Free Traffic Legal Advice

Third draft

Dear POPLA
I am writing to appeal the parking charge notice issued on the 5th February 2025 as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The appeal is on the following points.

1, Notice to Keeper is non compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012.
2, Notice to keeper is non compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012.
3, No evidence of Landowner Authority.
4, Breaches of  BPA CoP General Principles for ANPR.
5, Initial appeal not been addressed.
6, Royal Borough of Greenwich Car Park management Plan not being adhered to.
7, Inadequate Signage and Insufficient Notice of the sum of the Parking Charge


1. I draw your attention to the second paragraph on the front of the “notice” and the highlighted section.

"As we (the creditor do not know the drivers name or current postal address, you are now invited to either pay the charge, or if you were not the driver at the time, please provide us with the driver's full name and current postal address using the contact details overleaf, within 28 days and pass this Parking Charge to them. This Parking Charge is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act."

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant for the following reason:

Their wording is not compliant with the requirements of PoFA because they are required to give the Keeper 28 days starting from the day after the date the notice was given.

PoFA Wording Requirement (Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f))

“Warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given”.

In this case, the NtK wording suggests that the 28-day period does not have a start date. Their wording is not compliant therefore, irrespective of whether they have used correct PoFA wording elsewhere, the NtK does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA and therefore the Keeper cannot be liable.

2. Also their statement:
“We have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you”
is misleading and incorrect. They only have the right to recover the charge from the registered keeper if they fully comply with all the conditions of Schedule 4 of PoFA. They have not done so in this case. This deviation introduces confusion and does not match the strict requirements of PoFA. Horizon Parking’s NtK does not correctly convey that liability will only transfer to the keeper if specific PoFA conditions are met. The NtK's failure to use precise language, as PoFA mandates, further invalidates any keeper liability.

3. The pcn states that the alleged parking offence occurred at Millenium Retail Park. I cannot find such a place! In a simple search of google however the Millenium Leisure Park does come up. I am not sure of location of where it was actually parked therefore:

No evidence of Landowner Authority - 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 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 - such as any 'genuine
customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

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 authorised on the material date, 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 but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP 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.


4. The poor quality of the photographs give doubt to the veracity of the said photographs and the location, the driver may have entered, left and returned. There is ample evidence in the public domain that ANPR timings can mask other ordinary circumstances, such as two visits ('double dip', a well known phenomenon).

I ask Horizon to prove to POPLA that the CCTV and ANPR equipment that was specifically used for the alleged contravention are in alignment with the BPA CoP General Principles for ANPR and no cases of “double dip” visits have been reported for  this vehicle or any other reports by other vehicles at this site in this potential flaw in ANPR technology and a proper evidenced based search of the database has been carried out to rule out any such multiple entry. The following points are also required.

• Fit for purpose: approved technical design to comply with the relevant requirements and Acts of Parliament;
• Calibrated: calibration certificates for all components to be made available to POPLA to confirm they are current and relevant;
• Operator competency: Operator is competent and trained to use the equipment and also that the operator on the day was competent and converse with the Data Protection Act.

5. Horizon did not address my specific points in the first appeal  Horizon Parking has entirely ignored the central arguments relating to their non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), particularly the statutory wording required under Paragraph 9(2)(f) PoFA and the 28-day appeal deadline.

Instead of addressing these legal failures, they have simply trotted out a generic copy-and-paste response about signage and driver responsibility, completely sidestepping the substantive issues at hand. This demonstrates that Horizon has not engaged with the appeal in any meaningful way and instead relies on boilerplate responses to brush off valid challenges.
I expected Horizon to at least attempt a proper rebuttal of the points raised in my appeal. Instead, they have copy and pasted without even reading what was submitted. This demonstrates that Horizon has not acted in good faith in this appeal and is attempting to mislead both POPLA and the appellant by sidestepping the legal non-compliance issues.

6. With regard to the Submission of details pursuant to Clause 6.1 (Car Park Management Plan) of the Third Schedule of the S106 dated 9.12.2014 (Ref:13/3285/O) of the Royal Borough of Greenwich

I draw your attention to the enforcement of the car park.
https://planning.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=_GRNW_DCAPR_97196
Numbers 14 and 15 of the plan.

