Free Traffic Legal Advice

POPLA Appeal: PCN Issued Incorrectly – Failure to Comply with the Equality Act 2010 and BPA Code of Practice

PCN Reference: [Insert PCN number]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRN]
Appellant: Registered Keeper (RK) – [Your Name]

I am appealing the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by ParkingEye Ltd as the registered keeper of the vehicle. I was not the driver at the time, and the driver has not been identified. The PCN was issued incorrectly, and I request that this charge is cancelled for the following reasons:

1. The PCN Was Issued Incorrectly: Failure to Comply with the Equality Act 2010 and BPA Code of Practice

ParkingEye has failed to comply with its legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010 by not making reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals. This also constitutes a breach of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (v9), particularly Sections 16 and 13 regarding disabled motorists and grace periods.

Lack of Reasonable Adjustments for Disabled Motorists
The BPA Code of Practice requires parking operators to make reasonable adjustments for disabled motorists, such as providing extra time to access payment facilities and leave the car park. Despite displaying signage that references the Blue Badge scheme, ParkingEye has made no reasonable adjustments for disabled drivers at this site. This includes failing to provide any accessible parking bays, which is a clear violation of the Equality Act.

No Accessible Bays: Not a single accessible bay is available at this car park. The lack of accessible spaces is a failure to provide basic adjustments for disabled motorists, making it impossible for disabled individuals to safely exit or enter their vehicles, let alone access the payment machinery.

Time Spent Waiting at Payment Machines: Due to my disability, I struggle with mobility and needed additional time to reach the payment machine and make payment. On the day in question, I had to wait behind two other individuals, which further delayed the time spent ‘on site’. The payment machine also malfunctioned, not accepting coins, and I was forced to use a contactless method, which I am unfamiliar with. These delays were beyond my control.

By not making any reasonable adjustments for disabled motorists, ParkingEye is in breach of the Equality Act 2010. The PCN issued based on a 10-minute overstay, which was due to the time required to queue and pay, is therefore unlawful and discriminatory.

2. Failure to Allow a Grace Period in Line with BPA Code of Practice

The BPA Code of Practice (Section 13) mandates that parking operators allow grace periods before issuing a PCN. Section 13.2 states that a grace period must be provided to allow drivers to leave the car park, while Section 13.4 recognises that disabled drivers may require additional time to exit due to mobility difficulties.

In this case, the vehicle was recorded as being ‘on site’ for 3 hours and 10 minutes, yet a valid ticket was purchased for 3 hours. The 10-minute overstay clearly falls within a reasonable grace period, especially for a disabled motorist. ParkingEye has ignored these guidelines by issuing the PCN without taking my mobility issues and the delays caused by the machine malfunction into account.

3. Failure to Establish Keeper Liability – Breach of PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)

As the registered keeper, I was not the driver on the date in question, and the driver has not been identified. For ParkingEye to hold the registered keeper liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), they must comply fully with the conditions outlined in Schedule 4.

One of these conditions is Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), which requires that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must contain an explicit invitation for the keeper to either pay the charge or provide the driver's details. In this instance, ParkingEye has failed to include the required wording in the NtK, meaning they have not complied with PoFA and cannot transfer liability to me as the keeper.

Strict Proof of Driver Identity
As ParkingEye has not complied with PoFA 2012, they cannot assume that the registered keeper is the driver. The operator is put to strict proof that the person they are pursuing is, in fact, the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged contravention. Without such proof, ParkingEye has no legal grounds to hold me liable, and this PCN must be cancelled.

4. Inadequate Signage and Failure to Provide Clear Terms and Conditions

ParkingEye relies on signage to communicate the terms and conditions of parking, but the signage at this site is unclear and does not adequately inform drivers of the parking rules, including grace periods and adjustments for disabled motorists.

The BPA Code of Practice requires that signage be legible, clear, and visible so that motorists can make informed decisions. However, the signage at the location does not make any mention of grace periods for disabled drivers, nor does it clearly explain that delays caused by machine malfunctions or disability will not be penalised. The terms and conditions as displayed are insufficient to establish a valid contract with the driver, and thus the PCN has been issued incorrectly.

