Free Traffic Legal Advice

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. CUP 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. CUP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

POPLA APPEAL (REGISTERED KEEPER)

I am the registered keeper. I dispute this parking charge. There is no legal obligation on a keeper to identify the driver and I decline to do so. The operator’s only lawful route to pursue the keeper is strict compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”). The operator has not complied with PoFA. Accordingly, there can be no keeper liability and POPLA must allow this appeal.

The operator’s evidence, and its rejection letter, also fail on contract formation and on mandatory standards in the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (“PPSCoP”), including the required consideration period and the requirement to retain evidence that the consideration period had ended before issuing a PCN.

1. NO KEEPER LIABILITY: THE NOTICE TO KEEPER DOES NOT COMPLY WITH POFA 9(2)(a) BECAUSE IT DOES NOT “SPECIFY THE PERIOD OF PARKING”

PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a) requires a Notice to Keeper to “specify… the period of parking to which the notice relates”. That wording is not optional. It is a mandatory condition precedent to keeper liability.

This Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not specify ANY period of parking. It does not use the statutory concept at all. It provides a “contravention date” and includes two CCTV still images with time/date stamps. That is not compliance with PoFA 9(2)(a) for three separate reasons:

First, PoFA requires the Notice itself to “specify” the period of parking. A period of parking is a defined duration. A contravention date is not a period. An isolated timestamp is not a period. Two timestamps might allow a reader to infer that something happened between two moments in time, but PoFA does not ask POPLA to infer or reconstruct a period from images. It requires the operator to specify it on the notice. This operator has not.

Secondly, PoFA does not require an operator to use images on an NtK and images are not a statutory substitute for the mandatory wording. The statute does not say “provide images from which a period might be inferred”. It says the notice MUST specify the "period of parking". If an operator chooses to include images, they remain merely supporting material. They cannot cure the failure to comply with the explicit statutory requirement to specify the period of parking.

Thirdly, the still images do not state a period of parking in any event. They are simply stills. There is no statement on the Notice identifying a start time, an end time, and expressly defining the “period of parking to which the notice relates”. POPLA is invited to read PoFA 9(2)(a) as written. The operator’s notice fails it.

Because PoFA 9(2)(a) is not complied with, there is no keeper liability. The operator’s repeated assertion that the notice is “PoFA compliant” and that “as the keeper you are now liable” is a misstatement of the law. POPLA must allow the appeal on this basis alone.

2. PROHIBITIVE SIGNAGE: “NO PARKING ON THE WALKWAY” IS NOT CAPABLE OF FORMING A CONTRACTUAL LICENCE TO PARK THERE

Without prejudice to the primary keeper-liability point, the operator’s signage is prohibitive at the alleged location. The key term is “NO PARKING ON THE WALKWAY”. That is a prohibition, not an offer of a contractual licence to park on that walkway in exchange for a charge.

A contract requires an offer capable of acceptance. If parking is forbidden in a particular place, there is no offer of parking in that place. The operator is attempting to impose a charge for a prohibited act. That is not a clear contractual offer for that location. At most it resembles an allegation of trespass, which is a matter for a landholder, not a parking operator seeking to enforce a “parking charge” in its own name.

Accordingly, even on a driver-liability analysis, the operator has not demonstrated any contract capable of being formed for “parking on the walkway”.

3. STRICT PROOF: CONSIDERATION PERIOD (PPSCoP) AND THE OPERATOR’S FAILURE TO RETAIN EVIDENCE THAT IT HAD ENDED BEFORE ISSUING A PCN

The operator’s still images appear to cover only around three minutes. Even if POPLA were to treat those images as showing the vehicle stationary for a short duration, that undermines, rather than supports, the operator’s case because it demonstrates that the operator issued a PCN without evidence that the mandatory minimum consideration period had expired.

The PPSCoP makes clear that the significance of the consideration period is fundamental because it is the point at which the driver is taken to have accepted the terms and conditions of the controlled land. Annex B states, in substance, that:

Where there is evidence the consideration period has expired, the minimum period is not relevant, but the operator should retain evidence to show how the consideration period had ended. The significance of whether the consideration has expired is fundamental as it is the point the driver has accepted the terms and conditions. A consideration period is not a free period of parking.

This is fatal to the operator’s reliance on a brief sequence of still images. If the operator alleges a contractual parking charge, it must be able to evidence that the consideration period ended and that a contract was accepted. The PPSCoP requires the operator to retain evidence showing how the consideration period had ended before enforcement. The operator’s evidence does not do that. Two stills across a short span do not evidence the end of the consideration period, nor do they evidence acceptance of terms, nor do they evidence that enforcement was permissible at that point.

Put simply: before the consideration period ends, the driver is still considering the terms and deciding whether to accept them or leave. The PPSCoP requires operators to retain evidence that the consideration period ended. The operator has not provided such evidence. POPLA must therefore find that the charge was issued prematurely and in breach of the PPSCoP, and allow the appeal.

