-
Other
-
-
-
Received an email from POPLA where the operator has uploaded various images of the signage around the car park, contract and further images of the car with the signage being right in front of the car showing its a motorcycle bay.
POPLA have requested a response from me, what do I say? -
-
Read through their evidence pack thoroughly - if you want any specifics then ask us, but some general advice for the comments stage:
- There is a character limit, so keep it brief and to the point. Bullet points are fine.
- Look to see if they have addressed all of your appeal points. If there are any points that UKPC have not addressed, or failed to address satisfactorily, point this out to the assessor.
- If any of UKPC's information is wrong, inaccurate, or doesn't support their position, point this out.
- If you've raised the issue of landowner authority, check any contract they have provided carefully for issues (show us a copy if you wish)
-
-
Have they rebutted all your points? Read and try and understand the appeal points made in your appeal. Go through each one and see if the reason
1. You state that no contract was formed for the reasons given. Have they rebutted that point and explained how a contract was formed through that sign? Just because there is sign, does not mean that it was sufficient to form a contract. As the sign fails to meet the requirements of a valid contract formation, any claim for a breach of contract is unfounded.
2. Have they explained how the parking charge of £100 is "adequately" brought to the attention of the driver? 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. If any requirement of PoFA is omitted, then the Keeper cannot be liable. Have they explained why the Keeper is liable in light of the failure to comply with PoFA 2(3)(b)(ii)?
3. As the NtK is not fully compliant with PoFA, has the operator provided any evidence that the Keeper was the driver?
4. Has the operator explained why they are not in breach of the BPA Code of Practice, Section 18.3? Is the sign conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that it is easy to see, read, and understand? 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.” Is it? Has the operator rebutted the fact that it isn't?
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. Has that point been rebutted?
5. Have they provided an unredacted copy of the contract that flows from the landowner that permits UKPC to operate and issue PCNs or have they simply said that they have one or just shown a signed statement saying they do? How do you know that the actual contract is still valid? Simply saying that if they didn't have a valid contract then the landowner would not permit them to operate there is not evidence a valid contract exists. There are numerous cases of operators continuing to operate without a valid contract.
So, unless each point has been rebutted satisfactorily, you simply point out that, irrespective of what UKPC has submitted, they are required to show that each point made by you is incorrect or not valid. Failure by them to counter any single point made in your appeal is grounds for POPLA to dismiss the PCN as will have been issued incorrectly.
Put together your proposed response based on the advice above and we'll check it.
-
-
Have they rebutted all your points? Read and try and understand the appeal points made in your appeal. Go through each one and see if the reason
1. You state that no contract was formed for the reasons given. Have they rebutted that point and explained how a contract was formed through that sign? Just because there is sign, does not mean that it was sufficient to form a contract. As the sign fails to meet the requirements of a valid contract formation, any claim for a breach of contract is unfounded.
2. Have they explained how the parking charge of £100 is "adequately" brought to the attention of the driver? 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. If any requirement of PoFA is omitted, then the Keeper cannot be liable. Have they explained why the Keeper is liable in light of the failure to comply with PoFA 2(3)(b)(ii)?
3. As the NtK is not fully compliant with PoFA, has the operator provided any evidence that the Keeper was the driver?
4. Has the operator explained why they are not in breach of the BPA Code of Practice, Section 18.3? Is the sign conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that it is easy to see, read, and understand? 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.” Is it? Has the operator rebutted the fact that it isn't?
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. Has that point been rebutted?
5. Have they provided an unredacted copy of the contract that flows from the landowner that permits UKPC to operate and issue PCNs or have they simply said that they have one or just shown a signed statement saying they do? How do you know that the actual contract is still valid? Simply saying that if they didn't have a valid contract then the landowner would not permit them to operate there is not evidence a valid contract exists. There are numerous cases of operators continuing to operate without a valid contract.
So, unless each point has been rebutted satisfactorily, you simply point out that, irrespective of what UKPC has submitted, they are required to show that each point made by you is incorrect or not valid. Failure by them to counter any single point made in your appeal is grounds for POPLA to dismiss the PCN as will have been issued incorrectly.
Put together your proposed response based on the advice above and we'll check it.
All your points are valid, from what I've read in the documents they have provided, they have not fully answered the points I raised in the POPLA appeal.
