I'm considering these points for my POPLA Appeal, comments before submission will be welcomed!
1. Registered Keeper Status
I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle and submit this appeal in that capacity.
I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver to a private parking operator and decline to do so.
Accordingly, if the Operator seeks to pursue me as Registered Keeper, it must demonstrate full compliance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA").
2. Failure to Establish Keeper Liability under PoFA 2012
The Operator seeks to pursue me as the Registered Keeper. In order to do so, it must demonstrate full compliance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA").
The Notice to Keeper relies upon "From" and "To" timestamps, which appear to have been generated from ANPR captures of a vehicle entering and exiting the site.
PoFA requires a Notice to Keeper to specify the relevant period of parking. However, entry and exit timestamps merely record vehicle movements past camera locations and are not, in themselves, evidence of a parking period.
The Notice to Keeper does not identify any separately evidenced period of parking and the Operator has not demonstrated how the statutory requirements necessary to transfer liability to the Registered Keeper have been satisfied.
As the driver has not been identified and keeper liability has not been established, the charge cannot be enforced against me as Registered Keeper.
3. The Operator Has Not Proven that a Parking Contravention Occurred
Even if POPLA were to conclude that keeper liability has been established, the Operator must still prove, on the evidence, that the alleged parking contravention occurred.
The Operator relies solely upon ANPR entry and exit timestamps showing a total site presence of approximately 13 minutes.
ANPR cameras record only the times at which a vehicle passes entry and exit points. They do not record whether a vehicle was parked, when any parking commenced, when it ended, or how much of the recorded period was spent driving within the site.
The Operator has provided no evidence of:
the vehicle being parked in a parking bay;
the duration of any alleged parking event;
when any contractual terms were accepted;
the time taken to enter, manoeuvre within the site, read signage, or exit.
The allegation is therefore based upon an inference that a parking event must have occurred between the recorded entry and exit times.
The Operator has produced no direct evidence to support that inference and has not demonstrated that a parking contravention occurred.
4. Failure to Demonstrate Compliance with BPA Consideration and Grace Period Requirements
The British Parking Association Code of Practice requires operators to allow motorists a reasonable consideration period upon arrival to locate and read signage and decide whether to remain on site.
The Operator has produced no evidence demonstrating that any mandatory consideration period was taken into account when assessing this charge.
The total site presence alleged by the Operator is approximately 13 minutes. That period necessarily includes entry, navigation within the site, locating and reading signage, and exiting the site.
The Operator has not demonstrated what portion of the recorded period, if any, constituted actual parking.
Accordingly, compliance with the BPA Code of Practice consideration and grace period requirements has not been established.
5. Inadequate Signage and Failure of Contract Formation
The Operator is required to demonstrate that clear and prominent signage was present and capable of forming a contract with the driver.
The Operator is put to strict proof that:
signage was clearly visible upon entry;
signage was clearly visible throughout the site;
the terms and conditions were legible;
the driver had a reasonable opportunity to read and understand those terms before any contract was formed.
Absent such proof, no contract can be said to have been properly formed.
6. Failure to Properly Consider Submitted Evidence
The Operator requested additional evidence in support of the appeal and directed that such evidence be submitted through its online portal.
The portal did not permit the upload of the requested material. In order to comply with the Operator's request, the material was therefore submitted by email instead.
Despite this, the Operator's rejection letter states:
"As this information has not been received within the specified timeframe..."
The rejection letter does not acknowledge receipt of the emailed submission, nor does it address the substance of the material provided.
I therefore have legitimate concerns that the evidence supplied in response to the Operator's request was either not considered or not properly taken into account before the appeal was rejected.
Whilst this point is not relied upon as a standalone ground of appeal, it raises doubt as to whether the Operator conducted a fair and thorough review of the representations and evidence submitted.
7. Template-Based Rejection and Inaccurate Case Handling
The Operator's rejection letter contains the following statement:
"Please note that as the parking incident occurred in Scotland or Northern Ireland, only the driver can make the appeal to POPLA."
The site concerned is Redbridge Institute of Adult Education in Ilford, England.
The statement is plainly inapplicable to this case and appears to have been inserted from a generic template.
Whilst not determinative on its own, this further supports the concern that the appeal was not individually considered on its own facts.
8. Operator Authority
The Operator is put to strict proof that it has sufficient authority from the landowner to:
issue parking charge notices at this location;
enter into contracts with motorists;
pursue parking charges in its own name;
defend such charges before POPLA and in court proceedings.
Absent such evidence, the Operator has no standing to pursue this charge.
Conclusion
The Operator has failed to:
establish keeper liability under PoFA 2012;
prove that a parking contravention occurred;
demonstrate compliance with BPA consideration and grace period requirements;
demonstrate that a contract was properly formed through adequate signage;
demonstrate proper consideration of submitted evidence;
demonstrate sufficient authority from the landowner.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and direct Civil Enforcement Ltd to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
