Here is a suggested POPLA appeal which should be submitted as a PDF file and uploaded to the POPLA appeal site. The appeal is ONLY from the Keeper and any reference to the driver must be in the third person. The Keeper cannot be liable and the is under no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company. CP Plus have no idea who the driver is unless the Keeper blabs it, inadvertently or otherwise:
I am the Keeper and I am appealing Parking Charge Notice (PCN) reference [insert reference number] issued by CP Plus at St Peter’s Retail Park. This appeal is made on the following grounds:
Summary of Grounds for Appeal:
1. Non-Compliance with the Single Code of Practice (SCoP) Section 4.1 Regarding Disabled Access Signage
2. Failure to Form a Contract with the Driver Due to Inadequate Signage
3. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
4. Mitigating Circumstances: The Driver Never Left the Vehicle Due to Intimidating Circumstances
5. Lack of Landowner Authority: The Operator Must Be Put to Strict Proof
Each of these points will be expanded upon below.
1. Non-Compliance with the Single Code of Practice (SCoP) Section 4.1 Regarding Disabled Access Signage
The driver parked in a disabled bay and, due to their disability, was unable to leave the vehicle to search for signage. The BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) Section 4.1 clearly requires parking operators to ensure that at least one sign containing the terms and conditions is visible from within the vehicle. CP Plus has completely failed to meet this requirement at the location.
After receipt of the PCN, the Keeper visited the site in daylight and it was evident that the only sign near the disabled access bays is tiny (barely A4-sized), positioned more than 12 feet above ground level, with minuscule white text on a faded blue background. It is not illuminated, making it invisible at night or in poor weather conditions. The PCN was issued for an event that occurred after dark, and none of the signs, including this one, at this location are lit.
The attached photograph of the sign near the disabled bays clearly demonstrates its inadequacy. The sign is roughly A4 in size and positioned over 12 feet high. The text mentioning the £100 charge is in a font size estimated to be approximately 48 points. This is far too small to be read from a vehicle, especially at night or in poor lighting conditions. In fact, even during daylight, this font size is difficult to read without standing directly underneath the sign. This failure to provide clear and accessible signage makes it impossible for any driver, particularly a disabled driver who may not be able to exit their vehicle, to be aware of the terms and conditions.
This is the drivers view of the sign when parking in the disabled bay:
As can be seen, this failure makes a mockery of the accessibility requirements outlined in section 4.1 of the PPSCoP. The operator’s rejection of the initial appeal did not address this crucial point and instead issued a generic response. The operator must explain why they believe they are compliant with PPSCoP Section 4.1 when it is clear that their signage does not meet this requirement.
Photographic evidence of the signage, taken during daylight conditions after the Keeper returned to the site upon receiving the PCN, is attached. These photos clearly show the faded and illegible condition of the signs. If the operator or the POPLA assessor cannot see how ridiculous it is to issue a PCN in these circumstances, it calls into question the competency of both.
Visibility of the sign from outside the vehicle. The assessor is invited to try and read that sign in clear daylight, never mind after dark from within a vehicle:
http://
2. Failure to Form a Contract with the Driver Due to Inadequate Signage
The main terms signage at St Peter’s Retail Park is incapable of forming a valid contract with any driver due to multiple breaches of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and the earlier BPA Code of Practice v9. The core principles of contract law require that the terms of a contract be clearly communicated, visible, and unambiguous. CP Plus has failed to meet even the most basic legal requirements for forming a contract through their signage.
The operator’s rejection of the initial appeal completely ignored the critical deficiencies in the signage. Instead of addressing the substantive points raised, they issued a generic template response that demonstrates their complete disregard for their legal obligations. A contract cannot be formed if the terms are not visible, readable, or understood, and the attached image of the signage proves that this is the case at this location.
Why No Contract Could Be Formed
The signage fails to meet the essential elements of a contract, as required by both contract law and the PPSCoP. For a contract to be enforceable, the following must be true:
• The terms must be clearly communicated to the other party.
• The terms must be prominently displayed and visible.
• The other party must have the opportunity to read and understand the terms.
• There must be mutual agreement (offer and acceptance).
In this case, the terms were never communicated in a way that a reasonable person could read or understand. As a result, no valid contract could have been formed. The signage is inadequate, illegible, poorly positioned, and fails to prominently display the £100 charge.
