Free Traffic Legal Advice

It must have changed since you were last there.

If you look at the pictures I took of the signage you can see Dreams and KFC in the background.

The driver has assured me that they didn’t cut any locks to get in there nor were they locked in afterwards.

Dear Sirs,

I have just received your Notice to Keeper XXXXXXXXXXX for vehicle VRM XXXXXXX.

As your notice fails to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, namely the requirement to invite the keeper to pay the charge listed under section 9(2)(e)(i), you cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.

Yours,

My appeal is based on several grounds which I believe demonstrate that the PCN was issued unfairly and should be cancelled. The primary points of my appeal are as follows:

1. Failure to Fully Comply with the Requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA):
   The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by ECP does not fully comply with the requirements set out in PoFA. Specifically, PoFA 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii) outline the need for the notice to adequately inform the keeper about the charge, which ECP's NtK fails to do.

2. Lack of Evidence that the Individual Being Pursued is the Driver:
   The operator has not provided any evidence that the individual who is being pursued is the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge. Without such evidence, liability cannot be established.

3. Inadequate Signage:
   The signage at the location is insufficient to provide adequate notice to the driver of the terms and conditions, including the £100 charge. The photograph of the sign shows that the charge notification is tiny compared to the rest of the text. This does not meet the "adequate" notice requirement as outlined in PoFA and as seen in the precedent set by the Beavis case. The comparison between the signage in the Beavis case and the ECP sign clearly shows the latter's inadequacy.

   Furthermore, on the day in question, The driver stopped to get food from a fast food restaurant across the road and was unaware of the 10-minute parking restriction due to the inadequate signage. The small and poorly positioned signs did not adequately inform them of the parking restrictions in place.

4. No Evidence of Landholder Authority:
   ECP has not provided any evidence that they have the authority from the landholder to issue PCNs and pursue charges. This is a critical requirement that must be fulfilled to validate the enforcement of parking charges.

5. Failure to Comply with BPA Code of Practice (CoP) General Principles for ANPR:
   If there are any inaccuracies or failures in the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system, ECP is in breach of the BPA CoP. ECP must ensure that their systems are accurate and fair, which I believe is not the case here.

6. Failure to Display the Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) Logo:
   The signage does not display the AOS logo as required by the BPA CoP. This is a clear breach of the guidelines set by the British Parking Association and further invalidates the PCN.

I trust that you will consider the above points carefully and uphold my appeal. The lack of compliance with PoFA and BPA CoP, inadequate signage, and absence of proof of landholder authority all demonstrate that the PCN was issued unfairly.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your favorable response.

• It's clearly a template with some relevant details chucked in
• The sample PCN they supplied is completely different to the one I actually received
• The copy of the PCN they sent me isn't a copy, it is slightly different in format/font, I guess they recreated it rather than copied in the actual one
• Probably not relevant but their images quite clearly show that at least some of their signs are in breach of the 1.9 metre minimum listed in the contract
• Don't think this means anything but it's a bizarre coincidence that today is the 5th anniversary of them taking control of the car park (says it auto-renews every 5 years)

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal.
• This PCN was issued unfairly.
• The operator has failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The operator has failed to outline the need for the notice to adequately inform the keeper about the charge, as per PoFA 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii).
• The operator has not provided any evidence that the individual who is being pursued is the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge. Without such evidence, liability cannot be established.
• The driver stopped to get food from a fast-food restaurant across the road and was unaware of the 10-minute parking restriction due to inadequate signage.
• The signage does not display the AOS logo as required by the BPA Code, further invalidating the PCN.
• The signage at the location is insufficient to provide adequate notice to the driver of the terms and conditions, including the £100 charge. This does not meet the "adequate" notice requirement as outlined in PoFA and as seen in the precedent set by the Beavis case, as the charge notification is tiny compared to the rest of the text on the sign.
• There is no evidence the operator has the authority from the landholder to issue PCNs and pursue charges.
• If there are any inaccuracies or failures in the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) system, ECP is in breach of the BPA Code of Practice as they must ensure their systems are accurate and fair. They believe this is not the case here. The appellant has provided images of signage. This has been considered in my determination. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their case. They have said the operator has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate full compliance with Schedule 4 of PoFA. The copy of the NTK that was allegedly sent to them differs significantly from what they actually received.

Additionally, the sample provided in the evidence pack bears no resemblance to the NTK they received, raising concerns about the validity and accuracy.

While Euro Car Parks has provided photographs of their signs and a map of their locations, they have not adequately addressed the issue of the signage's inadequacy. The quantity of signs is not in question; rather, it is the clarity and prominence of the signage that is lacking. In contrast to the case in Parking Eye v Beavis (2015), where the charge amount was clearly highlighted in a large font within a box of a contrasting colour, the signage in this instance fails to meet those standards. The parking charge amount is not sufficiently visible, making the signage inadequate and unclear.

The appellant has said the landowner contract presented contains scanned signatures, but there is no way to verify that these signatures pertain to the contract in question, nor is there proof that the contract itself is genuine or complete. The provided documentation is inadequate and, if inaccurate, could constitute misrepresentation.

They have said the operator’s response consists of general statements about the reliability of real-time clocks without offering concrete proof of the accuracy of their ANPR cameras or addressing the potential for false positives. The absence of such evidence calls into question the reliability of the data collected by their ANPR system.

The appellant has also said the operator has not responded to not displaying the Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) logo.


