-
A lot of that will not interest POPLA and is more akin to a defence against a claim in the county court.
List all the points you intend to argue and then expand on each one after. Make sure that they follow a logical path and the most obvious and likely ones to be winners first.
For example, if you are going to argue no PoFA compliance, that would go just before no keeper liability and no evidence that the person being pursued is the driver. For UKPC, it is always going to be a problem with their signage as it never conforms to the BPA CoP requirements.
THe £100 charge is never adequately brought to the drivers attention. Use a phot of one the signs at the location and show it alongside the sign from the Beavis case pointing out the obvious difference in how the £100 charge is brought to the attention as in this example:
Things such as landowner authority are not leading points. They are included only to either catch them out. So, leading with that is not advised. Also, there is a much longer landowner authority point in many of the newer recent POPLA appeals. -
-
A lot of that will not interest POPLA and is more akin to a defence against a claim in the county court.
List all the points you intend to argue and then expand on each one after. Make sure that they follow a logical path and the most obvious and likely ones to be winners first.
For example, if you are going to argue no PoFA compliance, that would go just before no keeper liability and no evidence that the person being pursued is the driver. For UKPC, it is always going to be a problem with their signage as it never conforms to the BPA CoP requirements.
THe £100 charge is never adequately brought to the drivers attention. Use a phot of one the signs at the location and show it alongside the sign from the Beavis case pointing out the obvious difference in how the £100 charge is brought to the attention as in this example:
Things such as landowner authority are not leading points. They are included only to either catch them out. So, leading with that is not advised. Also, there is a much longer landowner authority point in many of the newer recent POPLA appeals.
I've updated the appeal and the ordering, will add the Beavis image and UKPC PCN sign when I submit the appeal in section 3, should I leave sections 4, 5, and 6 in the appeal or omit?
POPLA Verification Code: [Verification Code]
UKPC PCN Number: [PCN Number]
Re: Appeal against UKPC Parking Charge Notice
I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXX and am writing to appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by UKPC on XXX at XXX. This appeal is based on the following detailed grounds, which demonstrate that the charge is invalid, unfair, and unenforceable.
1. Non-compliance with Keeper Liability under PoFA
UKPC has not met the requirements for keeper liability under PoFA. As they have not fully complied with PoFA, they cannot hold the registered keeper liable for the alleged parking charge. Since the operator has failed to establish the driver’s identity and has not provided sufficient evidence to meet PoFA requirements, the liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper.
2. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.
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 “relevant 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 including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. 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 also authorised 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 information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.
Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and, of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement). Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice 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
3. Inadequate and Unclear Signage – No Contract Formed
The signage at the location in question is insufficient to form a contract between UKPC and the driver. The signs must comply with the BPA Code of Practice, Section 18 and Appendix B, to adequately inform the driver of the terms and conditions.
Issues with Signage:
1. Lack of Prominent and Clear Signage:
Signs must be prominently displayed and easily readable. The signage at the site is obscured, too high, or positioned in such a way that it cannot be seen or read by a driver entering the car park. This contravenes the BPA Code, which states that terms must be clear and legible.
2. Small and Inadequate Font Size:
The terms are in small print, making it impossible for a driver to read them without stopping and getting out of the vehicle. This is particularly problematic for any clauses that might impose a penalty. According to the "Red Hand Rule," established in J. Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956], terms that seek to impose a significant detriment or penalty must be displayed in a particularly clear and prominent manner. In this case, the terms were not prominently highlighted, akin to the "red hand" standard mentioned by Lord Denning, which requires that any unusual or onerous terms be drawn to the attention of the other party in a conspicuous manner.
***ADD BEAVIS IMAGE AND UKPC PCN SIGN****
4. Failure to Comply with BPA Code of Practice
UKPC is a member of the BPA and must adhere to its Code of Practice. Multiple sections of the Code have been breached in this case:
4.1. Section 18.1 – Entrance Signs
- The BPA Code of Practice mandates that entrance signs must clearly indicate that the car park is managed and that terms and conditions apply. No such signs were visible at the entrance to this car park, which means no contract could be formed upon entry.
4.2. Section 13 – Grace Periods
- The BPA Code requires a reasonable grace period for drivers to read the terms and decide whether to stay and another grace period to leave. The PCN issued does not reflect that the driver was allowed any grace period to comply with these terms.
