Free Traffic Legal Advice

Quote from: fezster on July 14, 2025, 10:43:05 am

Parking Eye has not demonstrated how this charge reflects a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Supreme Court ruling in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 established that a parking charge must serve a legitimate interest and be proportionate.

The Beavis case established that the charge does not have to be a GPEoL...

POPLA Appeal: Grounds – Non-compliance with PoFA 2012

I am the Hirer of the vehicle and am appealing this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on two principal grounds:

1. The Notice to Hirer (NtH) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and 14)

To transfer liability from the Keeper (in this case, the Hire company) to the Hirer, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraphs 13 and 14 impose a series of strict requirements. These include not only the content of the Notice to Hirer, but also the obligation to enclose three specific documents, as listed in Paragraph 13(2):

13(2): “The documents are— (a) a copy of the statement of liability signed by the hirer under the hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm confirming that the information contained in the statement of liability is correct.”

In accordance with Paragraph 14(2)(a), the operator must, within the relevant period, give the Hirer a Notice to Hirer accompanied by:

• The Notice to Keeper;
• A copy of the hire agreement;
• A copy of the statement of liability signed by the Hirer;
• A statement from the hire company confirming the hire details.

ParkingEye has failed to provide the required documents with the NtH. This renders their attempt to transfer liability to the Hirer legally ineffective.

As per Paragraph 14(1), a creditor may only pursue the Hirer if both:

• they are unable to pursue the Keeper under Paragraph 13(2); and
• they have fully met the conditions in Paragraph 14(2), including providing the required documentation.

Failure to include these documents invalidates the NtH for the purposes of PoFA, and therefore the Hirer cannot be held liable.

2. No Evidence of Driver Identity – No Presumption or Inference Permitted

As established above, the Notice to Hirer does not comply with PoFA 2012, and therefore the operator cannot transfer liability to the Hirer. In the absence of compliance with Schedule 4, liability for the charge can only rest with the driver.

Parking Eye has provided no evidence identifying the driver of the vehicle at the material time. The operator has simply issued a Notice to Hirer and proceeded on the basis that the recipient is liable.

There is, however, no legal presumption that the Hirer (or Keeper) was the driver. This has been firmly established in persuasive case law, including the appeal judgment in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Edward (2023). In that case, the Circuit Judge held that:

“It is not open to a parking company to rely on a presumption, or even the balance of probabilities, to assert that the keeper was the driver.”

This ruling confirms that liability cannot be inferred or assumed where a parking operator has chosen not to rely on PoFA or has failed to comply with its terms. In such circumstances, the burden of proof remains entirely with the operator to prove the identity of the driver.

As no such evidence has been provided in this case, and the NtH is non-compliant with PoFA, there is no lawful basis to pursue the Hirer. The appeal must be allowed on this ground alone.


Conclusion

• The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and 14. As such, Parking Eye has no lawful basis to transfer liability from the hire company to the Hirer.
• The operator has not provided any evidence identifying the driver, and no presumption or inference can be made. The appeal case VCS v Edward (2023, Sheffield County Court) confirms that an operator cannot rely on any assumption, inference, or “balance of probabilities” to assert that the Hirer was the driver in the absence of PoFA compliance.

For the above reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct Parking Eye to cancel the Parking Charge Notice in full.

POPLA Appeal: Grounds – Non-compliance with PoFA 2012

I am the Hirer of the vehicle and am appealing this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on two principal grounds:

1. The Notice to Hirer (NtH) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and 14)

To transfer liability from the Keeper (in this case, the Hire company) to the Hirer, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraphs 13 and 14 impose a series of strict requirements. These include not only the content of the Notice to Hirer, but also the obligation to enclose three specific documents, as listed in Paragraph 13(2):

13(2): “The documents are— (a) a copy of the statement of liability signed by the hirer under the hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm confirming that the information contained in the statement of liability is correct.”

In accordance with Paragraph 14(2)(a), the operator must, within the relevant period, give the Hirer a Notice to Hirer accompanied by:

• The Notice to Keeper;
• A copy of the hire agreement;
• A copy of the statement of liability signed by the Hirer;
• A statement from the hire company confirming the hire details.

ParkingEye has failed to provide the required documents with the NtH. This renders their attempt to transfer liability to the Hirer legally ineffective.

As per Paragraph 14(1), a creditor may only pursue the Hirer if both:

• they are unable to pursue the Keeper under Paragraph 13(2); and
• they have fully met the conditions in Paragraph 14(2), including providing the required documentation.

Failure to include these documents invalidates the NtH for the purposes of PoFA, and therefore the Hirer cannot be held liable.

2. No Evidence of Driver Identity – No Presumption or Inference Permitted

As established above, the Notice to Hirer does not comply with PoFA 2012, and therefore the operator cannot transfer liability to the Hirer. In the absence of compliance with Schedule 4, liability for the charge can only rest with the driver.

Parking Eye has provided no evidence identifying the driver of the vehicle at the material time. The operator has simply issued a Notice to Hirer and proceeded on the basis that the recipient is liable.

There is, however, no legal presumption that the Hirer (or Keeper) was the driver. This has been firmly established in persuasive case law, including the appeal judgment in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Edward (2023). In that case, the Circuit Judge held that:

“It is not open to a parking company to rely on a presumption, or even the balance of probabilities, to assert that the keeper was the driver.”

This ruling confirms that liability cannot be inferred or assumed where a parking operator has chosen not to rely on PoFA or has failed to comply with its terms. In such circumstances, the burden of proof remains entirely with the operator to prove the identity of the driver.

As no such evidence has been provided in this case, and the NtH is non-compliant with PoFA, there is no lawful basis to pursue the Hirer. The appeal must be allowed on this ground alone.

3. Misleading & Contradictory Payment Deadlines

The NtH is misleading and contradictory, creating confusion about when payment is actually due:

The top of the NtH states: “PARKING CHARGE AMOUNT: £100. PAYMENT TO BE MADE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE DATE ISSUED”

However, the body text contradicts this by stating: “If, after 22 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the Parking Charge has not been paid in full, we will have the right to recover any amount that remains unpaid from you.”

This is misleading and non-compliant with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR 2008) because it creates uncertainty about when payment is due.

Conclusion

• The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and 14. As such, Parking Eye has no lawful basis to transfer liability from the hire company to the Hirer.
• The operator has not provided any evidence identifying the driver, and no presumption or inference can be made. The appeal case VCS v Edward (2023, Sheffield County Court) confirms that an operator cannot rely on any assumption, inference, or “balance of probabilities” to assert that the Hirer was the driver in the absence of PoFA compliance.
• Issue clear and consistent payment terms, making the demand misleading and unfair.

For the above reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct Parking Eye to cancel the Parking Charge Notice in full.

Do I need to respond? If so, what should I be saying (or just re-iterating what I've already said)?

Thanks!

• Rebut anything they claim with which you disagree, and why.
• Observe that any points you made to which they made no response are ones they implicitly agree with.

In particular:
• Paragraph 13(2) requires that the following documents be served with the NtH:
o (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
o (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and
o (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.