Free Traffic Legal Advice

POPLA Verification Code: [Verification Code]
Euro Car Parks (ECP) PCN Number: [PCN Number]
Re: Appeal against ECP Parking Charge Notice

I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXX and am writing to appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by ECP on XXX at XXX. This appeal is based on the following detailed grounds, which demonstrate that the charge is invalid, unfair, and unenforceable.

1. Non-compliance with Keeper Liability under PoFA

ECP has not met the requirements for keeper liability under PoFA. In order to be able to hold the Keeper liable, all the requirements of PoFA must be met. In the Notice to Keeper, ECP have failed to include the requirement of paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) as there is no invitation to the Keeper to pay the charge. As the operator has not fully complied with PoFA, they cannot hold the registered keeper liable for the alleged parking charge. Since the operator has failed to establish the driver’s identity and has not provided sufficient evidence to meet PoFA requirements, the liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper.

2. No Evidence of Landholder Authority

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 put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA 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. 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 information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.

Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and, of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement). Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice 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

3. Inadequate and Unclear Signage – No Contract Formed

The signage at the location in question is insufficient to form a contract between ECP and the driver. The signs must comply with the BPA Code of Practice, Section 18 and Appendix B, to adequately inform the driver of the terms and conditions.

Issues with Signage:

1. Lack of Prominent and Clear Signage:

Signs must be prominently displayed and easily readable. The signage at the site is obscured, too high, or positioned in such a way that it cannot be seen or read by a driver entering the car park. This contravenes the BPA Code, which states that terms must be clear and legible.

2. Small and Inadequate Font Size:

The terms are in small print, making it impossible for a driver to read them without stopping and getting out of the vehicle. This is particularly problematic for any clauses that might impose a penalty. According to the "Red Hand Rule," established in J. Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956], terms that seek to impose a significant detriment or penalty must be displayed in a particularly clear and prominent manner. In this case, the terms were not prominently highlighted, akin to the "red hand" standard mentioned by Lord Denning, which requires that any unusual or onerous terms be drawn to the attention of the other party in a conspicuous manner.

4. Failure to Comply with BPA Code of Practice

ECP is a member of the BPA and must adhere to its Code of Practice. Multiple sections of the Code have been breached in this case:

4.1. Section 18.1 – Entrance Signs

• The BPA Code of Practice mandates that entrance signs must clearly indicate that the car park is managed and that terms and conditions apply. No such signs were visible at the entrance to this car park, which means no contract could be formed upon entry.

4.2. Section 13 – Grace Periods

• The BPA Code requires a reasonable grace period for drivers to read the terms and decide whether to stay and another grace period to leave. The PCN issued does not reflect that the driver was allowed any grace period to comply with these terms.

4.3. Section 20.5 – Complaints Procedure:

• ECP must have an accessible and clear complaints procedure. The correspondence provided did not offer information on how to file a complaint about this unfair charge.

5. The Charge is Not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss

The parking charge demanded does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and serves as a penalty rather than a fair reflection of any loss suffered by ECP or the landowner.

Arguments Against the Charge:

• No Financial Loss: The car park is either free or has a very low parking fee, meaning that the operator has suffered no actual loss.

• Disproportionate Charge: The charge is punitive and does not reflect any actual loss. It is clear that the charge is designed to penalise the driver rather than to recover a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Conclusion

Based on the above points, it is evident that ECP has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the BPA Code of Practice, and the basic principles of contract law. The signage is inadequate and there are multiple breaches of the Code. Therefore, I respectfully request that this appeal be upheld, and the Parking Charge Notice be cancelled.

Thank you for your consideration.

This response highlights the operator's failure to rebut the appellant's points regarding the validity of the contract between the landowner and the operator (or their agent) and their non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

The operator has only evidenced an appendix to the contract signed in 2017, which does not demonstrate why the terms and conditions have changed between 2020 and 2024. As a result, they have failed to show that they have the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) based on the current terms and conditions. This lack of evidence undermines their claim that they are enforcing authorised terms agreed with the landowner.

Additionally, the operator has failed to address the appellant's specific point about their non-compliance with PoFA, particularly paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). The requirement to "INVITE THE KEEPER TO PAY THE UNPAID PARKING CHARGES" is explicit in the legislation. The operator’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not meet this requirement. While the word "invite" does not have to be used verbatim, there must be a clear synonym or equivalent. Simply inferring this from the fact that the PCN is addressed to the keeper is insufficient and does not satisfy the explicit requirement of the Act.

The appendix provided as part of the contract signed in February 2017 fails to explain or justify the changes to the parking terms and signage between September 2020 and April 2024 for the following reasons:

Lack of Contractual Evidence of Authorised Changes to Terms:

The appendix shown does not specify any mechanism or evidence showing that the land management company (Savills) authorised a change from a maximum stay of 3 hours (as seen on signage in 2020) to 2 hours, or the addition of restrictions such as “Mon-Sat 0500-2030 hours” and “authorised vehicles only” outside these hours. Without explicit documentation of these changes, the operator cannot prove that the updated terms were validly authorised by the landowner.