5. Lack of Evidence of Landowner Authority

ParkingEye must have clear authorisation from the landowner to operate at this location and issue PCNs. The BPA Code of Practice (Section 7) requires that ParkingEye provides proof of landowner authority. This includes an unredacted contract between the operator and the landowner, which clearly defines the boundaries of the land and the scope of ParkingEye’s enforcement rights.

I formally request that ParkingEye provides such evidence as part of this appeal. If they are unable to do so, then they do not have the authority to issue this PCN, and it must be cancelled.

6. Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

ParkingEye’s signage, which forms the basis of their alleged contract with the driver, contains unfair terms under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA). Section 62 of the CRA prohibits unfair terms in contracts, and ParkingEye’s signage does not account for reasonable grace periods or make any provisions for disabled motorists, despite referencing the Blue Badge scheme.

Moreover, under the CRA 2015, a contract cannot disadvantage a person for exercising their legal rights, including rights under the Equality Act 2010. ParkingEye has imposed an unfair contract term by penalising me for the short overstay caused by my disability and their failure to provide adequate facilities.

Conclusion

To summarise, this PCN has been issued incorrectly for several reasons:

Failure to comply with the Equality Act 2010 by not making reasonable adjustments for a disabled motorist.

Failure to allow a grace period as required by the BPA Code of Practice.

Breach of PoFA 2012 Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), as the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the requirements to transfer liability to the keeper.

Inadequate signage, failing to provide clear and legible terms and conditions.

Lack of landowner authority, which must be provided to substantiate ParkingEye's right to issue PCNs.

Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, as the contract contains unfair terms by penalising a disabled motorist for a situation beyond their control.

For these reasons, I request that the PCN is cancelled. I have attached the following evidence in support of my appeal:

A copy of my Blue Badge (expired due to council delays but proving my disability).
Medical evidence from Bournemouth Hospital regarding my mobility condition.
A GP summary of my condition and pain management.

POPLA Appeal: PCN Issued Incorrectly – Failure to Comply with the Equality Act 2010 and BPA Code of Practice

PCN Reference: [Insert PCN number]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRN]
Appellant: Registered Keeper (RK) – [Your Name]

I am appealing the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by ParkingEye Ltd as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle has not been identified, and I decline to identify the driver, as there is no legal obligation to do so. The burden of proof lies with ParkingEye to demonstrate that I, as the keeper, was also the driver at the time of the alleged incident, and they have failed to do so. I am appealing this charge on the following grounds:

1. The PCN Was Issued Incorrectly: Failure to Comply with the Equality Act 2010 and BPA Code of Practice

ParkingEye has failed to comply with its legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010 by not making reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals. This constitutes a breach of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (v9), particularly Sections 16 and 13 regarding disabled motorists and grace periods.

Lack of Reasonable Adjustments for Disabled Motorists (or Occupants)
The BPA Code of Practice requires parking operators to make reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals, whether they are drivers or passengers in the vehicle. Under the Equality Act 2010, it is not only the driver who may require adjustments; passengers with mobility issues or other disabilities are also covered. Despite displaying signage that references the Blue Badge scheme, ParkingEye has made no reasonable adjustments for disabled users or occupants at this site. This includes failing to provide any accessible parking bays, which is a clear violation of the Equality Act.

- No Accessible Bays: There are no accessible parking bays provided in this car park. The absence of accessible spaces is a failure to accommodate disabled individuals, whether they are the driver or a passenger, which directly impacts their ability to safely enter or exit the vehicle and reach payment facilities.

Time Spent Waiting at Payment Machines: As a disabled individual, I require more time to move around and access payment machines. Any time taken to accommodate this need is not accounted for by ParkingEye. Such delays are worsened by the malfunctioning of the payment machine, which did not accept coins, forcing the driver to use contactless payment methods, leading to further delays.

ParkingEye's failure to account for the needs of disabled individuals, whether they are drivers or passengers, constitutes a breach of both the Equality Act 2010 and the BPA Code of Practice. The PCN issued based on a 10-minute overstay caused by these factors is unlawful and discriminatory.

