Thanks b789.
I've looked through the forum and have found one similar case, albeit being to a hirer of a vehicle rather than NTK (actually at the same premises!).
Hence, having read through the appeal you guys provided and reading through Schedule 4 of the Protection of freedoms act 2012 (PoFA), I have put together the following - one thing to mention straight away is that I understand the relevant sections to me being sections 8 and 9 as a NtK - I have used the model wording from the previous appeal but cannot seem to identify a clear contravention of these 2 sections of the schedule hence have left a bracketed note within the wording of section 1 highlighting this point. The remainder of the argument is very much what it was for the previous appeal as it is the same contravention hence the same argument:
I am the keeper of the vehicle and am appealing against this Parking Charge Notice on the following grounds:
1. The Notice to keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
2. The allegation of “leaving the premises” is vague, unevidenced, and legally unenforceable
3. The signage is incapable of forming a contract for the alleged contravention
4. The operator is put to strict proof of signage near the vehicle and of any boundary warning signs
5. The operator is put to strict proof of landowner authority and contractual terms permitting PCNs for this alleged breach
1. The Notice to keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
As the operator is attempting to hold the keeper liable, they must comply with Paragraphs 8 and 9 of Schedule 4 of PoFA. They have failed to do so. The Notice to Keeper did not include the following mandatory enclosures:
(I have read through the 2 sections, 8 & 9 and cannot see an obvious contravention - please advise)
2. The allegation of “leaving the premises” is vague, unevidenced, and legally unenforceable
The operator alleges that “the occupants left McDonald’s premises” but provides no definition, evidence, or legal foundation for this claim. It is unclear whether this alleged restriction applies to:
• The driver only
• One or more passengers
• All occupants of the vehicle, including children
The operator has not defined what constitutes “the premises.” Is it the interior of the restaurant, the entrance, the boundary of the car park, or some other undefined area? There is no indication of what boundary was allegedly crossed or where any contractual tripwire supposedly lies. Without defining this in signage or evidence, the operator cannot assert that a breach occurred.
Moreover, the operator has not provided any evidence to support the claim that any person left the premises. There is no timestamped footage, no log of observations, no details of who supposedly left, when they did so, or what part of the site they entered. It is impossible to determine whether any breach occurred, or who is alleged to have caused it. A contractual term must be communicated clearly and be enforceable. Here, the term is so vague and unworkable that it fails to meet even the basic standards of contractual clarity.
The operator appears to believe it can hold the hirer liable for the movements of unnamed third parties, regardless of whether they are even aware of the terms. This is legally and factually unsustainable.
3. The signage is incapable of forming a contract for the alleged contravention
The signage at the site does not clearly state that all occupants must remain on the premises, nor does it define what the premises are. The signs are addressed to drivers and make no provision for warning passengers or other individuals that they will trigger a breach simply by walking beyond an undefined area. A contract must set out clear and prominent terms that can be understood by all parties. It is unreasonable and unenforceable to rely on obscure or implied conditions which are not communicated with sufficient clarity.
The operator is put to strict proof that the signage clearly stated that all occupants must remain on the premises, that the premises were defined, and that breach of this alleged term would result in a parking charge being issued.
4. The operator is put to strict proof of signage near the vehicle and of any boundary warning signs
The operator is required to provide evidence of the signage near the location where the vehicle was parked. It is not sufficient to provide generic sign images from elsewhere on the site. The operator must show that the vehicle was parked within sight of a sign that:
• Clearly defined the premises
• Made the alleged term about remaining on the premises clear
• Warned the driver that a charge would be issued if any occupant left the premises
If the operator is asserting that a boundary was crossed, they are also required to show that boundary and any sign or marking that warned a person under a contractual obligation that they were about to be in breach by crossing it. Without such signage and markers, no contractual term can be said to have been breached.
4. The operator is put to strict proof of landowner authority and contractual terms permitting PCNs for this alleged breach
The operator must produce a valid, unredacted contract with the landowner that allows them to issue parking charge notices at this site. A simple witness statement or letter is not sufficient. The contract must:
• Be signed by the landowner or authorised agent
• Authorise the operator to take legal action in their own name
• Include express permission to issue PCNs for “leaving the premises”
A general statement of authority does not prove that the operator has permission to issue PCNs for a breach as unusual and specific as an occupant allegedly leaving undefined premises. The burden is on the operator to prove that the landowner has agreed to this condition and has authorised them to enforce it.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, the operator has failed to meet the legal requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA, has failed to provide evidence of a breach, and has failed to prove that the signage is capable of forming a contract for the alleged contravention. They have also failed to evidence any boundary or warning signs and have not shown that they have the necessary landowner authority. I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and require the operator to cancel the parking charge.
Any additional comments, revisions are greatly appreciated - apologies, I am not an expert or experienced in this field whatsoever! I should also add that the images provided by MET show the signs within the car park but the text is illegible hence I am making some assumptions in section 3 above.
