Free Traffic Legal Advice

POPLA Verification Code: [insert code]
Vehicle Registration Number (VRN): [insert VRN]
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Reference: [insert reference]
Operator Name: [insert operator]
Appellant Hirer: [Your Name, as the Hirer]
Appeal Reason: Non-compliance with Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 142(a)

I am appealing the above-referenced Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the hirer of the vehicle. The operator has failed to fully comply with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4, specifically Paragraph 14(2)(a), in relation to the transfer of liability from the vehicle-hire company to me, the hirer.

Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2)(a)

The Notice to Hirer (NtH) issued by Euro Car Parks does not comply with the mandatory requirements of PoFA 2012, Schedule 4. To hold me liable as the hirer, the operator must meet all the conditions set out in Paragraph 14(2)(a) of PoFA. This section explicitly states that the parking operator must include the following documents with the NtH:

A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time, the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
A copy of the hire agreement; and
A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under the hire agreement.
In this case, [operator name] did not provide any of the required documents with the NtH. Specifically:

• I did not receive a statement from the vehicle-hire firm confirming that the vehicle was on hire to me at the time of the alleged parking event.
• I did not receive a copy of the hire agreement.
• I did not receive a signed statement of liability from the hire agreement.

Consequences of Non-Compliance

PoFA 2012 is clear that if the parking operator does not meet all of these requirements, they cannot transfer liability for the alleged parking charge from the vehicle-hire company to the hirer. In this situation, they can only pursue the driver for the alleged parking charge.

The burden of proof lies entirely with the operator to demonstrate that the hirer was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. No assumptions or inferences can be made, and I, as the hirer, am under no legal obligation to disclose the driver’s identity to an unregulated private parking company. Without evidence to show that I was the driver, the operator has no basis to hold me liable.

Material Change to Terms and Conditions Without Notification

In addition to the operator's non-compliance with PoFA, ECP has also breached the requirements set out in Section 19.10 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP), which states:

"Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a motorist entering controlled land that is or has been open for public parking, you must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the change making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges."

The driver has been a regular, almost daily user of the car park for over 18 months. The PCNs were issued because a material change in the parking tariff was not adequately brought to the driver’s attention. ECP failed to provide any temporary signage to alert regular users of the change, despite the requirements of the BPA CoP. Regular users like the driver, who were familiar with the previous terms, could not reasonably be expected to notice the new conditions without proper notification.

I put ECP to strict proof that they complied with this requirement of the BPA CoP by producing dated photographs of the entrance signage and evidence that temporary notices were displayed for a period of at least 4 months from the date of the change.

Failure to provide such evidence should result in the PCN being cancelled due to non-compliance with the BPA CoP. Shown here is the difference between the original and the material change to the sign that caused the alleged breach of contract:



Conclusion

To summarise, the appeal is based on the following points:

1. The operator has failed to comply with PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2)(a), by not providing the required documents alongside the Notice to Hirer (NtH). Without these documents, liability cannot be transferred to the hirer, and the operator can only pursue the driver. As no evidence has been provided to show the driver’s identity, the PCN must be cancelled.

2. The operator has breached Section 19.10 of the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) by failing to notify regular users, including the driver, of a material change in the terms and conditions. The absence of temporary signage at the entrance of the car park for the required period renders the PCN invalid. ECP is put to strict proof that they complied with this requirement.
Given these significant failings, it is requested that POPLA upholds this appeal and instructs ECP to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.