They have not provided the full contract they have provided a 'Contract Variation Form' where it was modified to include a new restriction for 'Motorcycles only in the motorcycle bays'. It has also been redacted
The case summary from UKPC states the following...
The appellant could have found alternative parking space so that they would be able
to park within a non motorcycle bay and avoid a PCN. Instead, they chose to park in
a manner which was not in compliance with the parking contract, and therefore
accepted he could potentially receive a PCN. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s
responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park.
The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore,
upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to ensure they review the
terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park. If a motorist is
unable to comply, does not understand or disagrees with the terms, they should not
accept the contract by parking, or they will be liable for the PCN as stated on the
signage.
Keeper Liability - Following the parking event, UKPC had reasonable cause to obtain
the details of the registered keeper so that a parking charge notice could be issued
by post. A copy of this notice is included in this case summary, dated 15/07/2024.
Issued 5 days after the date of the parking event (where a Notice to Driver was not
served), the parking charge notice complies fully with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in permitting the registered keeper to be held
liable to pay this unpaid parking charge.
Contract – The contract between UK Parking Control Ltd and the landowner (or
their managing agent) authorising UKPC to provide parking management, and
therefore issue parking charges to vehicles breaching the terms of parking, is
confidential and we are unable to provide a copy for reasons of commercial
sensitivity.
We have however provided a redacted copy, with sensitive information covered.
The redacted contract confirms our authority in an ongoing agreement. If
neither party terminates the contract, as in this case, the contract will continue on a
rolling basis. We have provided the T&C’s in relation to the rolling contract.
UKPC must maintain a consistent approach when issuing and upholding a charge. In
this instance, this vehicle had been parked on site in direct breach of the terms and
conditions of parking on site as stated on signage.
The vehicle was parked in close proximity to UKPC signage, please see all photographic evidence to support this.
UK Parking Control signage complies fully with section 18 of the British Parking
Association Code of Practice and we reject the suggestion that it is vague or
misleading.
Entrance signage advises motorists that terms of parking apply, and that
notices within the car park should be checked to identify the full terms and
conditions. These notices are placed throughout the car park. It is ultimately the
responsibility of the motorist to ensure they identify the terms of parking, and then
decide whether to park their vehicle, or leave the site if they are unable to meet
those terms.
The parking charges issued by UK Parking Control Limited are based on a
contractual agreement between UKPC and the driver, as detailed on the signage
displayed in the car park. The signage states the terms and conditions of parking and
explains that a parking charge will be payable if the terms are not met by the driver.
We ensure that signage is ample, clear and visible, wholly in line with the British
Parking Association Code of Practice. It is settled law that a driver is deemed to
have accepted the terms and conditions of parking by the act of parking and leaving
a vehicle.
Ultimately, it is fundamentally the responsibility of the motorist to identify the terms
of parking when leaving their vehicle on private land. If they feel they are unable to
adhere to the terms, they may leave the site before agreeing to those terms.
There are sufficient signs advising drivers that parking in a Motorcycle Bay may
result in a parking charge being issued. The vehicle is parked in a Motorcycle Bay; consequently, the parking charge was issued correctly -
-
Can you please show us the redacted contract they have provided?
-
-
Can you please show us the redacted contract they have provided?
They have not provided the full contract they have provided a 'Contract Variation Form' where it was modified to include a new restriction for 'Motorcycles only in the motorcycle bays'. It has also been redacted
Uploaded here - https://file.io/cvacWBZVIzQW -
-
That link only shows that the file has been deleted.
-
-
That link only shows that the file has been deleted.
Looks like the site deleted it, try this - https://filebin.net/g2h2rog97swy7roh -
-
Just make it easier for everyone without having to click on obscure links, here is the document:
-
-
Here is a suitable response to the operators evidence. Just paste it into the response box on the POPLA website:Quote
POPLA Verification Code: [Verification Code]
UKPC PCN Number: [PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Vehicle Registration]
Re: Response to UKPC Evidence Submission and Reaffirmation of Appeal Points
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and have reviewed the evidence submitted by UKPC. I submit the following detailed response to their evidence, highlighting critical points from my original appeal that have not been fully addressed or rebutted, alongside new issues with the evidence they have provided.