2. Failure to Allow a Grace Period and Consideration Period in Line with BPA Code of Practice

The BPA Code of Practice (Section 13) requires parking operators to allow a consideration period before any enforcement and a grace period after parking has been paid for. Section 13.4 recognises that disabled occupants, whether drivers or passengers, may require more time due to mobility issues. The vehicle was recorded as being "on site" for 3 hours and 10 minutes, while a valid ticket for 3 hours was purchased.

The 10-minute overstay falls well within a reasonable grace period, particularly given the mobility challenges faced by disabled individuals, whether the driver or a passenger. ParkingEye has ignored the guidance on both grace periods and consideration periods and issued the PCN prematurely, contrary to the BPA Code of Practice.

3. Failure to Establish Keeper Liability – Breach of PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)

ParkingEye is attempting to hold me, the registered keeper, liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), but they have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA.

Specifically, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to meet the conditions set out in Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA, which mandates that the NtK must contain a clear "invitation" for the keeper to pay or provide the driver's details. The NtK contains no such "invitation", nor any synonym of the word. Partial or even substantial compliance with PoFA is not sufficient. ParkingEye has failed to include the required wording in the NtK, and as such, they have not transferred liability from the driver to the keeper.

Strict Proof of Driver Identity
As the operator has not complied with PoFA, they cannot assume that the registered keeper was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. ParkingEye must provide strict proof that the registered keeper was the driver. Without such proof, ParkingEye has no legal grounds to hold me liable, and the PCN must be cancelled.

4. Inadequate Signage and Failure to Provide Clear Terms and Conditions

ParkingEye relies on signage to convey the terms and conditions of parking, yet the signage at this site is unclear and does not adequately inform drivers or passengers of the parking rules, including grace periods and adjustments for disabled individuals.

The BPA Code of Practice requires that signage must be clear, legible, and positioned in such a way that drivers can make informed decisions. The signage at this site does not clearly mention grace periods or provide any notice of reasonable adjustments for disabled motorists or their passengers. This lack of clarity invalidates any supposed contract with the driver, and the PCN has therefore been issued incorrectly.

ParkingEye will be put to strict proof of the exact location where the vehicle was parked and its  position in relation to any signs.

5. Lack of Evidence of Landowner Authority

ParkingEye must have authorisation from the landowner to operate at this site and issue PCNs. As required by the BPA Code of Practice (Section 7), I request that ParkingEye provides a full and unredacted copy of the contract between them and the landowner that confirms their authority to issue Parking Charge Notices at this location.

If ParkingEye fails to provide this evidence, the PCN must be considered void as they lack the legal authority to enforce parking charges at this site. A simple statement that a contract is in place does not suffice. The mere fact that there are signs is not proof that a valid contract exists.

6. Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

ParkingEye's signage, which forms the basis of their alleged contract with the driver, contains unfair terms under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA). Section 62 of the CRA prohibits unfair terms in contracts, and ParkingEye’s signage fails to accommodate reasonable grace periods or make provisions for disabled motorists or passengers. This amounts to an unfair and unenforceable term.

Additionally, the CRA 2015 protects consumers from unfair treatment. Penalising an individual or any occupant of the vehicle for a situation caused by their disability, and for which the operator failed to make reasonable adjustments, amounts to a breach of the CRA. The terms enforced by ParkingEye place disabled individuals at a disadvantage and therefore cannot be legally upheld.

Conclusion

To summarise, this PCN has been issued incorrectly for several reasons:

- Failure to comply with the Equality Act 2010 by not making reasonable adjustments for disabled motorists or passengers.

Failure to allow a grace period and consideration period as required by the BPA Code of Practice.

Breach of PoFA 2012 Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), as the Notice to Keeper fails to meet the conditions required to transfer liability to the keeper.

Inadequate signage, which does not clearly communicate the terms or grace periods for disabled individuals, whether drivers or passengers.

Lack of landowner authority, which must be provided as evidence.

Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, due to unfair terms and failure to make necessary adjustments for disabled users.

For these reasons, I request that the PCN is cancelled. I have attached the following evidence in support of my appeal:

- A copy of my Blue Badge (expired due to council delays but proving my disability).

Medical evidence from Bournemouth Hospital regarding my mobility condition.

A GP summary of my condition and pain management.