Free Traffic Legal Advice

You have now confirmed there are no further tenancy pages relevant to parking, and no addendum/variation dealing with parking. On that basis, nobody can advise on “primacy of contract” from the tenancy because there is no parking grant in it to rely upon. The case therefore turns on what you do have: (i) written permission and written confirmation of an allocated bay/whitelisting arrangement from the managing agent, and (ii) the operator’s failure to comply with the statutory conditions for pursuing a hirer/keeper, including their failure to enclose the mandatory hire documents with each Notice to Hirer.

The April 2023 “parking restrictions” letter does not “bind” you in the way you think. It is generic site communications and cannot override a later, specific arrangement made with the managing agent allocating you a bay and agreeing paid parking/whitelisting. In any event, you did contact the managing agent and they dealt with bay allocation and whitelisting; that is entirely consistent with the letter’s own wording (“arrange with the property manager/manager”).

On the SAR point: yes, they are trying to wrong-foot you. A SAR does not require you to name the driver. You do not have to identify the driver to exercise your data rights. If you are the data subject (hirer/keeper) you can prove identity without providing driver details. Their demand that you either name the driver or “confirm you were driving” is improper. You reply (or include in your SAR follow-up) that you are the hirer/keeper and you require the SAR to be processed, and that you will not be naming the driver. If they persist, it will be evidence of obstructing a lawful SAR.

Finally, the “managing agent cannot mediate” line is irrelevant. They can say they do not oversee day-to-day enforcement; that does not change the fact that the managing agent is the party who granted you permission, allocated a bay, and arranged whitelisting. That evidence goes to authorisation and to whether the operator had any proper basis to issue PCNs at all.

Practical next steps:

1. Do not name the driver to anyone.
2. Continue with the SAR and require disclosure of: all PCNs, all images, all notes, all appeal submissions (including the original portal appeal), all correspondence, and the VRM whitelist/permit audit trail.
3. If you submit anything further via the portal, do each PCN separately and include a paragraph stating no liability is admitted and any forced tick-box “admission” is rejected and will be relied upon in any subsequent proceedings.

No admission of liability is made.

I am the hirer of the vehicle to which this Parking Charge Notice/invoice relates. I am submitting this appeal strictly as hirer. I do not admit to being the driver, and I will not be identifying the driver.

You are attempting to pursue me as hirer. However, your Notice to Hirer does not comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4, paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

In particular, the Notice to Hirer was not accompanied by:

a copy of the hire agreement; and

a copy of the statement of liability signed by or on behalf of the hirer.

Stating that documents are “available on request” does not satisfy POFA. The statute requires that these documents are served with the Notice. As a result, liability cannot be transferred to me as hirer.

Accordingly, there is no keeper or hirer liability, and you may only pursue the driver, whom you have not identified.

I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver, and I decline to do so. Any attempt to infer driver identity is denied.

The vehicle was authorised to be present at the location under a paid and agreed residential arrangement. Any charge issued arises from failures in the administration of vehicle authorisation between your company and the managing agent and is not attributable to me.