Assessor supporting rational for decision

In this case, I am not satisfied the driver at the time in question has been identified. The Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper if the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators must follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver and by issuing the PCN to be received within the required timescale. I acknowledge the appellant has said the notice to keeper (NTK) the operator says they issued and the sample they have provided does not represent what they received.

At POPLA, we accept all evidence from both parties in good faith, and unless proven otherwise, we assume it to be correct. Within their case file the operator has provided a copy if the NTK they issued to the appellant on 10 May 2024. The date of the parking event was 1 May 2024, therefore this was sent to be delivered within the relevant period of 14 days starting from the day after the contravention. In this case, the NTK needed to be delivered by 15 May to comply, and a notice sent by post is to be presumed to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted. In this case this would be 14 May. This NTK also states, “If you were not the driver at the time the Parking Charge Notice was issued, please provide full name and address of the driver in writing and pass the notice on to the driver…If after 28 days beginning with the day after than on which this notice is given, the Parking Charge Notice has not been paid in full, we may pursue you for any Parking Charge amount that remains unpaid”.

Therefore, as it has not been shown otherwise, I am satisfied the PCN in question has the necessary information and it was issued to be delivered within the relevant period and therefore the parking operator has successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal.

The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions. The signage at this site states there is a 10-minute maximum stay allowed 21:00 hours to 08:30 hours. It also states if the terms and conditions are breached a PCN for £100 can be issued. The parking operator has provided details from its system to show the appellants vehicle was on site for 24 minutes from 21:28 until 21:52.

I acknowledge the appellant has raised landowner authority in their appeal and they have said the landowner contract presented contains scanned signatures, and the documentation is inadequate and, if inaccurate, could constitute misrepresentation. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question. This can come in the form of a witness statement under Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice or a full contract. In this case the operator has provided a copy of its agreement with the landowner. This can be seen starting on page 17 of the evidence pack. This is a witness statement and therefore is not required to contain all of the information a contract would. This states the services to be provided by the parties full detailed in the agreement will run from 12 August 2019 on a 5-year automatic renewal. I am satisfied the signatures on the document are sufficient and therefore that the operator had sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event.

I acknowledge the appellant has raised the accuracy of the cameras on site, and they have said the operator has not provided proof of their accuracy. The site in question is automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) camera operated. Every accessible entry and exit point to this car park is managed by a camera which takes an infrared image of the vehicle registration as it passes by. The motorist’s length of stay on site is then calculated from the point of entry to the point of exit and this is checked to determine whether the vehicle complied with the terms and conditions of the site. Independent research has found that ANPR technology is generally reliable. As I accept there is the possibility for inaccuracies, I am happy to accept any evidence that suggests the appellant’s vehicle was elsewhere for this duration of time. However, as the appellant has not provided evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I will work on the basis that the technology is accurate, and the appellants vehicle was on site for the time stated by the operator.

In their appeal the appellant has said the signage on site is not sufficient. They have said the driver stopped to get food from a fast-food restaurant across the road and was unaware of the 10-minute parking restriction. When parking on private land, the parking contract is between the motorist and the operator through the terms on its signs. Section 19.2 of the BPA Code states parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land, and Section 19.3 says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms within the site. In this case the parking operator has provided a site map and images which show the signs situated throughout the site, including at the site entrance. The appellant has also provided an image of an entrance sign and a sign within the site with their appeal. I am satisfied the driver would have passed the entrance sign when entering the site and this was sufficient to inform them they were entering private land and parking restrictions applied. It was then their responsibility to seek out the signage within the site to read the terms and conditions. The terms on the signs within the site clearly state there is a 10-minute maximum stay allowed 21:00 hours to 08:30 hours. As it has not been shown otherwise, I am satisfied the terms were clearly demonstrated throughout the site at the time in question.

The appellant has said the operator’s signage does not contain the AOS logo as required by the BPA Code. However this can be seen on the inside of the white capital P that is in a blue box at the top of the entrance sign image provided by both the appellant and the operator. It is also at the bottom of the signs within the site, on the blue section, right-hand side.

The appellant has also said the adequate notice of the charge requirement as outlined in PoFA, and as seen in the precedent set by the Beavis case, has not been complied with as the charge notification is tiny compared to the rest of the text on the sign. Referring to PoFA 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii). Section 2(2) states “The reference in the definition of “parking charge” to a sum in the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to drivers of vehicles (when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land)”. Section 2(3) (b) states, “Where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which— (i)specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii)are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land”. Section 19.4 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “If you intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, your signs must give ’adequate notice’. This includes: • specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking • adequately bringing the charges to the attention of drivers, and • following any applicable government signage regulations”. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage. In this case, both the operators and the appellants images of the signs within the site show the consequence of not complying with the terms and conditions on site is not in one of the smaller font sizes on the sign. I appreciate it may not be the largest, but I am satisfied it is displayed in one of the largest. Capital blue letters are used on a yellow background and the £100 is in bold text. Therefore I am satisfied this stands out and is brought adequately to the attention of motorists. The entrance signage is not required to display this, its role is only to inform motorists they are entering private land and parking restrictions apply. Ultimately, it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of that site.

After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver overstayed the maximum time allowed, and therefore they did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal. I appreciate how the appellant feels about the PCN but any motorist that was to park in the car park and not comply with the terms and conditions would be issued with a charge. As the driver did not park in line with the terms, I do not agree they have been treated unfairly. Any questions relating to payment of the charge should be directed to the operator.