1. **Signage: Inadequate and Unclear – No Valid Contract Formed**
Original Appeal Argument:
The signage at the site does not clearly convey the parking charge of £100. It is buried in a wall of small text, making it almost impossible for a motorist to understand that they are entering into a contract that includes a substantial penalty for non-compliance. In contrast, the signage in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 prominently displayed the charge in large, bold text.
UKPC's Evidence Response:
UKPC claims their signage complies with BPA Code of Practice, but they fail to address the core issue: the size, clarity, and prominence of the £100 parking charge. Their response does not rebut the comparison to the Beavis case, where the £85 charge was displayed clearly and conspicuously. UKPC’s sign, by contrast, buries the charge in small print, failing to make it obvious to motorists.
Unanswered:
UKPC did not provide evidence that their £100 charge is displayed in a similarly prominent fashion as required by the BPA Code of Practice, Section 18.3, or that it was brought to the driver’s attention in line with PoFA requirements. The image comparison I provided clearly shows how the £100 charge is obscure, supporting my claim that no valid contract was formed.
2. **Keeper Liability – Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012**
Original Appeal Argument:
UKPC has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, meaning they cannot transfer liability for the alleged parking charge from the driver to the registered keeper.
Under Schedule 4 of PoFA, strict conditions must be met before the keeper can be held liable for a parking charge incurred by the driver. UKPC's failure to comply with several key requirements renders the Notice to Keeper (NtK) non-compliant, meaning they cannot hold the registered keeper liable for the charge.
UKPC’s NtK fails PoFA on the following points:
(i) Paragraph 9(2)(e): PoFA requires that the NtK must include an “invitation” for the keeper to pay the charge. Specifically, it must “invite” the keeper to pay the charge or provide the name and address of the driver. The wording on UKPC’s NtK does not contain this necessary invitation, which is a critical requirement under PoFA.
(ii) Paragraph 9(2)(f): PoFA mandates that the NtK must include a warning to the keeper that if, after 28 days, neither payment nor driver details are provided, the keeper will become liable. UKPC’s NtK fails to provide this warning clearly and in the correct format.
(iii) Paragraph 9(2)(a): The NtK must specify the relevant land on which the vehicle was parked. UKPC’s vague description of the location is insufficient under PoFA, as it does not clearly identify where the vehicle was allegedly parked, nor does it specify a defined area.
(iv) Paragraph 9(2)(b): PoFA requires that the NtK must inform the keeper of the reason for issuing the charge. In this case, UKPC fails to make the alleged breach of contract clear in their NtK. The NtK must inform the keeper why the parking terms were allegedly breached, but this is not sufficiently communicated.
Given these failures, UKPC has not complied with the requirements of PoFA, meaning they cannot transfer liability to the keeper.
Unanswered:
UKPC has not provided a detailed rebuttal showing how they have complied with the specific points of PoFA listed above. Their simple assertion of compliance is not enough. PoFA compliance requires meeting every one of the detailed conditions in Schedule 4, and they have demonstrably failed to do so.
Without strict compliance with PoFA, UKPC cannot hold the keeper liable, and this charge is therefore unenforceable.
3. **No Evidence That the Keeper is the Driver**
Original Appeal Argument:
As UKPC cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper, they must provide evidence that the keeper was the driver at the time of the alleged parking contravention.
UKPC's Evidence Response:
UKPC failed to address this point in their response. They have not provided any evidence to suggest that the registered keeper was the driver, nor do they offer any rebuttal to my challenge on this matter.
Unanswered:
UKPC has made no attempt to prove the identity of the driver, and they have not demonstrated why they believe the registered keeper should be held liable without PoFA compliance.
As there is no evidence that I, as the registered keeper, was the driver, UKPC has no legal grounds to pursue this charge against me.
4. **Breaches of BPA Code of Practice**
Original Appeal Argument:
UKPC's signage and operational practices fail to comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, including Section 18.1 (clear and prominent entrance signs), Section 18.3 (prominent display of parking charges), and Section 18.4 (contrast and positioning of signage).
UKPC's Evidence Response:
UKPC asserts that their signage complies with the BPA Code of Practice but provides no specific evidence to support this claim. They rely on generic statements that their signs meet the necessary standards without addressing the specific breaches I raised in my appeal.
Unanswered:
(i) Section 18.1: No evidence was provided of adequate entrance signage that clearly conveys the terms and conditions of parking. UKPC failed to show that the entrance sign made it clear that terms and conditions applied.
