Free Traffic Legal Advice

Please note that our client does not rely on POFA 2012 to pursue this Charge, we can confirm that this case is Non-Pofa therefore we are able to pursue you as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

In response to your email that confirms an intellectual malnourishment by the individual who composed it, I am confirming that, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company and I decline to do so.

As you have confirmed that the Notice to Keeper was "Non-Pofa", that reaffirms what I stated in the appeal that you have responded to, that you cannot hold me liable as the keeper. I suggest you go chase the driver and cancel the PCN or issue me with a POPLA code where you will have to explain your ignorance of the meaning of PoFA and how it applies to keeper liability.

Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Appeal Process Breach and Unlawful Data Processing

Dear [PAM Security],

I am writing to raise a formal complaint concerning your handling of my personal data and the appeal process regarding the parking charge notice [reference number].

1. Failure to Provide POPLA Code and Unlawful Request for Driver’s Details

In response to my initial appeal as the registered keeper of the vehicle, your only reply was to unlawfully request that I provide the driver's details, which I am under no obligation to do. As you are fully aware, there is no legal requirement for me to disclose the driver's identity to you, an unregulated private parking company.

Further, I have not received any formal appeal rejection or a POPLA code, as required by the BPA Code of Practice (CoP), section 23.6. Your obligation to issue a POPLA code following the rejection of an appeal has been ignored, and instead, you escalated the matter directly to a debt collection agency, ZZPS.

I therefore advise that you:

Provide verifiable proof that the appeal rejection and POPLA code were sent, including proof of posting or email delivery (with full email headers). Simply showing a copy of the rejection letter or email is not sufficient proof that it was sent.

If no such evidence can be provided, I expect you to either cancel the PCN or issue a rejection of the appeal, including the grounds for rejection and a POPLA code immediately as required for compliance with section 23.8 of the BPA CoP.

2. Breach of GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018

By failing to follow the correct appeals process, you have unlawfully passed my personal data to a third-party debt collection agency without completing the proper appeal procedure. This is a breach of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018, specifically regarding:

Unlawful Processing of Personal Data: You transferred my personal data to a third-party debt collector without a valid legal basis as the appeal process was incomplete.

Lack of Legitimate Interest: You had no lawful or legitimate reason to process my data in this way, given that the appeal was still ongoing.

Failure to Ensure Fair and Transparent Processing: You failed to ensure that my data was processed in a fair and transparent manner, and the premature transfer to a third party debt collector disregarded my right to a complete appeals process, including access to POPLA.

I now require:

Full disclosure of the personal data shared with the debt collection agency and the legal grounds on which you rely for such data sharing.

Immediate cessation of all further data processing related to this parking charge until the appeals process is properly completed.

Confirmation that my personal data has been removed from any third-party databases to which it has been transferred.

Failure to address this matter will result in a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for breach of GDPR, as well as to the BPA after I complete your internal complaint procedure.

I am also informing you that I reserve the right to initiate legal action for compensation under the Data Protection Act 2018 for the unlawful use of my personal data.

I expect your full response within 14 days, including the requested POPLA code and a thorough explanation of your data processing actions.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

Registered Keeper of Vehicle [vehicle registration number]

In response to my initial appeal as the registered keeper of the vehicle, your only reply was to unlawfully improperly request that I provide the driver's details, which I am under no obligation to do. As you are fully aware, there is no legal requirement for me to disclose the driver's identity to you, an unregulated private parking company.

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle [XXXX] and wish to appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by [Operator Name] based on the following four grounds:

1. The operator has failed to deliver a Notice To Keeper that is POFA compliant.
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver.
3. Lack of Adequate Signage – No Clear Notice of Parking Terms and Charges.
4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

1. The operator's Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with POFA 2012.

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by the operator fails to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Specifically, the NtK does not meet the mandatory criteria under Paragraph 9(2)(f), which states:

"The notice must warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid."

The NtK issued in this case lacks this essential warning, rendering it non-compliant with PoFA.

