Free Traffic Legal Advice

POPLA Ref: [Insert POPLA Ref]
ParkingEye PCN Ref: [Insert PCN Number]
VRN: [Insert Vehicle Registration Number]

Appeal Summary:

1. Failure to comply with PoFA paragraph 2(2).
2. Failure to comply with PoFA paragraph 2(3).
3. Failure to comply with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(c).
4. Failure to comply with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
5. Appellant not being the individual liable.
6. Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention.
7. Non-compliant signage.
8. Lack of standing/authority from landowner.

1. Failure to comply with PoFA paragraph 2(2).

PoFA paragraph 2(2) requires that 'adequate notice' of the parking charge be given to drivers. This means the parking operator must ensure that the terms and conditions of parking, including the existence of a parking charge, are clearly communicated through prominently displayed and legible signage.

In this case, ParkingEye has failed to provide adequate notice as required under PoFA. The specific deficiencies include the following:

No clear signage at the entrance:

• There were no prominent signs at the entrance of the premises to indicate that drivers were entering private land subject to specific parking terms and conditions.
• The PPSCoP (Section 2.3) requires operators to ensure that entrance signs are clear and visible to drivers as they enter the parking area. ParkingEye has not provided evidence of compliance with this requirement.

No visible signs at the location where the vehicle was parked:

• There is no evidence that any signage was present in the immediate vicinity of where the vehicle was allegedly parked. Without clear and visible signage at or near the parking location, the driver could not have been aware of any terms, conditions, or potential parking charge.
• The PPSCoP (Section 2.4) requires that parking terms be clearly displayed on signs within the parking area so that drivers can review them before deciding to park. ParkingEye has failed to demonstrate that such signage existed at this location or that it was sufficiently clear.

No signs along the route to the entrance of the premises:

• Even if signage exists elsewhere, ParkingEye has failed to demonstrate that the terms were communicated along the route taken by the vehicle to the entrance. Without sufficient signage along the route, drivers have no opportunity to understand the parking terms before deciding to park.

Inadequate content and positioning of signage:

• If any signage exists, it is insufficient in size, clarity, or content to meet the standards of 'adequate notice.' For example:

• The text may be too small to be read from a driver's position within a vehicle.
• The signs may be poorly lit or placed in locations that are not immediately visible to drivers, particularly given that the alleged contravention occurred at night (23:26).
• The terms and conditions, including the parking charge amount, are often buried in small text, contrary to the PPSCoP (Section 2.4), which requires parking charges to be prominently displayed and clearly legible to drivers.

Without visible, clear, and prominent signage communicating the terms and conditions, ParkingEye cannot claim that the driver was given adequate notice of the parking charge. Consequently:

• No contract could have been formed with the driver. A contract requires clear terms that the driver must knowingly agree to. Without adequate signage, there was no opportunity for the driver to review or accept these terms.
• No liability can be transferred to the registered keeper. PoFA relies on compliance with its strict requirements to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. ParkingEye's failure to meet the notice requirements in paragraph 2(2) invalidates any attempt to hold the registered keeper liable.

ParkingEye has failed to provide any evidence demonstrating compliance with PoFA paragraph 2(2), and therefore, this appeal should be upheld.

2. Failure to comply with PoFA paragraph 2(3).

Paragraph 2(3) of PoFA clarifies that 'adequate notice' means signs must:

• Clearly specify the parking charge.
• Be positioned so that the charge is brought to the attention of drivers.

In this case, ParkingEye did not display sufficient signage to meet this requirement. The signage is inadequate, illegible, and fails to inform drivers of the terms in a clear and conspicuous manner.

Specifically, there is no evidence that the parking charge amount was prominently displayed in a font size or position that could be reasonably read by a driver from their vehicle. If the charge was buried within dense terms and conditions or displayed in small print, this would fail to meet the standard of 'adequate notice' required by PoFA. Furthermore, signs placed at poor angles, in unlit areas, or obscured by objects would further hinder their visibility and accessibility to drivers.

Without clear, prominent signage that specifies the parking charge and draws the driver's attention to the terms, ParkingEye cannot demonstrate compliance with PoFA paragraph 2(3), nor can they establish that a valid contract was formed with the driver.

3. Failure to comply with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(c).

PoFA paragraph 9(2)(c) requires the Notice to Keeper (NtK) to describe:

• How the parking charge arose.
• How the requirement to pay was brought to the attention of the driver.

In this case, ParkingEye's NtK fails to meet these requirements. The NtK does not adequately explain the circumstances that led to the parking charge or provide sufficient detail about how the terms and conditions were communicated to the driver.

Given ParkingEye's failure to provide adequate notice as defined in paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3), the NtK fails to establish the link between the alleged breach and the terms displayed on signage. Without this crucial information, the NtK does not comply with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(c). It leaves the registered keeper unable to understand the basis for the charge or verify whether the driver was made aware of the parking terms.

This omission is a fundamental failure in compliance, further invalidating ParkingEye's claim against the registered keeper.

4. Failure to comply with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).

Under Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include a specific invitation to the keeper to pay the charge. This requirement serves to ensure that the keeper understands their liability and has a clear course of action.