14. Vehicles that overstay will subsequently receive a warning letter through the post informing them that they have exceeded the five hour parking restriction.
15. Vehicles that ignore the initial warning letter and subsequently reoffend will be issued with a parking charge notice (PCN) through the post.
There has been no warning letter sent as stated in the Car Park management plan.

7. Inadequate Signage and Insufficient Notice of the sum of the Parking Charge

The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. There are no signs on entering the car park.

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) 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''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.
There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.
Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg
This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.
POPLA assessors are respectfully reminded that:
PoFA compliance must be absolute; partial or substantial compliance is insufficient to transfer liability to the Keeper.
This includes strict adherence to all prescribed wording, deadlines, and content requirements under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9.
Should the operator provide a copy of the NtK, the Appellant reserves the right to highlight any deficiencies or non-compliance in their response to the operator’s evidence.

The parking company has not met the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. The parking company can therefore only pursue the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As the parking company have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were I submit I am not liable to any charge.

4th draft  New evidence included

Dear POPLA

I am writing to appeal the parking charge notice issued on the 5th February 2025 as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The appeal is on the following points.

1, Notice to Keeper is non compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012.
2, Notice to keeper is non compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012.
3, Breaches of the private parking sector single Code of Practice.
4, ANPR
5, Royal Borough of Greenwich Car Park management Plan not being adhered to.


1. I draw your attention to the second paragraph on the front of the “notice” and the highlighted section.

"As we (the creditor do not know the drivers name or current postal address, you are now invited to either pay the charge, or if you were not the driver at the time, please provide us with the driver's full name and current postal address using the contact details overleaf, within 28 days and pass this Parking Charge to them. This Parking Charge is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act."

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant for the following reason:

Their wording is not compliant with the requirements of PoFA because they are required to give the Keeper 28 days starting from the day after the date the notice was given.

PoFA Wording Requirement (Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f))

“Warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given”.

In this case, the NtK wording suggests that the 28-day period does not have a start date. Their wording is not compliant therefore, irrespective of whether they have used correct PoFA wording elsewhere, the NtK does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA and therefore the Keeper cannot be liable.

2. Also their statement:
“We have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you”
is misleading and incorrect. They only have the right to recover the charge from the registered keeper if they fully comply with all the conditions of Schedule 4 of PoFA. They have not done so in this case. This deviation introduces confusion and does not match the strict requirements of PoFA. Horizon Parking’s NtK does not correctly convey that liability will only transfer to the keeper if specific PoFA conditions are met. The NtK's failure to use precise language, as PoFA mandates, further invalidates any keeper liability.

No Obligation to Identify the Driver

The NtK wording implies that Horizon Parking may pursue the keeper because the driver has not been identified. However, PoFA imposes no obligation on the keeper to identify the driver. As the registered keeper, I have chosen not to provide driver details, and there is no legal requirement for me to do so.

Without strict compliance with PoFA, Horizon Parking has no legal grounds to hold the keeper liable, regardless of whether the driver’s identity is disclosed.

Request for Strict Proof of Full Compliance with PoFA

Horizon Parking claims the right to hold the keeper liable under PoFA. I request that POPLA requires Horizon Parking to provide strict proof of compliance with all aspects of PoFA, not just selected parts. Horizon Parking must demonstrate that the NtK:
• States the mandatory 28-day period correctly, beginning the day after the notice is deemed served.

• Contains the precise wording mandated by Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f), regarding the conditions for holding the keeper liable.

• Complies with every other requirement in Schedule 4 of PoFA, as partial compliance is legally insufficient.

If Horizon Parking cannot demonstrate full compliance with PoFA, POPLA must conclude that there is no keeper liability in this case and the PCN must be cancelled.

3 Breaches of the private parking sector single Code of Practice.

There are no signs on the entrance to the parking area. The PPSCoP states:

3.1. Signs

3.1.1. An entrance sign must be displayed and maintained at the entrance to controlled land to inform drivers as appropriate whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions, including payment, or is prohibited.

Also Annex A
A.1.1              Signs at the entrance to a parking area must clearly show the type of parking available and if, when and how any payment is required to be made. If public parking is not welcomed, that must be made clear. If public parking is welcomed, but subject to a tariff, then the existence of the tariff must be made clear.