The inclusion of the phrase "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)" is critical. It means that all other requirements of Schedule 4 must be fully satisfied for the operator to have the right to recover the charge from the keeper. The operator has already admitted in their correspondence that they are not relying on PoFA to establish keeper liability (see attached evidence [XX]). This admission unequivocally confirms that they acknowledge the NtK does not meet the statutory requirements. Therefore, as a matter of law, the operator cannot hold the registered keeper liable for this parking charge.

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver.

Without compliance with PoFA, the registered keeper cannot be presumed to be the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. In fact, there is no legal basis for pursuing the registered keeper in this instance. The burden of proof rests squarely on the operator to establish that the person they are pursuing was the driver at the time of the alleged parking incident.

Persuasive appeals case law supports this position. In VCS v Edward 2023 [H0KF6], the court ruled that the burden is on the operator to prove that the individual being pursued was indeed the driver. In that case, it was determined that no assumptions or inferences could be made about the registered keeper's liability to overcome a failure to meet the requirements set out in PoFA. This principle applies directly to the present appeal, as the operator has provided no evidence to establish that I, as the registered keeper, was the driver on the date in question and there is absolutely no legal obligation on me to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company.

Therefore, as no assumptions or inferences can be made regarding the registered keeper's liability when the Notice to Keeper fails to comply fully with PoFA, POPLA should allow this appeal because the operator has no lawful right to pursue the registered keeper for the unpaid parking charge, and they have failed to demonstrate that the person being pursued was the driver.

3. Lack of Adequate Signage – No Clear Notice of Parking Terms and Charges.

The signage at the location in question does not meet the standards required to form a binding contract with drivers. For a parking charge to be enforceable, the signage must be clear, prominent, and easily readable so that motorists can understand the terms of parking. In this case, the signs do not comply with the requirements set out in both the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and the BPA Code of Practice.

3.1 Insufficient Notice of the Parking Charge
PoFA 2012 mandates that a driver must be given "adequate notice" of the parking charge, which is defined as signage that specifies the amount of the charge in a manner that is visible and readable to drivers from a distance. The signage at this location fails to meet this standard, as the £[sum] charge is written in a font that is too small and positioned in a way that is not easily noticeable. Motorists should not have to search for or strain to read the terms of parking. The signage must be displayed prominently, with the charge amount clearly visible to a driver as they enter the site and park.

The BPA Code of Practice, Section 18.3, further states that signs "must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand." This is not the case here, as the signs are difficult to read due to poor placement, small font size, and inadequate lighting, particularly during night-time or low-light conditions.

3.2 Lack of Prominence and Visibility of the Signs
The positioning of the signs is another significant issue. They are either too high, obscured by objects such as trees or other structures, or located in areas where drivers are unlikely to notice them while entering the car park or parking. This violates the BPA Code of Practice, which stipulates that entrance signs must "make it clear that the motorist is entering private land" and that terms and conditions should be displayed at a level and angle where they can be read without difficulty.

Photographs of the location (attached as evidence) demonstrate that the signage is not positioned in a manner that ensures visibility from all parking spaces or along the access route to the car park. In some cases, motorists may park without seeing a sign at all, meaning they are not given a fair opportunity to review the terms and decide whether to accept them.

3.3 Inadequate Lighting and Visibility During Low Light Conditions
The BPA Code of Practice, Section 18.4, emphasizes that signs must be "illuminated or have lighting which reflects off them if parking enforcement takes place at night or in poorly lit areas." At this location, there is insufficient lighting to ensure that the signs can be read during hours of darkness. In low light or adverse weather conditions, the signage fails to meet the visibility standards necessary to convey the parking terms effectively.

3.4 The Terms and Conditions Are Not Clearly Defined
Even if the signage were visible, the content itself does not provide clear and concise terms. The small print and excessive amount of text make it difficult for a driver to understand the parking terms at a glance. Important terms such as grace periods, payment methods, and restrictions are not prominently displayed, meaning that a motorist cannot be reasonably expected to understand the implications of parking at this site.

3.5 No Clear Indication of Contract Formation
For a contract to be formed, there must be a clear offer and acceptance, with the terms unequivocally communicated to the driver. In Vine v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2000] EWCA Civ 106, the court ruled that "drivers cannot be considered bound by terms on signage that they have not seen or had the opportunity to read." The inadequate signage in this case means there was no clear indication that the motorist was entering into a contract, and thus no agreement to pay the charge.