4.3. Section 20.5 – Complaints Procedure:
- UKPC must have an accessible and clear complaints procedure. The correspondence provided did not offer information on how to file a complaint about this unfair charge.
5. The Charge is Not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
The parking charge demanded does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and serves as a penalty rather than a fair reflection of any loss suffered by UKPC or the landowner.
Arguments Against the Charge:
- No Financial Loss: The car park is either free or has a very low parking fee, meaning that the operator has suffered no actual loss.
- Disproportionate Charge: The charge is punitive and does not reflect any actual loss. It is clear that the charge is designed to penalise the driver rather than to recover a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
6. No Contract Formed – offer, Acceptance, and Consideration
For a contract to be formed, there must be an offer, acceptance, and consideration. In this case, these elements are not present:
1. Offer: The terms and conditions must be clearly communicated through signage, which they were not. As such, there was no valid offer made to the driver.
2. Acceptance: without being aware of the terms due to inadequate signage, the driver could not have accepted them.
3. Consideration: If no payment is required or has been made, there is no consideration. This lack of consideration means that no contract was formed between UKPC and the driver.
Conclusion
Based on the above points, it is evident that UKPC has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the BPA Code of Practice, and the basic principles of contract law. The signage is inadequate, no valid contract was formed, and there are multiple breaches of the Code. Therefore, I respectfully request that this appeal be upheld, and the Parking Charge Notice be cancelled.
Thank you for your consideration. -
-
What part of PoFA hasn’t been complied with? You can’t just say it isn’t PoFA compliant. You have to explain why it isn’t.
Signs are going to be a lot more likely to win rather than landowner authority.
The example of the signs I provided is just that, an example. You will need your own photo of a sign from the actual location.
Pre estimate of loss is not relevant to POPLA. They couldn’t care about that. Ot is for a claim defence. POPLA are only interested if the PCN was issued correctly. -
-
What part of PoFA hasn’t been complied with? You can’t just say it isn’t PoFA compliant. You have to explain why it isn’t.
Signs are going to be a lot more likely to win rather than landowner authority.
The example of the signs I provided is just that, an example. You will need your own photo of a sign from the actual location.
Pre estimate of loss is not relevant to POPLA. They couldn’t care about that. Ot is for a claim defence. POPLA are only interested if the PCN was issued correctly.
I've re-ordered the appeal, issue with signs I've put at the top, I will add the Beavis image and the image from UKPC when I submit the appeal
Pre-estimate of loss I have removed, and I've updated Keeper liability PoFA
Please let me know if this is okay to submit, many thanks!
POPLA Verification Code: [Verification Code]
UKPC PCN Number: [PCN Number]
Re: Appeal against UKPC Parking Charge Notice
I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXX and am writing to appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by UKPC on XXX at XXX. This appeal is based on the following detailed grounds, which demonstrate that the charge is invalid, unfair, and unenforceable.
1. Inadequate and Unclear Signage – No Contract Formed
The signage at the location in question is insufficient to form a contract between UKPC and the driver. The signs must comply with the BPA Code of Practice, Section 18 and Appendix B, to adequately inform the driver of the terms and conditions.
Issues with Signage:
1. Lack of Prominent and Clear Signage:
Signs must be prominently displayed and easily readable. The signage at the site is obscured, too high, or positioned in such a way that it cannot be seen or read by a driver entering the car park. This contravenes the BPA Code, which states that terms must be clear and legible.
2. Small and Inadequate Font Size:
The terms are in small print, making it impossible for a driver to read them without stopping and getting out of the vehicle. This is particularly problematic for any clauses that might impose a penalty. According to the "Red Hand Rule," established in J. Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956], terms that seek to impose a significant detriment or penalty must be displayed in a particularly clear and prominent manner. In this case, the terms were not prominently highlighted, akin to the "red hand" standard mentioned by Lord Denning, which requires that any unusual or onerous terms be drawn to the attention of the other party in a conspicuous manner.
***ADD BEAVIS IMAGE AND UKPC PCN SIGN****
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge
In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received.
Where a charge is aimed only at a driver, of course, no other party can be made to pay. There has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced to indicate who it was. XXX is exercising its right not to name that person as it has done throughout. XXX cannot lawfully be held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains that XXX is 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.
Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 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."