I enclose a picture of the entrance devoid of any signage.

3.1.4. Signs informing drivers that a parking charge may be applicable and of the level of that charge must do so in a font of comparable size and boldness to the main body text on the sign, and where included on signs also displaying the parking tariff a font no smaller than the tariff text/numbers.

As you can see from the picture of the sign the charge is not of comparable size to the main text of Maximum stay No return within 1 hour.

3.1.6. Signs must be designed and installed so as to be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions during which the controlled land may legitimately be accessed, at a height that takes account of whether the signs are intended to be viewed from the vehicle (including by headlight in the hours of darkness) or having left the vehicle by a driver on foot or in a wheelchair.

Annex A
A.3.2 Signs must always be readable and understandable, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times

The photo was taken at dusk any longer and the sign would be in complete darkness rendering it impossible to read and at such a height that it would not be even visible by headlight. The terms and conditions are written in such a small font size its impossible to read even in daylight.

3.1.3. Note 1 In larger areas of controlled land or premises, interim repeater signs may be used to display key information and direct drivers to where more comprehensive information can be found.

j) display the parking charge that the parking operator may apply for breaches of such terms and conditions as may apply in a large font;

I repeat that the font is not large. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. There are no signs on entering the car park.

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) 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''.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.
Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg
This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

4. The poor quality of the photographs give doubt to the veracity of the said photographs and the location, the driver may have entered, left and returned. There is ample evidence in the public domain that ANPR timings can mask other ordinary circumstances, such as two visits ('double dip', a well known phenomenon).

I ask Horizon to prove to POPLA that the CCTV and ANPR equipment that was specifically used for the alleged contravention are in alignment with the PPSCoP  General Principles for ANPR and no cases of “double dip” visits have been reported for  this vehicle or any other reports by other vehicles at this site in this potential flaw in ANPR technology and a proper evidenced based search of the database has been carried out to rule out any such multiple entry. The following points are also required.
• Fit for purpose: approved technical design to comply with the relevant requirements and Acts of Parliament;
• Calibrated: calibration certificates for all components to be made available to POPLA to confirm they are current and relevant;
• Operator competency: Operator is competent and trained to use the equipment and also that the operator on the day was competent and converse with the Data Protection Act.
5. With regard to the Submission of details pursuant to Clause 6.1 (Car Park Management Plan) of the Third Schedule of the S106 dated 9.12.2014 (Ref:13/3285/O) of the Royal Borough of Greenwich
I draw your attention to the enforcement of the car park.
https://planning.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=_GRNW_DCAPR_97196
Numbers 14 and 15 of the plan.
14. Vehicles that overstay will subsequently receive a warning letter through the post informing them that they have exceeded the five hour parking restriction.
15. Vehicles that ignore the initial warning letter and subsequently reoffend will be issued with a parking charge notice (PCN) through the post.
There has been no warning letter sent as stated in the Car Park management plan.
Horizon did not address my initial point in the first appeal  Horizon Parking has entirely ignored the central arguments relating to their non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), particularly the statutory wording required under Paragraph 9(2)(f) PoFA and the 28-day appeal deadline.

Instead of addressing these legal failures, they have simply trotted out a generic copy-and-paste response about signage which I have demonstrated is non compliant with PPSCoP and driver responsibility, completely sidestepping the substantive issues at hand. This demonstrates that Horizon has not engaged with the appeal in any meaningful way and instead relies on boilerplate responses to brush off valid challenges.
I expected Horizon to at least attempt a proper rebuttal of the points raised in my appeal. Instead, they have copy and pasted without even reading what was submitted. This demonstrates that Horizon has not acted in good faith in this appeal and is attempting to mislead both POPLA and the appellant by sidestepping the legal non-compliance issues.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

It's only a POPLA appeal. Even if unsuccessful, it is not binding and you do not need to pay. It has no bearing on anything going forwards.

I have taken the liberty of cleaning up your appeal and removed superfluous waffle about ANPR/CCTV which is irrelevant and will not be considered.

I am appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle. This appeal is based on the following grounds:

1. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is non-compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
2. The signage at the site is inadequate and breaches the requirements of the Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
3. Horizon Parking has not shown that it has the authority from the landowner to issue charges and enforce terms.
4. Horizon has failed to comply with the site-specific Car Park Management Plan imposed by the Royal Borough of Greenwich.
5. Horizon failed to address the points raised in my original appeal, relying on a generic rejection that ignored core legal issues.