(ii) Section 18.3: UKPC has not shown that the parking charge is prominently displayed. As demonstrated by the image comparison with the Beavis case signage, the £100 charge is obscured in small print, violating Section 18.3 of the BPA Code.
(iii) Section 18.4: The parking charge is not sufficiently distinct from other information on the sign, making it easy to miss. This violates the requirement for important terms to be clearly distinguishable.
5. **No Evidence of Landowner Authority**
Original Appeal Argument:
UKPC is required to demonstrate that they have the authority to issue parking charges on this land. I requested an unredacted copy of the contract between UKPC and the landholder.
UKPC's Evidence Response:
UKPC provided a redacted "Contract Variation Form" instead of the full contract. This is inadequate, as it does not demonstrate the extent of their authority to manage parking on the land or issue charges. Additionally, their failure to provide a full and unredacted contract suggests they may not have the necessary authority.
Unanswered:
The redacted contract does not prove that UKPC has sufficient authority to issue parking charges in their own name. A 'Contract Variation Form' is not a full contract and does not show the boundaries of the land or who is responsible for signage.
Without full proof of authority, UKPC has no legal grounds to pursue this charge.
**Conclusion:**
In conclusion, UKPC has failed to address or rebut the key points of my original appeal. Their evidence submission does not provide sufficient proof of the following:
(a) Inadequate signage that fails to form a valid contract with the driver, particularly regarding the display of the £100 charge.
(b) Non-compliance with PoFA 2012, meaning they cannot hold the registered keeper liable.
No evidence that the registered keeper was the driver.
(c) Breach of the BPA Code of Practice, with inadequate entrance signage and unclear display of parking terms.
(d) Lack of landholder authority, as the redacted contract they provided is insufficient proof.
Based on these points, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the Parking Charge Notice. -
-
Here is a suitable response to the operators evidence. Just paste it into the response box on the POPLA website:
QuotePOPLA Verification Code: [Verification Code]
UKPC PCN Number: [PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Vehicle Registration]
Re: Response to UKPC Evidence Submission and Reaffirmation of Appeal Points
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and have reviewed the evidence submitted by UKPC. I submit the following detailed response to their evidence, highlighting critical points from my original appeal that have not been fully addressed or rebutted, alongside new issues with the evidence they have provided.
1. **Signage: Inadequate and Unclear – No Valid Contract Formed**
Original Appeal Argument:
The signage at the site does not clearly convey the parking charge of £100. It is buried in a wall of small text, making it almost impossible for a motorist to understand that they are entering into a contract that includes a substantial penalty for non-compliance. In contrast, the signage in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 prominently displayed the charge in large, bold text.
UKPC's Evidence Response:
UKPC claims their signage complies with BPA Code of Practice, but they fail to address the core issue: the size, clarity, and prominence of the £100 parking charge. Their response does not rebut the comparison to the Beavis case, where the £85 charge was displayed clearly and conspicuously. UKPC’s sign, by contrast, buries the charge in small print, failing to make it obvious to motorists.
Unanswered:
UKPC did not provide evidence that their £100 charge is displayed in a similarly prominent fashion as required by the BPA Code of Practice, Section 18.3, or that it was brought to the driver’s attention in line with PoFA requirements. The image comparison I provided clearly shows how the £100 charge is obscure, supporting my claim that no valid contract was formed.
2. **Keeper Liability – Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012**
Original Appeal Argument:
UKPC has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, meaning they cannot transfer liability for the alleged parking charge from the driver to the registered keeper.
Under Schedule 4 of PoFA, strict conditions must be met before the keeper can be held liable for a parking charge incurred by the driver. UKPC's failure to comply with several key requirements renders the Notice to Keeper (NtK) non-compliant, meaning they cannot hold the registered keeper liable for the charge.
UKPC’s NtK fails PoFA on the following points:
(i) Paragraph 9(2)(e): PoFA requires that the NtK must include an “invitation” for the keeper to pay the charge. Specifically, it must “invite” the keeper to pay the charge or provide the name and address of the driver. The wording on UKPC’s NtK does not contain this necessary invitation, which is a critical requirement under PoFA.
(ii) Paragraph 9(2)(f): PoFA mandates that the NtK must include a warning to the keeper that if, after 28 days, neither payment nor driver details are provided, the keeper will become liable. UKPC’s NtK fails to provide this warning clearly and in the correct format.