4. STRICT PROOF: COMPLIANT ENTRANCE SIGNAGE AND ADEQUATE NOTICE

The operator asserts there was clear signage “at the entrance… and throughout” and that “sitemaps confirm” signage proximity. Assertions are not evidence.

POPLA is invited to require strict proof of:

• A fully compliant entrance sign, in place on the material date, with photographs taken from a driver’s viewpoint on approach, demonstrating that the terms were readable before entry.

• A dated site plan showing the location of every entrance sign and every terms sign relied upon, the route of travel, the exact location of the vehicle, and the distances/lines of sight between the vehicle and the nearest applicable signs.

• Photographs from the driver’s position at the alleged location showing the nearest sign, its orientation, and that it was readable without leaving the vehicle and searching around.

If the operator cannot prove adequate notice of terms at the point of decision-making, there can be no contract.

5. STRICT PROOF: STANDING/LANDHOLDER AUTHORITY AND FULL COMPLIANCE WITH PPSCoP SECTION 14.1(a) TO (j)

The operator must prove it has the legal standing to operate on this land and to issue and pursue parking charges in its own name. POPLA is invited to treat standing as a threshold issue. If the operator cannot prove landholder authority in the form required by the PPSCoP, the charge is unsupported and the appeal must be allowed.

PPSCoP section 14.1(a) to (j) sets mandatory requirements for written landholder authority. POPLA must not accept generic statements, “sitemaps”, “site agreements summaries”, or a self-serving witness statement. The operator must produce contemporaneous documentary evidence that satisfies each and every requirement in section 14.1(a) to (j). If they do not, POPLA must find that the operator has failed to prove standing and the PCN is unenforceable.

Accordingly, the operator is put to strict proof by providing the following, as documentary evidence (not commentary):

1. The unredacted, contemporaneous landholder contract/authorisation in force on the material date, with the landholder correctly identified (freeholder/superior leaseholder or a party with sufficient proprietary interest), and evidence that the signatory had authority to grant those rights.

2. Clear confirmation within that contract/authorisation of the precise land to which it applies, including a dated plan/map defining the boundary of the controlled land and the specific area(s) where enforcement is permitted. This must include (or expressly exclude) the exact area alleged in this PCN (the “walkway”/restricted area).

3. Explicit wording showing what the operator is authorised to do at this site, including (where claimed) the right to issue parking charge notices, to demand payment, and to recover charges in its own name. If the operator asserts it may pursue court proceedings, POPLA must require the contract to expressly confer that right.

4. Evidence that the operator’s enforcement scope is not wider than the landholder has granted (for example: exclusions for pedestrian routes, accessways, loading areas, service roads, tenant demised areas, and any other areas not intended to be controlled land for enforcement).

5. Evidence that the authority complies with every element of PPSCoP 14.1(a) to (j). POPLA should require the operator to identify, item-by-item, where in the contract each sub-paragraph (a) through (j) is satisfied, and to produce the corresponding pages. If any item is not evidenced, POPLA must conclude that section 14.1 is not met.

The burden of proof is on the operator. If the operator refuses to provide an unredacted agreement and instead provides a template witness statement or partial extract, POPLA is invited to find that the operator has failed to discharge that burden. PPSCoP 14.1(a) to (j) exists precisely to prevent enforcement based on unsupported assertions of authority. If compliance is not proven, the charge must be cancelled.

5. WHY THE OPERATOR’S REJECTION LETTER IS UNRELIABLE

The operator’s rejection letter is not a reliable guide to the law or to POPLA’s task.

It claims that CUP is “authorised… under PoFA 2012” and that keeper liability follows. That is wrong. PoFA imposes strict conditions; it does not confer keeper liability by assertion. The Notice fails PoFA 9(2)(a).

It diverts into “grace period” commentary. This is irrelevant to PoFA compliance and does not rescue a defective Notice. It also misses the point that the PPSCoP’s consideration period is the fundamental stage at which contractual acceptance may occur and operators must retain evidence that it ended before enforcement.

It cites its own interpretation of “parking” and “parked” as if that overrides statutory compliance and contract formation. It does not. The operator must still comply with PoFA to pursue a keeper and must still prove that a contract was formed and that enforcement was permissible under the PPSCoP.

CONCLUSION

This operator cannot pursue the keeper because the NtK does not specify any period of parking as required by PoFA 9(2)(a). POPLA must allow this appeal.

Further, the signage is prohibitive (“NO PARKING ON THE WALKWAY”) and is not capable of forming a contractual licence to park there. In any event, the operator has failed to provide evidence that the consideration period had ended before issuing a PCN, as required by the PPSCoP, and must be put to strict proof of compliant entrance signage and landholder authority, including full compliance with PPSCoP section 14.1(a) to (j). If strict proof is not produced, the charge must be cancelled.