Specific Failings of the Signage That Prevent a Valid Contract
The £100 Charge Is Not Prominently Displayed
• The PPSCoP Section 3.1.3(j) requires that the parking charge amount must be prominently displayed in large font so that it is easily visible to drivers.
• The £100 charge on the sign is buried in a block of text and is not emphasised in any way.
• There is no attempt to draw attention to this critical term, meaning drivers would not be aware of the financial consequences of parking.
• The font size is too small, making it impossible to identify the charge from a reasonable distance.
• Without clear visibility of the financial penalty, no contract can be formed, as the core term of the agreement is hidden.
The Font Size and Layout Make the Sign Unreadable
• The PPSCoP Section 3.1.3(f) requires that text on signage must be in a font size appropriate for the location of the sign.
• The font size used for the critical £100 charge is far too small to be legible, even when standing directly in front of the sign, even in daylight.
• A contract cannot be formed if the terms are illegible or hidden in small print. This failure renders the signage incapable of forming a valid contract.
The Sign Is Positioned Too High to Be Readily Seen
• The PPSCoP Section 3.1.3(b) requires that signs must be positioned where they are likely to be seen by drivers, with text legible from a reasonable distance.
• The sign is mounted well over 10 feet high, making it almost impossible to read even when standing directly underneath it.
•This poor positioning makes it impossible for drivers to read and understand the terms, meaning no contract could be formed.
The Sign Lacks Illumination, Making It Invisible After Dark
• The PPSCoP Section 3.1.4(b) requires that signs must be readable under all lighting conditions, including during hours of darkness.
• The alleged contravention occurred after dark, yet the sign is not illuminated.
• Without lighting, the sign would have been completely invisible to the driver at the time of the alleged breach.
• If the terms of a contract are not visible, they cannot be accepted. A contract cannot be formed based on invisible terms.
The Sign Is Faded and Poorly Maintained
• The PPSCoP Section 3.1.5 requires operators to maintain signs in a legible condition and ensure they withstand normal weather exposure.
• The sign in the attached image is faded and weathered, further reducing its legibility.
• CP Plus has failed to maintain their signage, making it non-compliant with the PPSCoP.
• A poorly maintained sign cannot communicate contractual terms effectively, meaning no enforceable contract can be formed.
The Terms Are Ambiguous and Confusing
• The PPSCoP Section 3.1.3(i) requires that the wording on signage must be clear and unambiguous.
• The wording on this sign is vague and confusing, stating: “You agree to pay a parking charge of £100 if you...”.
• It does not clearly state that the driver is entering into a binding contract to pay this charge by parking in the car park.
• The critical term is buried within a block of unclear text, making it impossible for drivers to understand the financial consequences of parking.
• Ambiguous wording fails to meet the basic legal requirement for a valid contract. Drivers cannot accept terms that are unclear or confusing.
The BPA’s Hypocrisy and Failure to Enforce Compliance
The British Parking Association (BPA) will claim to have audited the signage at St Peter’s Retail Park and found it compliant with the PPSCoP. This claim is either an outright lie or a clear demonstration of the BPA’s failure as a regulatory body.
The BPA is supposed to enforce the standards of the PPSCoP, yet they have rubber-stamped non-compliant signage. This demonstrates that the BPA is complicit in the exploitative practices of private parking companies, enabling them to issue PCNs based on defective signage.
It is blatantly obvious that the signage at this location does not meet the PPSCoP’s basic requirements. If the BPA genuinely believes this signage is compliant, they are either incompetent or deliberately enabling their members to scam motorists.
Conclusion – No Contract Could Be Formed
The signage at St Peter’s Retail Park fails to meet the basic legal requirements for forming a valid contract with drivers. The £100 charge is not prominently displayed, the font size is too small, the sign is positioned too high, it lacks illumination, it has not been properly maintained, and the wording is ambiguous.
These significant deficiencies mean that no enforceable contract could have been formed between CP Plus and the driver.
The BPA’s claim to have audited this signage and found it compliant is either dishonest or indicative of gross incompetence. This PCN must be cancelled on the grounds that no valid contract exists. If POPLA or the BPA refuses to acknowledge this, it raises serious questions about the impartiality and credibility of the entire appeals process.
3. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by CP Plus does not comply with the strict requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
While the NtK mentions that the keeper may be held liable if the driver is not identified, it fails to explicitly include the required invitation to the keeper to pay the charge, as mandated by Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). The specific requirement is clear in the legislation and cannot be dismissed as being “implied” simply because the NtK is addressed to the keeper. The law explicitly demands an unambiguous invitation to the keeper to pay the charge.
POPLA assessors have previously erred in this area by claiming compliance with Paragraph 9(2)(e), conveniently overlooking the critical and specific requirement of subsection (i). The requirement for an invitation is not satisfied by implication or inference; it must be expressly and explicitly stated within the NtK. In this case, the operator has failed to meet that standard.
This omission is a material failure to comply with PoFA 2012, which renders the NtK non-compliant and invalid for the purpose of transferring liability to the registered keeper. As the keeper, I cannot be held liable for this Parking Charge Notice, and any attempt to do so would be contrary to PoFA’s statutory framework.
4. The Operator’s Failure to Consider Mitigating Circumstances – Breach of PPSCoP Section 8.4.4
The Keeper is not asking POPLA to consider mitigating circumstances, but instead highlighting the operator’s failure to consider mitigating factors as required by Section 8.4.4 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
The initial appeal explained that the driver never left the vehicle due to intimidating circumstances, which included:
• A large crowd of rowdy football fans exiting a nearby stadium.
• A significant police presence attempting to manage the crowds and traffic.
• The driver’s disability and anxiety, which made it impossible for them to safely exit the vehicle during their stay.
These factors constitute valid mitigating circumstances, which Section 8.4.4 of the PPSCoP explicitly requires operators to consider when handling appeals:
“When considering appeals, operators must give proper consideration to any mitigating circumstances and should exercise discretion where appropriate.”
Despite this clear requirement, CP Plus wholly ignored the mitigating circumstances presented in the Keeper’s appeal. Instead, they issued a generic rejection that completely failed to engage with the specific facts of this case.
The Operator’s Failure to Act Fairly and Proportionately
The PPSCoP further requires parking operators to act fairly and proportionately in their enforcement practices, particularly when dealing with vulnerable motorists or those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
The driver’s disability and anxiety are protected characteristics, and the operator is legally obligated to consider the impact of these factors before deciding to pursue enforcement. By failing to do so, CP Plus has acted in breach of their obligations under the PPSCoP.
Relevant Requirements from the PPSCoP
• Operators must give proper consideration to any mitigating circumstances and exercise discretion where appropriate.
• Operators must act fairly and proportionately, taking into account relevant circumstances that may impact a driver’s ability to comply with parking terms.
• Annex F – Appeals Charter:
The Appeals Charter requires operators to recognise exceptional circumstances and consider mitigating factors when deciding appeals.
Conclusion – The PCN Must Be Cancelled Due to the Operator’s Breach of Section 8.4.4
The operator’s complete failure to consider the mitigating circumstances provided by the Keeper is a direct breach of Section 8.4.4 of the PPSCoP. The Keeper is not asking POPLA to exercise discretion, but rather to recognise that the operator has failed to comply with their mandatory obligations under the Code of Practice.
This failure demonstrates that CP Plus has not acted reasonably or fairly in pursuing this charge. Therefore, the PCN must be cancelled. If POPLA refuses to acknowledge this, it raises serious questions about the impartiality and credibility of the entire appeals process.
5. Lack of Landowner Authority: The Operator Must Be Put to Strict Proof
CP Plus has provided no evidence of their authority to issue Parking Charge Notices at St Peter’s Retail Park. As per the BPA Code of Practice Section 7, a parking operator must have written authority from the landowner to manage the site and issue PCNs.
The operator is 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
Conclusion
CP Plus has failed to address the key points raised in the initial appeal. They have provided a generic rejection without engaging with the substantive issues concerning signage, accessibility, PoFA compliance, and landowner authority. It is clear that the signage at St Peter’s Retail Park is inadequate and non-compliant with both the original BPA Code of Practice and the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice. Consequently, no enforceable contract could have been formed with the driver.
Photographic evidence demonstrates that the signage is faded, unlit, and illegible under normal conditions. The PCN was issued for an event that occurred after dark, making it impossible for the driver to have been aware of any terms and conditions. This highlights the operator’s failure to ensure their signage meets the minimum required standards.
If the operator or the POPLA assessor cannot see how absurd it is to issue a PCN in these circumstances, it raises serious questions about their competence and judgment. I request that POPLA upholds this appeal and directs CP Plus to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