(iii) Paragraph 9(2)(a): The NtK must specify the relevant land on which the vehicle was parked. UKPC’s vague description of the location is insufficient under PoFA, as it does not clearly identify where the vehicle was allegedly parked, nor does it specify a defined area.
(iv) Paragraph 9(2)(b): PoFA requires that the NtK must inform the keeper of the reason for issuing the charge. In this case, UKPC fails to make the alleged breach of contract clear in their NtK. The NtK must inform the keeper why the parking terms were allegedly breached, but this is not sufficiently communicated.
Given these failures, UKPC has not complied with the requirements of PoFA, meaning they cannot transfer liability to the keeper.
Unanswered:
UKPC has not provided a detailed rebuttal showing how they have complied with the specific points of PoFA listed above. Their simple assertion of compliance is not enough. PoFA compliance requires meeting every one of the detailed conditions in Schedule 4, and they have demonstrably failed to do so.
Without strict compliance with PoFA, UKPC cannot hold the keeper liable, and this charge is therefore unenforceable.
3. **No Evidence That the Keeper is the Driver**
Original Appeal Argument:
As UKPC cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper, they must provide evidence that the keeper was the driver at the time of the alleged parking contravention.
UKPC's Evidence Response:
UKPC failed to address this point in their response. They have not provided any evidence to suggest that the registered keeper was the driver, nor do they offer any rebuttal to my challenge on this matter.
Unanswered:
UKPC has made no attempt to prove the identity of the driver, and they have not demonstrated why they believe the registered keeper should be held liable without PoFA compliance.
As there is no evidence that I, as the registered keeper, was the driver, UKPC has no legal grounds to pursue this charge against me.
4. **Breaches of BPA Code of Practice**
Original Appeal Argument:
UKPC's signage and operational practices fail to comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, including Section 18.1 (clear and prominent entrance signs), Section 18.3 (prominent display of parking charges), and Section 18.4 (contrast and positioning of signage).
UKPC's Evidence Response:
UKPC asserts that their signage complies with the BPA Code of Practice but provides no specific evidence to support this claim. They rely on generic statements that their signs meet the necessary standards without addressing the specific breaches I raised in my appeal.
Unanswered:
(i) Section 18.1: No evidence was provided of adequate entrance signage that clearly conveys the terms and conditions of parking. UKPC failed to show that the entrance sign made it clear that terms and conditions applied.
(ii) Section 18.3: UKPC has not shown that the parking charge is prominently displayed. As demonstrated by the image comparison with the Beavis case signage, the £100 charge is obscured in small print, violating Section 18.3 of the BPA Code.
(iii) Section 18.4: The parking charge is not sufficiently distinct from other information on the sign, making it easy to miss. This violates the requirement for important terms to be clearly distinguishable.
5. **No Evidence of Landowner Authority**
Original Appeal Argument:
UKPC is required to demonstrate that they have the authority to issue parking charges on this land. I requested an unredacted copy of the contract between UKPC and the landholder.
UKPC's Evidence Response:
UKPC provided a redacted "Contract Variation Form" instead of the full contract. This is inadequate, as it does not demonstrate the extent of their authority to manage parking on the land or issue charges. Additionally, their failure to provide a full and unredacted contract suggests they may not have the necessary authority.
Unanswered:
The redacted contract does not prove that UKPC has sufficient authority to issue parking charges in their own name. A 'Contract Variation Form' is not a full contract and does not show the boundaries of the land or who is responsible for signage.
Without full proof of authority, UKPC has no legal grounds to pursue this charge.
**Conclusion:**
In conclusion, UKPC has failed to address or rebut the key points of my original appeal. Their evidence submission does not provide sufficient proof of the following:
(a) Inadequate signage that fails to form a valid contract with the driver, particularly regarding the display of the £100 charge.
(b) Non-compliance with PoFA 2012, meaning they cannot hold the registered keeper liable.
No evidence that the registered keeper was the driver.
(c) Breach of the BPA Code of Practice, with inadequate entrance signage and unclear display of parking terms.
(d) Lack of landholder authority, as the redacted contract they provided is insufficient proof.
Based on these points, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
Amazing! I've submitted the above, many thanks! will update as soon as I hear further
-