1. The Notice to Keeper is not PoFA compliant.

The wording on the NtK does not comply with paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4. The law requires the notice to warn the keeper that if, after 28 days beginning with the day after the notice is given, the amount remains unpaid, the creditor may recover it from the keeper. Horizon’s NtK omits this clear statutory wording and instead issues a vague and ambiguous invitation without correctly setting out the 28-day period or the conditions under which keeper liability arises.

Furthermore, the statement: “We have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you” is misleading. Horizon only has that right if they comply with all of PoFA Schedule 4, which they have failed to do.

There is also no legal requirement for a keeper to identify the driver. The NtK wrongly implies this is necessary.

As the NtK fails to meet the requirements of PoFA, Horizon cannot transfer liability to the keeper, and the charge must be cancelled.

2. The signage at the site is inadequate and non-compliant with the Code of Practice.

There is no signage at the entrance to the car park, in breach of section 3.1.1 of the Private Parking Code of Practice. This means no contract could have been formed upon entry. There is also no prominent display of the parking charge amount. The signs are difficult to read, especially at dusk, and the font used for the charge is significantly smaller than other information, contrary to section 3.1.4.

Photos provided show the sign is not legible in low lighting and does not meet the requirements for visibility, prominence, or adequate notice as defined in PoFA Schedule 4 and PPSCoP.

In ParkingEye v Beavis, the Supreme Court noted that the signs in that case were large, prominent, and clearly displayed the charge in large bold font. Horizon’s signs fall well short of this standard.

3. Horizon has not shown landowner authority.

I request that Horizon provide POPLA with a full and unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner. This contract must show that Horizon has the authority to issue charges, pursue unpaid charges in court, and enforce the terms and conditions. This is required under the Code of Practice, and in the absence of such evidence, the appeal must be upheld.

4. Breach of the Royal Borough of Greenwich Car Park Management Plan.

The site is subject to a Section 106 agreement with the Royal Borough of Greenwich (Ref: 13/3285/O), which states:

“14. Vehicles that overstay will subsequently receive a warning letter.” “15. Vehicles that ignore the initial warning and subsequently reoffend will be issued with a PCN.”

No warning letter was issued in this case. Horizon’s enforcement is in direct breach of the approved Car Park Management Plan and thus lacks lawful basis.

5. Horizon failed to address the core points raised in my appeal.

My initial appeal raised the PoFA non-compliance, absence of entrance signage, and breaches of planning conditions. Horizon failed to engage with any of these issues and instead sent a generic response that focused solely on signage and driver responsibility. This shows Horizon has not acted in good faith and has attempted to sidestep the central legal issues.

For all the reasons stated above, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and instruct Horizon Parking to cancel the PCN.

If anyone else has the time of inclination to improve the POPLA appeal, please feel free to do so.

Hi all

Received a reply from popla with the operator case summary

Doesn't really address the within 28 days issue.

The photos are from 2018-2019 and none of the entrance to car park from Bugsbys way. Not mentioned the ones I provided at the entrance which show no signs.

They state that the appellant arrived before dusk so could read them, but fail to address the font size.

Not sure of their reply to the car park management plan "In response to Point 4, Horizon Parking is a private parking company and has nothing to do with the Royal Borough of Greenwich".

The planning permission had to have been done by the borough in order for it to be passed?

I enclose the pdf

I have 7 days to reply

Cheers




[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Hopefully this works!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S_PDD0xKNGYdVx4bPd-471lhXGYYuIIV/view?usp=sharing

Excellent thanks will use as reply

Absolutely not. Why do you want to do their job for them?

