain static while terms change — such as grace periods, charge levels, or maximum stay durations — and if the signage was updated without a revised landowner agreement, then the operator is enforcing terms never approved.

The operator was put to strict proof and has failed to provide it. This evidential gap is fatal to their case. The appeal must be allowed.