3. Failure to Comply with BPA Code of Practice
UKPC is a member of the BPA and must adhere to its Code of Practice. Multiple sections of the Code have been breached in this case:
4.1. Section 18.1 – Entrance Signs
- The BPA Code of Practice mandates that entrance signs must clearly indicate that the car park is managed and that terms and conditions apply. No such signs were visible at the entrance to this car park, which means no contract could be formed upon entry.
4.2. Section 13 – Grace Periods
- The BPA Code requires a reasonable grace period for drivers to read the terms and decide whether to stay and another grace period to leave. The PCN issued does not reflect that the driver was allowed any grace period to comply with these terms.
4.3. Section 20.5 – Complaints Procedure:
- UKPC must have an accessible and clear complaints procedure. The correspondence provided did not offer information on how to file a complaint about this unfair charge.
4. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.
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 “relevant 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 including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. 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 also authorised 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 information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.
Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and, of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement). Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice 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
5. No Contract Formed – Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration
For a contract to be formed, there must be an offer, acceptance, and consideration. In this case, these elements are not present:
1. Offer: The terms and conditions must be clearly communicated through signage, which they were not. As such, there was no valid offer made to the driver.
2. Acceptance: without being aware of the terms due to inadequate signage, the driver could not have accepted them.
3. Consideration: If no payment is required or has been made, there is no consideration. This lack of consideration means that no contract was formed between UKPC and the driver.
Conclusion
Based on the above points, it is evident that UKPC has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the BPA Code of Practice, and the basic principles of contract law. The signage is inadequate, no valid contract was formed, and there are multiple breaches of the Code. Therefore, I respectfully request that this appeal be upheld, and the Parking Charge Notice be cancelled.
Thank you for your consideration.
-
-
You still haven't explained why the NtK is not PoFA compliant or why PoFA cannot apply. Simply rambling on about PoFA and Keeper liability does not show why your PCN does not comply with PoFA (assuming it doesn't and I can't be bothered to go back through the thread to see whether it des or not).
The Harry Greenslade commentary only highlights why there can be no inference or assumption that the Keeper must also be the driver. You need to specifically enlighten the POPLA assessor why they cannot rely on PoFA in your case. If the NtK is fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA, then you can be held liable as the Keeper if the drivers identity is not known.
Also, your references to the BPA CoP do not make any sense, at least in the version I am looking at. Version 9, January 2024 is the one you should be looking at.
There is no "grace" period before parking. Only an "consideration period" and that is not added to the time allowed once the contract has been accepted by parking.
-
-
You still haven't explained why the NtK is not PoFA compliant or why PoFA cannot apply. Simply rambling on about PoFA and Keeper liability does not show why your PCN does not comply with PoFA (assuming it doesn't and I can't be bothered to go back through the thread to see whether it des or not).
The Harry Greenslade commentary only highlights why there can be no inference or assumption that the Keeper must also be the driver. You need to specifically enlighten the POPLA assessor why they cannot rely on PoFA in your case. If the NtK is fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA, then you can be held liable as the Keeper if the drivers identity is not known.
Also, your references to the BPA CoP do not make any sense, at least in the version I am looking at. Version 9, January 2024 is the one you should be looking at.
There is no "grace" period before parking. Only an "consideration period" and that is not added to the time allowed once the contract has been accepted by parking.
If point 2 re PoFA compliance does not hold any water, happy to remove it, shall I also remove point 5? -
-
If point 2 re PoFA compliance does not hold any water, happy to remove it
It's not that point #2 doesn't hold any water, it's that it doesn't advance a ground of appeal on its own. All it does is point out that neither UKPC nor the POPLA assessor reading the appeal know who the driver is, and that it would be unacceptable to make any assumptions as to the driver's identity without any evidence to support them.
This is a useful point to make, if you are also claiming that UKPC's notice does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, meaning that they are unable to recover the charges from the keeper. But your current draft doesn't make any claims about a lack of PoFA compliance. -
-
If point 2 re PoFA compliance does not hold any water, happy to remove it
It's not that point #2 doesn't hold any water, it's that it doesn't advance a ground of appeal on its own. All it does is point out that neither UKPC nor the POPLA assessor reading the appeal know who the driver is, and that it would be unacceptable to make any assumptions as to the driver's identity without any evidence to support them.
This is a useful point to make, if you are also claiming that UKPC's notice does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, meaning that they are unable to recover the charges from the keeper. But your current draft doesn't make any claims about a lack of PoFA compliance.