No Record of Signage Updates:

The appendix refers generally to the installation and maintenance of signage (e.g., compliance with the Code of Practice), but it does not provide any detailed records of when or why the signage was updated to reflect the new terms. The lack of clarity on the timeline of updates to the signage means there is no proof that the signage changes were implemented in accordance with the contract or landowner approval.

Contract’s General Nature:

The appendix contains general clauses regarding compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP), responsibilities for signage, and other operational standards, but it does not include specific details of the parking terms applicable to this site or evidence of amendments over time. For example, the appendix does not include any reference to restrictions like the 2-hour limit or time-specific rules, suggesting that the contract terms may not have been updated since 2017 when the contract was signed.

Failure to Demonstrate Validity of Terms in 2024:

While the contract mentions periodic amendments (Clause 2), the operator has not provided evidence of such amendments or their approval by the landowner. The operator has only provided evidence of their signs in April 2024. The operator must demonstrate that the landowner consented to the specific terms being enforced in April 2024 and that these terms were applicable in August 2024 when the alleged breach occurred.

No Explanation for Changes Between 2020 and 2024:

Google Street View (GSV) imagery from September 2020 shows that the signage at the site stated a 3-hour maximum stay with no reference to restrictions such as "Mon-Sat 0500-2030 hours" or "authorised vehicles only." This GSV image can be accessed via the following link: https://maps.app.goo.gl/7v8mAv7Ueg3HyoZT7. Due to POPLA’s restriction of only allowing responses in plain text via a webform, it is impossible to embed the image directly. Therefore, I request that the assessor use the link provided to view the signage evidence from September 2020. The GSV image allows zooming for clarity and provides crucial evidence of the terms in place at that time.

The operator has not explained why signage in 2020 showed a 3-hour maximum stay with no additional restrictions, while their 2024 evidence shows a 2-hour limit with time-specific restrictions. The absence of supporting documentation to justify these changes undermines the operator’s claim.

The appendix provided does not support the operator’s claim that the parking terms in force at the time of the alleged breach were validly authorised or reflected an updated agreement with the landowner. The operator has failed to demonstrate:

**That the changes in signage between 2020 and 2024 were approved by the landowner.
**That these changes comply with the terms of the original contract.
**That the signage in 2024 reflected the validly agreed terms at the time of the alleged contravention.

As such, the operator has not met the burden of proof to show that the Parking Charge Notice is enforceable.

Response to Operator’s Evidence Pack – Failure to Fully Comply with PoFA 2012

The appellant made it clear in their original POPLA appeal that the operator has failed to comply FULLY with ALL the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), specifically paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). The operator’s evidence pack does not adequately address this point, and their generic assertion that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) complies with PoFA is insufficient. It is essential for the assessor to consider this carefully, as partial or substantial compliance with PoFA is not sufficient to establish Keeper liability.

The legal requirements of paragraph 9(2)(e) are clear. The NtK must:

“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”—

“TO PAY THE UNPAID PARKING CHARGES” (as per subparagraph (i)).

It is a common error for POPLA assessors to overlook the importance of the last three words of paragraph 9(2)(e), which are "INVITE THE KEEPER," and fail to properly link them to the next requirement in subparagraph (i): "TO PAY THE UNPAID PARKING CHARGES." This distinction is vital, as the requirement to INVITE THE KEEPER is explicit in the legislation and cannot be ignored. POPLA assessors must carefully check whether the NtK explicitly fulfills this requirement, as otherwise they are failing in their duty to impartially assess the operator’s compliance with PoFA.

The operator’s NtK fails to explicitly INVITE THE KEEPER to pay the unpaid parking charges, as required by paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). Whilst the word "INVITE" itself does not have to be used, there must at least be a synonym or clear equivalent that serves to INVITE THE KEEPER. Simply inferring that the Keeper must be invited by the fact that the PCN is addressed to them does not satisfy the requirement of the Act. This omission constitutes a failure to comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA.

The law is clear that FULL compliance with PoFA is necessary for Keeper liability to apply. Partial or substantial compliance does not suffice. Any failure to meet ALL the requirements renders the NtK non-compliant and prevents the operator from transferring liability from the driver to the Keeper. The operator’s assertion that their NtK is compliant with paragraph 9(2)(b) (which concerns the amount of the charge) does not address their failure to comply with paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). Compliance with some provisions of PoFA does not equate to compliance with the ENTIRETY of Schedule 4.

As the operator has failed to comply FULLY with PoFA, they cannot hold the Keeper liable for the alleged parking charge. The operator’s evidence pack does not rebut this point, nor does it provide any explanation for their failure to INVITE THE KEEPER to pay the charge as required by paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).

The operator’s NtK is not FULLY compliant with PoFA because it fails to meet the requirements of paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). The operator cannot transfer liability to the Keeper unless they meet ALL the requirements of PoFA. Their failure to do so means that the Parking Charge Notice is unenforceable against the Keeper.

In conclusion, the operator has failed to meet the burden of proof to show that the PCN is enforceable. They have not demonstrated that the alleged terms and conditions were validly authorised by the landowner, nor have they shown full compliance with the requirements of PoFA to establish Keeper liability. I respectfully request that this appeal be upheld, and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.