Free Traffic Legal Advice

UKPC has failed to adequately rebut the points in my appeal, particularly regarding the lack of compliance with PoFA, inadequate signage, and failure to provide proper notice of the parking charge. This response details how UKPC has not addressed or satisfactorily answered the following:

1. Failure to Comply with PoFA – No Period of Parking Specified:
In my appeal, I stated that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a), which requires a period of parking to be specified. UKPC's response only provides a timestamp (01:54) but fails to specify a parking period. A single timestamp does not meet the statutory requirement for a "period of parking." UKPC has not addressed this key point and has failed to demonstrate compliance with PoFA on this issue.

2. Inadequate and Non-Compliant Signage – No Contract Formed:
I highlighted that the signage is prohibitory, stating "NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING," and thus does not form a valid contract under contract law. Furthermore, the terms and conditions, including the parking charge, are hidden in small text and not clearly visible. UKPC’s response merely states that the signage complies with the BPA Code of Practice, without addressing the issue of the prohibitory nature of the signage or the poor visibility of important terms. This does not rebut the fact that no contract could have been formed with the driver.

3. Ambiguity of Location – NtK Fails to Specify Exact Location:
I argued that the NtK fails to specify the exact location of the alleged contravention within Uplands Business Park, a large industrial estate with many areas, many of which have no signage. UKPC did not address this point in their response, providing no clarification on where within the business park the vehicle was allegedly parked. This is a clear failure to comply with PoFA’s requirement to specify the relevant land.

4. UKPC Must Provide Strict Proof of Driver Identity:
Since I am appealing as the registered keeper, UKPC must provide strict proof of the driver’s identity to hold the driver liable. UKPC has failed to provide any evidence or argument addressing the identity of the driver, yet continues to assert liability. This is a critical failure, as without such proof, UKPC cannot hold me, as the keeper, liable under PoFA.

5. Consideration Period – Ability to Locate and Understand Signage:
I pointed out that UKPC did not allow sufficient time for the driver to locate and read the signage, especially in the low-light conditions at the time of the alleged contravention. UKPC’s response cited BPA Code of Practice sections 13.2 and 13.6 to argue that no grace period is required once a parking event has occurred. However, they failed to address the requirement for a consideration period before a contract can be formed. Additionally, they did not address the issue of poor visibility of signage due to darkness.

6. Signage Comparison – Failure to Provide Prominent Notice of the Parking Charge:
The comparison image that was provided further demonstrates the issues with UKPC's signage compared to the ParkingEye sign, which was referenced in the Beavis case. The UKPC signage is prohibitory, stating "NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING" in large text, suggesting no invitation to park and thus no contract can be formed. Additionally, the £100 parking charge is buried in a block of small text, making it difficult for a driver to notice or understand. This contrasts sharply with ParkingEye’s signage, where the charge of £85 is prominently displayed in large, bold text, ensuring that the motorist is clearly informed of the cost of breaching parking terms.

7. Denning LJ’s "red hand rule" states that the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater notice must be given to it. A £100 parking charge is clearly an unreasonable term, and UKPC has failed to highlight it prominently. Instead, they bury it within dense text that a driver is unlikely to read, especially in low-light conditions, which was the case here. The signage from ParkingEye, shown in the comparison, provides a clear example of how terms should be communicated to motorists, with the parking charge clearly visible. UKPC’s failure to adequately notify the driver of the parking charge means no contract was formed.

8. Operator Contract Issues:
Additionally, UKPC has provided only a few heavily redacted pages of what they claim to be a contract between themselves and the managing agent of the site. However, there are several key issues with this evidence:

9. Missing Details on Automatic Renewals or Contract Extensions:
There is also no information in the contract provided about automatic renewals, rollovers, or any extensions of the original contract. The contract appears to have ended in 2019, and without evidence of a valid, current agreement, UKPC cannot rely on this document as proof of their ongoing authority to issue parking charges at this site.

10. No Evidence of Permission from the Landowner:
The few pages provided do not demonstrate any permission flowing from the landowner to the operator, which is required to prove that UKPC has the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices on this land. It is well established that a managing agent is not necessarily the landowner, and without evidence of the landowner’s explicit authorisation, the operator cannot prove their right to enforce parking on this land.

11. On this basis, the contract UKPC has provided is insufficient to demonstrate that they have the legal standing required to issue and pursue Parking Charge Notices at this location. Without clear evidence that UKPC has a valid and current contract with the landowner, the parking charge must be cancelled.

Given these failures, UKPC has not adequately rebutted the core issues of inadequate signage, lack of clear notice of the parking charge, and the failure to comply with PoFA. The parking charge must be cancelled.