I've looked high and low to find the information to support point 2 on this forum and on MSE with no luck
Just a reminder, the keeper paid for parking but did not realise they had parked in a motorcycle bay, hence UKPC issuing a PCN
Can any kindly supply the information that I require to support my appeal? the POPLA deadline is today
-
-
Found this, is this okay for point 2?
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. Horizon 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. Horizon have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN. -
-
Please do wait for feedback from the more experienced members, but the above is intended to be sent to a PPC, and as such is quite informal and combative. An appeal to POPLA should be more formal.
-
-
The attempt above is not a POPLA appeal. It is simply an operator appeal and should not be used.
The NtK is basically PoFA compliant. So no point going on about that. The only PoFA point that I can see that could be argued is the fact the the charge for breaching the terms is not adequately brought to the attention of the driver.
That is why I gave you the sign comparison images. PoFA 2(3)(b)(ii) is the bit that applies. You’ll have to look it up yourself and try to explain it to the POPLA assessor. They are quite moronic when it comes to understanding the minutae of PoFA so is not likely to help much at this stage.
You appear to be overly worrying about this appeal. If it is not successful, it is no big deal. It has no bearing on anything going forward. This would end up as court claim and if the advice is followed, has a greater than 99.9% of being discontinued. -
-
The attempt above is not a POPLA appeal. It is simply an operator appeal and should not be used.
The NtK is basically PoFA compliant. So no point going on about that. The only PoFA point that I can see that could be argued is the fact the the charge for breaching the terms is not adequately brought to the attention of the driver.
That is why I gave you the sign comparison images. PoFA 2(3)(b)(ii) is the bit that applies. You’ll have to look it up yourself and try to explain it to the POPLA assessor. They are quite moronic when it comes to understanding the minutae of PoFA so is not likely to help much at this stage.
You appear to be overly worrying about this appeal. If it is not successful, it is no big deal. It has no bearing on anything going forward. This would end up as court claim and if the advice is followed, has a greater than 99.9% of being discontinued.
I've removed point 2 and added more details on point 1 - is there anything else I should add or remove?
POPLA Verification Code: [Verification Code]
UKPC PCN Number: [PCN Number]
Re: Appeal against UKPC Parking Charge Notice
I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXX and am writing to appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by UKPC on XXX at XXX. This appeal is based on the following detailed grounds, which demonstrate that the charge is invalid, unfair, and unenforceable.
1. Inadequate and Unclear Signage – No Contract Formed
The signage at the location in question is insufficient to form a contract between UKPC and the driver. The signs must comply with the BPA Code of Practice, Section 18 and Appendix B, to adequately inform the driver of the terms and conditions.
Issues with Signage:
1. Lack of Prominent and Clear Signage:
Signs must be prominently displayed and easily readable. The signage at the site is obscured, too high, or positioned in such a way that it cannot be seen or read by a driver entering the car park. This contravenes the BPA Code, which states that terms must be clear and legible.
2. Small and Inadequate Font Size:
The terms are in small print, making it impossible for a driver to read them without stopping and getting out of the vehicle. This is particularly problematic for any clauses that might impose a penalty. According to the "Red Hand Rule," established in J. Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956], terms that seek to impose a significant detriment or penalty must be displayed in a particularly clear and prominent manner. In this case, the terms were not prominently highlighted, akin to the "red hand" standard mentioned by Lord Denning, which requires that any unusual or onerous terms be drawn to the attention of the other party in a conspicuous manner.
The notice does not conform to the PoFA or the BPA COP:
The PoFA states:
(2)The reference in the definition of “parking charge” to a sum in the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to drivers of vehicles (when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land).
(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.
The sum is hidden in a wall of text on the UKPC notice.
The BPA COP specifically makes reference to the above:
19.4 If you intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4
of POFA 2012, your signs must give ’adequate notice’. This
includes:
• specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking
• adequately bringing the charges to the attention of
drivers, and
• following any applicable government signage
regulations.
See paragraphs 2(2), 2(3) and 12 of the Schedule
20.4 If you want to enforce a parking charge notice under the
keeper liability provisions of POFA 2012 you will need to
show how you brought the requirement to pay parking
charges to the attention of drivers. See paragraphs 2 (2)
and (3) of Schedule 4.