The operator cannot simply rely on the fact that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is addressed to the Keeper to satisfy Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of PoFA. The law explicitly requires a clear and specific invitation for the keeper to either:

• Pay the parking charge, or
• Provide the name and address of the driver (if the keeper was not the driver).

This is not an "implied" requirement; it must be explicitly stated. Merely inferring that the keeper is invited to pay because the notice is addressed to them does not meet the strict wording requirements of PoFA.

PoFA compliance requires specific wording. The law’s intention is to make the responsibilities of the Keeper clear and unambiguous. Phrases like "you are invited to pay this parking charge" or "you are required to do X, Y, Z" are examples of wording that PoFA expects.

If the notice only says, for example, "the charge must be paid" or "payment is required" without directly inviting the keeper to pay, this is insufficient under PoFA. The wording must link the keeper directly to the payment obligation in an unambiguous way.

The operator cannot claim keeper liability under PoFA if they fail to meet the explicit requirements of 9(2)(e)(i). This is a valid appeal (and defence) point, as courts and independent adjudicators should not rely on implied obligations instead of explicit compliance with statutory requirements.

Additionally, the NtK fails to adequately explain how the parking charge arose and how the requirement to pay was brought to the attention of the driver. ParkingEye has not demonstrated that clear terms were available or visible at the site.

5. Appellant not being the individual liable.

Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), the operator may only hold the registered keeper liable for an unpaid parking charge if they fully comply with all the requirements outlined in Paragraph 9. As demonstrated in Sections 1 to 4 above, the NtK issued by ParkingEye is non-compliant with PoFA

Since the operator has not complied with PoFA Schedule 4, they cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper.

I put the operator to strict proof that:

• They have fully complied with all the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4, allowing them to transfer liability to the registered keeper.
• The person being pursued (the registered keeper) was, in fact, the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged contravention.

There is no presumption in law that the registered keeper was the driver. In VCS v. Edward [2023], it was ruled that the operator must provide sufficient evidence to prove that the registered keeper and the driver are the same person. Without such evidence, the registered keeper cannot be held liable for the charge.

Without evidence of the driver’s identity and given the clear PoFA non-compliance, the operator has no lawful basis to pursue me, the registered keeper, for this charge.

6. Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention.

The evidence provided by ParkingEye consists solely of ANPR images capturing the vehicle entering and exiting the car park. While ANPR establishes time on site, it does not provide any evidence of where within the car park the vehicle was parked.

ParkingEye has failed to provide:

• Any proof of the specific location where the vehicle was parked within the car park.
• Any evidence demonstrating that the driver passed any signage displaying the parking terms and conditions on their way from the vehicle to the entrance of the premises they were visiting.

The registered keeper contends that the driver did not pass any such signs, meaning they were not given any opportunity to read or accept the terms of parking. Without evidence confirming the exact location of the vehicle in relation to signage, ParkingEye cannot establish that the terms and conditions were adequately brought to the driver’s attention.

As a result, ParkingEye has not sufficiently evidenced that a contravention occurred, and this appeal must be upheld.

7. Non-compliant signage.

The signage at the car park does not meet the requirements set out in the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which mandates that signage must be clear, legible, and positioned in a way that ensures drivers are properly informed of the terms and conditions before they park.

In this case, ParkingEye has failed to meet these fundamental requirements for contract formation. Specifically:

• The terms and conditions are not prominently displayed nor clearly legible.

• Signs must be placed in locations where drivers can easily read them before committing to parking. If the text is too small, obscured, or positioned in areas that drivers are unlikely to notice, it fails to meet the requirements of the PPSCoP.
• ParkingEye has not provided evidence that the signage was positioned in such a way that it was readable from the vehicle’s parking location or along the route taken by the driver.

• The parking charge amount is not visible at a glance and is buried in small text.

• The PPSCoP requires that the core terms, including the parking charge amount, be prominent and easy to read. If this information is buried within a large block of text or printed in a font size that is too small, it does not constitute ‘adequate notice’ as required under PoFA and the PPSCoP.

• There is no evidence that signage is adequately illuminated or visible at night, despite the alleged contravention occurring at 23:26.

• The PPSCoP states that signage must be readable under all conditions, including low-light environments. If the site is not adequately lit, ParkingEye must provide evidence that its signage is illuminated or designed with high-contrast reflective materials to remain visible at night.
• ParkingEye has provided no proof that signage at this location meets these visibility standards.

Since signage forms the basis of any alleged parking contract, and ParkingEye has not demonstrated that the driver was provided with clear and sufficient notice of the terms, no contract was formed. Consequently, no liability can arise from the alleged breach, and this appeal must be upheld.

8. Lack of standing/authority from landowner.

The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.

The operator is also put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant 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 including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. 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 also authorised 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.


Conclusion:
ParkingEye has failed to demonstrate compliance with PoFA 2012, BPA or the new joint BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice, or basic evidentiary standards. They have not established keeper liability or proven the alleged contravention.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and instruct ParkingEye to cancel this Parking Charge Notice.