A reply

unsuccessful


Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for exceeding the maximum stay period.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds, which have been summarised: • The notice to keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as the operator issues a vague and ambiguous invitation without stating the 28 day period or the conditions under which keeper liability arises • The statement that they have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge is misleading as they only have the right if they comply with all of Schedule 4, which they have failed to do so • The notice to keeper wrongly implies that it is necessary to identify the driver, as there is no legal requirement • The signage is inadequate and non-compliant with the Code of Practice and there is no prominent display of the parking charge amount • The signs are difficult to read, especially at dusk, and the font used for the charge is significantly smaller than other information • The operator has not shown that they have landowner authority to issue PCN’s and requires a full, unredacted copy of the contract • they have breached the Royal Borough of Greenwich Car Park Management Plan as no warning letter has been issued • the operator sent a generic response and failed to engage with the issue or address the core points raised After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence pack, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal in further detail regarding PoFA 2012, signage, landowner authority, the management plan and the operators response to their appeal. The appellant has provided images of the entrance and the sign as evidence towards their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The appellant says that the notice to keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as the operator issues a vague and ambiguous invitation without stating the 28 day period or the conditions under which keeper liability arises. The statement that they have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge is misleading as they only have the right if they comply with all of Schedule 4, which they have failed to do so. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to 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. As the driver has not been identified on the date of the contravention, I am considering keeper liability and will ensure that the Parking Charge Notice issued complies with Section 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. After reviewing the Notice to Keeper document supplied within the operator’s evidence, I can see that the keeper was invited to supply the driver details to the operator within the 28-day period, beginning with the day after that on which the notice was issued. As this information has not been supplied, then the operator reserves the right to pursue the keeper of the vehicle. In accordance, I will be considering keeper liability for this charge. The notice to keeper wrongly implies that it is necessary to identify the driver, as there is no legal requirement. Section (2) (e) of PoFA 2012 states, ‘’state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;’’. Upon review of the PCN, I can see that this states, ‘’As we (the creditor) do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, you are now invitied to either pay the charge, or if you were not the driver at the time, please provide us with the driver’s full name and current postal address using the contact details overleaf within 28 days and pass this Parking Charge to them’’. As the required information has been provided, I am satisfied that this complies with PoFA 2012. The appellant says that the signage is inadequate and non-compliant with the Code of Practice and there is no prominent display of the parking charge amount. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.2 of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. In this case, the parking operator’s evidence shows that an entrance sign is present within an appropriate place and makes clear that terms are applicable. Section 19.3 states that parking operators need to have signage that clearly set out the terms. After reviewing the signage provided by both parties, I can see that these clearly state that terms are applicable. Bold text makes it clear that the maximum stay is 5 hours and any breaches would result in a £70 PCN being issued. The parking operator has also provided a site map and multiple images which show that signs are placed throughout site ensuring that motorists can review. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the signage complies with the Code of Practice. I note that the appellant says that the signs are difficult to read, especially at dusk, and the font used for the charge is significantly smaller than other information. Appendix B talks about signs being always readable and understandable, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. Within the operator’s evidence, I can see signs that are located either on or within close proximity of a lighting pole, ensuring that they are visible in hours of dusk. As the ANPR pictures on the PCN show that the driver had their headlights on at the time of the contravention, which would have provided additional visibility. I am therefore satisfied that the signage would have been visible during the hours of darkness and the appellant had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before entering the contract, in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice, Appendix B. I note that the appellant states the amount of the charge was not appropriately brought to their attention. The appeal reasons raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage itself. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the legibility of the signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable. The appellant says that the operator has not shown that they have landowner authority to issue PCN’s and requires a full, unredacted copy of the contract. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this case, the document supplied by the operator shows that they have sufficient authority to issue PCN’s on the site in question. The appellant states that the operator has breached the Royal Borough of Greenwich Car Park Management Plan as no warning letter has been issued. However, POPLA assess all appeals with the relevant code of practice. Therefore, the Royal Borough of Greenwich Car Park Management Plan would not make a material difference to the outcome of the decision. The appellant says that the operator sent a generic response and failed to engage with the issue or address the core points raised. POPLA’s role is to determine whether the PCN was issued correctly. It is not within POPLA’s remit to comment on nor investigate the operator’s appeal process or any customer service issues. Any further dissatisfaction regarding this will need to be raised with the parking operator directly. Within their comments to the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds for appeal in further detail. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s comments, as I have already addressed these grounds as part of my assessment, such comments have no bearing on POPLA’s outcome. As such, I have no further comments to make about these grounds at this stage. Based on the evidence provided by both parties towards the appeal, I am satisfied that a breach occurred as the driver exceeded the maximum stay. I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly and therefore, the appeal is refused.