***ADD BEAVIS IMAGE AND UKPC PCN SIGN****
2. Failure to Comply with BPA Code of Practice
UKPC is a member of the BPA and must adhere to its Code of Practice. Multiple sections of the Code have been breached in this case:
4.1. Section 18.1 – Entrance Signs
- The BPA Code of Practice mandates that entrance signs must clearly indicate that the car park is managed and that terms and conditions apply. No such signs were visible at the entrance to this car park, which means no contract could be formed upon entry.
4.2. Section 13 – Grace Periods
- The BPA Code requires a reasonable grace period for drivers to read the terms and decide whether to stay and another grace period to leave. The PCN issued does not reflect that the driver was allowed any grace period to comply with these terms.
4.3. Section 20.5 – Complaints Procedure:
- UKPC must have an accessible and clear complaints procedure. The correspondence provided did not offer information on how to file a complaint about this unfair charge.
3. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.
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 “relevant 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 including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. 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 also authorised 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 information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.
Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and, of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement). Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice 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. No Contract Formed – Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration
For a contract to be formed, there must be an offer, acceptance, and consideration. In this case, these elements are not present:
1. Offer: The terms and conditions must be clearly communicated through signage, which they were not. As such, there was no valid offer made to the driver.
2. Acceptance: without being aware of the terms due to inadequate signage, the driver could not have accepted them.
3. Consideration: If no payment is required or has been made, there is no consideration. This lack of consideration means that no contract was formed between UKPC and the driver.
Conclusion
Based on the above points, it is evident that UKPC has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the BPA Code of Practice, and the basic principles of contract law. The signage is inadequate, no valid contract was formed, and there are multiple breaches of the Code. Therefore, I respectfully request that this appeal be upheld, and the Parking Charge Notice be cancelled.
Thank you for your consideration.
-
-
Here is a slightly modified version that may help you a bit better (I think):Quote
POPLA Verification Code: [Verification Code]
UKPC PCN Number: [PCN Number]
Re: Appeal against UKPC Parking Charge Notice
I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXX and am writing to appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by UKPC on XXX at XXX. This appeal is based on the following detailed grounds, which demonstrate that the charge is invalid, unfair, and unenforceable:
1. Inadequate and Unclear Signage – No Contract Formed
For a valid contract to be formed between the driver and UKPC, there must be clear offer, acceptance, and consideration. However, the signage at the location fails to meet the necessary requirements to form a contract:No Clear Offer:
The signage at the site does not clearly convey the terms and conditions of parking, which is a fundamental requirement for a contract. The parking charge of £100 is buried within a wall of text, making it almost impossible for any driver to understand that they are entering into a contract that includes such a penalty. Additionally, the signage is poorly positioned and not conspicuous, meaning a driver could enter the site without being aware of the terms.
No Valid Acceptance:
As the offer was unclear, the driver cannot be said to have accepted the terms. Acceptance requires full awareness of the terms of the contract, which could not have been achieved due to the inadequate signage.
No Consideration:
If the parking charge is not sufficiently communicated, there can be no exchange of consideration. The driver could not have knowingly agreed to pay a penalty they were unaware of. Therefore, no valid contract was formed between the driver and UKPC.
As the signage fails to meet the requirements of a valid contract formation, any claim for a breach of contract is unfounded.
2. No Keeper Liability – Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012
UKPC has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4, which means that they cannot transfer liability for the alleged parking charge from the driver to the keeper.
According to PoFA, Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(3)(b)(ii), “adequate notice” means that the parking charge must be prominently displayed and adequately brought to the attention of the driver at the time the vehicle is parked. This includes making the charge clear on all relevant signage.No Prominent Display of the Parking Charge:
The parking charge of £100 is not displayed in a manner that complies with PoFA’s requirements. It is hidden in small text within a larger block of information, making it impossible for a reasonable person to be aware of it. In comparison, the signage in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 prominently displayed the charge in large, bold text. UKPC's signage does not meet this standard, meaning the parking charge was not adequately brought to the attention of the driver.
Given the failure to comply with PoFA Schedule 4, UKPC cannot hold the registered keeper liable. This PCN is therefore not enforceable against the keeper of the vehicle.
3. No Evidence That the Keeper is the Driver – Burden of Proof
As UKPC has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, they cannot transfer liability to the keeper. Therefore, the operator is put to strict proof that the person they are pursuing is the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged contravention.