Conclusion
The operator has failed to provide adequate signage that meets the standards required to form a binding contract with the driver. Given the lack of visibility, prominence, and clarity of the signs, no reasonable person would have been made aware of the parking terms. Consequently, the appeal should be allowed on the basis that the signage does not comply with PoFA 2012 and the BPA Code of Practice, meaning no valid contract was formed.

4. No evidence of landowner authority.

The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires that an operator must have clear, written authorization from the landowner to issue parking charge notices and carry out enforcement. As the operator does not have proprietary interest in the land, I put them to strict proof to provide an unredacted copy of the original landowner contract. This contract must clearly set out the following:

• The definition of the land on which the operator may operate, specifying the boundaries where parking enforcement applies. This is essential to confirm that the area where the alleged contravention occurred is covered by the operator's authorization.

• The conditions and restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any limitations on hours of operation, charges, grace periods, or exemptions. This should also cover any restrictions on the types of vehicles that may be subject to enforcement.

• The responsibilities of each party, including who is responsible for maintaining signage and whether any exemptions, such as for "genuine customers" or "residents," apply.

• The effective date and duration of the agreement, indicating whether the contract is current and was valid on the date of the alleged parking incident. If the contract has since expired or has terms indicating it is void, the operator would have no standing to issue or pursue parking charges.

• The name and position of the signatories, confirming that the person who signed the contract has the authority to do so on behalf of the landowner.

Without an unredacted copy of the landowner agreement, the operator cannot prove that they were authorized to issue parking charge notices and enforce them on the date in question.

Mere witness statements or generic letters from the operator claiming they have authority are insufficient evidence. Witness statements often do not specify the site in question or detail any specific terms and conditions that apply, making them unreliable. The BPA Code of Practice explicitly states that operators must have written authority from the landowner, which must be kept on file and made available to POPLA if requested.

The need for such proof was highlighted in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where it was confirmed that a parking operator must be able to show that they have the authority to enter into contracts with drivers and issue parking charges. This case law supports the requirement that evidence of landowner authority is fundamental in determining whether the operator has a lawful basis to enforce a parking charge.

If the operator cannot provide an unredacted, dated, and signed copy of the landowner agreement showing all the terms outlined above, the appeal should be allowed because there would be no evidence of the operator's right to enforce charges on the land.

Conclusion: Grounds for Allowing the Appeal

In summary, I submit that this appeal should be allowed for the following reasons:

1. Non-compliance with PoFA 2012: The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to meet the statutory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, particularly Paragraph 9(2)(f). The operator's own admission confirms that they are not relying on PoFA to establish keeper liability, meaning they have no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper for the unpaid parking charge. Without full compliance with PoFA, liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper, and no assumptions can be made about who was driving at the time.

2. Failure to Identify the Driver: The operator has not provided any evidence showing that the person being pursued was the driver at the time of the alleged parking incident. Case law such as VCS v Edward establishes that the burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate the driver's identity, and without such evidence, the registered keeper cannot be held liable.

3. Inadequate Signage: The signage at the site is not sufficiently clear, visible, or legible to form a binding contract with drivers. The signs fail to comply with the requirements of PoFA 2012 and the BPA Code of Practice, meaning that no reasonable driver would have been aware of the parking terms or the charge being imposed. Poor placement, small font size, and inadequate lighting further contribute to the signage's insufficiency, making it impossible to conclude that a valid contract was formed.

4. Lack of Landowner Authority: The operator has not demonstrated that they have the authority to issue parking charges at this location. The BPA Code of Practice mandates that operators must possess a valid and enforceable agreement with the landowner. The operator has not provided any unredacted evidence of such an agreement, nor details proving that the necessary contractual terms were in place on the date of the alleged contravention.

Given the operator's inability to satisfy the legal requirements necessary to enforce this parking charge on all the grounds mentioned above, I urge POPLA to allow this appeal and cancel the Parking Charge Notice.