The operator’s evidence pack contains a fundamental flaw that renders their case invalid. The most glaring and obvious flaw is that the operator has not provided evidence of a valid contract flowing from the landowner or their agent at the time of the alleged contravention, 13th December 2024.

1. Lack of Standing / Authority from Landowner

The contract provided by ParkingEye originally commenced on 30th August 2016 and was valid for 24 months, expiring on 29th August 2018. There were no automatic renewal terms, meaning the contract ceased to exist on that date.

The operator then attempts to rely on an "amendment" to this already expired contract, dated 13th September 2021 and signed on 16th September 2021, which states a 36-month term from an undefined "effective date". Even if the latest signature date of 16th September 2021 is assumed as the effective date, this amendment expired on 15th September 2024. The alleged contravention occurred on 13th December 2024, three months after this amendment had expired.

The fact that signage may have remained in situ does not mean that ParkingEye had authority to operate or issue Parking Charge Notices at this location. A contract is a legally binding agreement between parties that sets out the terms of engagement. If the contract has expired, then the operator no longer has legal authority to issue Parking Charge Notices, regardless of whether signs are still in place.

It is not enough for the operator to claim they had permission; they must provide a contract that explicitly confirms they were authorised to issue and enforce Parking Charges on the date of the alleged contravention. Without a valid, in-force contract, ParkingEye had no lawful authority to issue this charge, and as such, the appeal must be upheld.

In addition to the contractual failure, ParkingEye has failed to rebut multiple points raised in the original appeal.

2. Failure to Comply with PoFA Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)

The operator is required to provide "adequate notice" of the parking charge through clear and visible signage. The evidence they have submitted does not prove this. The only photos of the signage are dated 28th September 2021, more than three years before the alleged contravention. There is no proof that these signs were still in place, still visible, or even still enforceable in December 2024. The operator has not provided any contemporaneous evidence to confirm that the signage was in the same condition, in the same locations, or even present at all at the time of the alleged contravention.

The operator has also included two computer-generated images of signs, which appear to be stock images, rather than actual photographs taken at the site. Stock images are not valid proof of the signage conditions on the date of the alleged contravention. They provide no confirmation of where the signs were located, whether they were illuminated, or whether they were legible at night. As the alleged contravention occurred at 23:26, the operator must provide evidence that the signage was adequately lit and could be read by a driver in the dark. They have failed to do so.

The failure to provide recent, site-specific photographic evidence means the operator has not met their burden of proof. If the driver could not see or read the terms, then no contract could have been formed, and no parking charge can be enforced.

3. Failure to Comply with PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(c)

PoFA requires that the Notice to Keeper must explain how the parking charge arose and how the requirement to pay was brought to the attention of the driver. The operator has not addressed this point in their evidence pack. They have provided no evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge amount was clearly displayed in a way that would make it enforceable against the driver. There is no proof that the driver passed any signs that contained the relevant terms and conditions or that they had the opportunity to review and accept them before parking. The operator has not rebutted this argument.

4. Failure to Comply with PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)

PoFA requires that the Notice to Keeper must explicitly invite the registered keeper to pay the charge or provide the name and address of the driver if they were not the driver. This is a strict statutory requirement and cannot be implied. The fact that the notice is addressed to the keeper does not satisfy PoFA. The law explicitly requires clear wording linking the keeper directly to the payment obligation. The operator has not provided evidence that the NtK meets this requirement. There is no quote from the NtK in their evidence pack that confirms it contains the necessary invitation wording. If the operator cannot prove that the NtK complies with PoFA, then they cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper. The operator has failed to challenge or rebut this point.

5. Appellant Not Being the Liable Individual

The registered keeper is not necessarily the driver, and there is no legal presumption in place that allows an operator to assume this. In VCS v Edward (2023), the court ruled that an operator must provide sufficient evidence to prove that the registered keeper and the driver are the same person. ParkingEye has provided no evidence to link the registered keeper to the driver and has not attempted to rebut this point. If the operator cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability, then they must provide separate evidence to show that the registered keeper was the driver, which they have failed to do. As a result, they have no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper.

6. Insufficient Evidence of the Alleged Contravention

The operator relies solely on ANPR images, which only show the vehicle entering and exiting the site. ANPR does not record where the vehicle was parked within the car park, whether it passed any signs, or whether the driver was given the opportunity to review and accept the terms of parking. The operator has provided no evidence to prove that the driver agreed to any contract. They have not rebutted this point.

7. Non-Compliant Signage

The operator claims their signage is compliant, but they have not provided any evidence that the signs were visible, legible, and correctly positioned in December 2024. The signage plan they have included does not prove the condition of the signs at the time of the alleged contravention. There are no maintenance records, audit reports, or up-to-date photographic images to confirm that the signs were still in place and enforceable. The operator has failed to rebut this argument.

In conclusion, ParkingEye has failed to demonstrate that they had a valid contract on the date of the alleged contravention, that their signage was enforceable, that they complied with PoFA, or that they have established liability against the registered keeper. Their evidence does not prove that the driver entered into a contract or that the charge was lawfully issued. As a result, this appeal must be upheld.