UKPC is required to provide evidence that the keeper of the vehicle was also the driver. They cannot simply assume or infer that the keeper and driver are the same person. Mere assumptions are not sufficient grounds for liability.
In the absence of clear, compelling evidence that the registered keeper was the driver at the time, UKPC has no legal basis to pursue this charge. Therefore, I put UKPC to strict proof that the person they are pursuing was indeed the driver. Failing this, the charge must be cancelled.
4. Failure to Comply with BPA Code of Practice
UKPC, as a member of the British Parking Association (BPA), must comply with its Code of Practice (CoP). Several breaches of this Code have occurred in this case:Section 18.1 – Clear and Prominent Entrance Signs:
The BPA Code of Practice requires that entrance signs clearly convey that the car park is managed and that terms and conditions apply. In this case, the signage at the entrance was inadequate and did not provide a clear indication of any charges. This means that no contract could have been formed upon entry, as the driver would not have been informed of the essential terms governing their use of the site.
Section 18.3 – Prominent Display of the Parking Charge:
The BPA Code of Practice, Section 18.3, specifically states that signs “must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read, and understand.” Furthermore, the Code requires that any parking charges, such as the charge for breaching terms and conditions, “must be in a font size large enough to be easily seen, read, and understood by drivers.”
The signage provided by UKPC does not comply with this requirement. The charge of £100 is buried within a block of small text and does not stand out. It is not “obvious” as required under BPA CoP Section 18.3. This failure to make the charge clear and prominent invalidates the assumption that the driver entered into a contract and accepted the parking charge.
Section 18.4 – Contrast and Positioning of the Signage:
The BPA Code further specifies that important information, such as the parking charge, must be easily distinguishable from other text and must not be hidden in smaller print. UKPC’s signage fails to meet this requirement, and the £100 charge is not made conspicuous to the driver, in clear breach of Section 18.4.
5. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
UKPC is required to provide strict proof that they have the authority to issue parking charges on this land. As a third-party operator, UKPC must demonstrate that they have a valid contract with the landholder, giving them the right to manage parking and pursue charges in their own name.I request that UKPC produce an unredacted copy of their contract with the landholder, demonstrating that they have the legal authority to issue PCNs and enforce parking charges. This contract should clearly outline:- The boundaries of the land they are authorised to manage.
- The restrictions and conditions on parking enforcement.
- Who is responsible for signage and its maintenance.
If UKPC cannot provide this evidence, they have no legal grounds to issue or enforce this PCN.
Conclusion
In light of the above points, it is clear that:UKPC failed to form a valid contract with the driver due to inadequate and unclear signage.
UKPC cannot transfer liability to the keeper as they have not complied with PoFA.
UKPC has no evidence that the registered keeper was the driver.
UKPC’s signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice.
UKPC has not provided evidence of their authority to issue parking charges on the land.
Given these significant failings, I request that POPLA uphold my appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the Parking Charge Notice. -
-
Here is a slightly modified version that may help you a bit better (I think):
QuotePOPLA Verification Code: [Verification Code]
UKPC PCN Number: [PCN Number]
Re: Appeal against UKPC Parking Charge Notice
I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXX and am writing to appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by UKPC on XXX at XXX. This appeal is based on the following detailed grounds, which demonstrate that the charge is invalid, unfair, and unenforceable:
1. Inadequate and Unclear Signage – No Contract Formed
For a valid contract to be formed between the driver and UKPC, there must be clear offer, acceptance, and consideration. However, the signage at the location fails to meet the necessary requirements to form a contract:No Clear Offer:
The signage at the site does not clearly convey the terms and conditions of parking, which is a fundamental requirement for a contract. The parking charge of £100 is buried within a wall of text, making it almost impossible for any driver to understand that they are entering into a contract that includes such a penalty. Additionally, the signage is poorly positioned and not conspicuous, meaning a driver could enter the site without being aware of the terms.
No Valid Acceptance:
As the offer was unclear, the driver cannot be said to have accepted the terms. Acceptance requires full awareness of the terms of the contract, which could not have been achieved due to the inadequate signage.
No Consideration:
If the parking charge is not sufficiently communicated, there can be no exchange of consideration. The driver could not have knowingly agreed to pay a penalty they were unaware of. Therefore, no valid contract was formed between the driver and UKPC.
As the signage fails to meet the requirements of a valid contract formation, any claim for a breach of contract is unfounded.
2. No Keeper Liability – Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012
UKPC has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4, which means that they cannot transfer liability for the alleged parking charge from the driver to the keeper.
According to PoFA, Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(3)(b)(ii), “adequate notice” means that the parking charge must be prominently displayed and adequately brought to the attention of the driver at the time the vehicle is parked. This includes making the charge clear on all relevant signage.No Prominent Display of the Parking Charge:
The parking charge of £100 is not displayed in a manner that complies with PoFA’s requirements. It is hidden in small text within a larger block of information, making it impossible for a reasonable person to be aware of it. In comparison, the signage in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 prominently displayed the charge in large, bold text. UKPC's signage does not meet this standard, meaning the parking charge was not adequately brought to the attention of the driver.
Given the failure to comply with PoFA Schedule 4, UKPC cannot hold the registered keeper liable. This PCN is therefore not enforceable against the keeper of the vehicle.
3. No Evidence That the Keeper is the Driver – Burden of Proof
As UKPC has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, they cannot transfer liability to the keeper. Therefore, the operator is put to strict proof that the person they are pursuing is the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged contravention.
UKPC is required to provide evidence that the keeper of the vehicle was also the driver. They cannot simply assume or infer that the keeper and driver are the same person. Mere assumptions are not sufficient grounds for liability.
In the absence of clear, compelling evidence that the registered keeper was the driver at the time, UKPC has no legal basis to pursue this charge. Therefore, I put UKPC to strict proof that the person they are pursuing was indeed the driver. Failing this, the charge must be cancelled.
4. Failure to Comply with BPA Code of Practice
UKPC, as a member of the British Parking Association (BPA), must comply with its Code of Practice (CoP). Several breaches of this Code have occurred in this case:Section 18.1 – Clear and Prominent Entrance Signs:
The BPA Code of Practice requires that entrance signs clearly convey that the car park is managed and that terms and conditions apply. In this case, the signage at the entrance was inadequate and did not provide a clear indication of any charges. This means that no contract could have been formed upon entry, as the driver would not have been informed of the essential terms governing their use of the site.
Section 18.3 – Prominent Display of the Parking Charge:
The BPA Code of Practice, Section 18.3, specifically states that signs “must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read, and understand.” Furthermore, the Code requires that any parking charges, such as the charge for breaching terms and conditions, “must be in a font size large enough to be easily seen, read, and understood by drivers.”
The signage provided by UKPC does not comply with this requirement. The charge of £100 is buried within a block of small text and does not stand out. It is not “obvious” as required under BPA CoP Section 18.3. This failure to make the charge clear and prominent invalidates the assumption that the driver entered into a contract and accepted the parking charge.
Section 18.4 – Contrast and Positioning of the Signage:
The BPA Code further specifies that important information, such as the parking charge, must be easily distinguishable from other text and must not be hidden in smaller print. UKPC’s signage fails to meet this requirement, and the £100 charge is not made conspicuous to the driver, in clear breach of Section 18.4.
5. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
UKPC is required to provide strict proof that they have the authority to issue parking charges on this land. As a third-party operator, UKPC must demonstrate that they have a valid contract with the landholder, giving them the right to manage parking and pursue charges in their own name.I request that UKPC produce an unredacted copy of their contract with the landholder, demonstrating that they have the legal authority to issue PCNs and enforce parking charges. This contract should clearly outline:- The boundaries of the land they are authorised to manage.
- The restrictions and conditions on parking enforcement.
- Who is responsible for signage and its maintenance.
If UKPC cannot provide this evidence, they have no legal grounds to issue or enforce this PCN.
Conclusion
In light of the above points, it is clear that:UKPC failed to form a valid contract with the driver due to inadequate and unclear signage.
UKPC cannot transfer liability to the keeper as they have not complied with PoFA.
UKPC has no evidence that the registered keeper was the driver.
UKPC’s signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice.
UKPC has not provided evidence of their authority to issue parking charges on the land.
Given these significant failings, I request that POPLA uphold my appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
Fantastic, many thanks, much appreciated!
Will submit the POLA appeal now, will keep you all posted on the outcome! -
-
Should I submit the POPLA appeal under 'other' or 'I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking'?
-
Agree x 1
View List