Free Traffic Legal Advice

The above is not quite correct. Paragraph 13 is about the obligations on the creditor and the Keeper. Paragraph 14 is about the obligations on the creditor and the Hirer.

In particular:

• Paragraph 13(2) requires that the following documents be served with the NtK:
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.

• Paragraph 14(1) states that a creditor may only pursue the Hirer if they are unable to pursue the Keeper and have fully complied with the requirements of Paragraph 14(2).

• Paragraph 14(2) requires that the NtH must be accompanied by:
o (a) A copy of the Notice to Keeper;
o (b) The documents listed in Paragraph 13(2).

As clearly stated in paragraph 14(2)(a), alongside the ‘Notice to Hirer’, the operator must give the hirer a copy of the notice to keeper, as well as the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2).

ParkingEye has failed to provide me (as Hirer):

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

POPLA Rebuttal – Response to Operator’s Evidence
Appellant: xxxx (Hirer)
POPLA Reference: xxxx
Parking Charge Notice: xxx/xxx
Vehicle: xxxx

Introduction

I note that ParkingEye has provided no response whatsoever to the central grounds of my appeal, namely:

• Their non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and 14; and
• The absence of any evidence as to the identity of the driver.

The operator’s failure to engage with or rebut these material points may reasonably be interpreted as a concession that the requirements of Schedule 4 have not been met, and this omission significantly undermines the enforceability of their claim.


1. Failure to Address or Refute PoFA Non-Compliance

ParkingEye has failed to address or rebut the central ground of my appeal: that their Notice to Hirer (NtH) does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4).

To lawfully transfer liability from the vehicle-hire company (as Keeper) to me (as Hirer), the Operator must meet the strict conditions set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4.

In particular:

•   Paragraph 13(2) requires that the following documents be served with the NtK:
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.

•   Paragraph 14(1) states that a creditor may only pursue the Hirer if they are unable to pursue the Keeper and have fully complied with the requirements of Paragraph 14(2).

•   Paragraph 14(2) requires that the NtH must be accompanied by:
o   (a) A copy of the Notice to Keeper;
o   (b) The documents listed in Paragraph 13(2).

As clearly stated in paragraph 14(2)(a), alongside the ‘Notice to Hirer’, the operator must give the hirer a copy of the notice to keeper, as well as the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2).

ParkingEye has failed to provide me (as Hirer):

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

As these documents were not included, the Operator has not met the statutory conditions under PoFA Schedule 4 for transferring liability from the Keeper to the Hirer.

Instead, their evidence bundle appears to rely solely on standard template documentation that does not satisfy the statutory requirements to pursue a Hirer.

The operator’s failure to engage with or rebut these material points may reasonably be interpreted as a concession that the requirements of Schedule 4 have not been met and that they cannot meet the conditions required to hold the Hirer liable. Without these documents, there is no legal transfer of liability under PoFA.


2. No Evidence of the Driver’s Identity

Since ParkingEye has failed to comply with PoFA and has also not provided any evidence of the driver’s identity, they are unable to pursue the Hirer (me) on any basis.

There is no legal presumption that the Hirer was also the driver. As cited in my original appeal, the ruling in VCS v Edward (2023) makes it explicitly clear 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 principle clearly applies to hirers as well, especially when the parking operator has failed to establish a legal basis under PoFA.

3. Operator’s Evidence is Non-Responsive

The entire operator’s submission appears to be a generic template, likely used in other unrelated appeals. It does not engage with, let alone refute, the legal points I raised.

Notably:

• There is no mention of the requirements under Paragraph 13(2) or 14 of PoFA;
• No attempt to rebut my analysis of their defective NtH;
• No acknowledgement of their misstatement of law in earlier correspondence where they incorrectly cited Paragraph 9 (which only applies to Notices to Keepers);
• No evidence provided to establish driver liability.

In summary, ParkingEye has provided no evidence that supports their case against me as the Hirer, and their response appears to rely on a hope that POPLA will overlook their procedural and legal failings.

Conclusion

I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal. The Operator has failed:

• To comply with the statutory requirements to transfer liability to a Hirer;
• To produce any evidence identifying the driver; and
• To engage substantively with any of the key issues raised.

As a result, this charge is legally unenforceable against me and must be cancelled.

1. Failure to Address or Refute PoFA Non-Compliance

ParkingEye has failed to address or rebut the central ground of my appeal: that their Notice to Hirer (NtH) does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4).

To lawfully transfer liability from the vehicle-hire company (as Keeper) to me (as Hirer), the Operator must meet the strict conditions set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4.

Paragraph 13(2) states:

The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given—

• (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;
• (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and
• (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.


Paragraph 14(1) states that a creditor may only pursue the Hirer if they are unable to pursue the Keeper and have fully complied with the requirements of Paragraph 14(2).

Paragraph 14(2) requires that the NtH must be accompanied by:

o (a) A copy of the Notice to Keeper;
o (b) The documents listed in Paragraph 13(2).

As clearly stated in paragraph 14(2)(a), alongside the ‘Notice to Hirer’, the operator must give the hirer a copy of the notice to keeper, as well as the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2).

ParkingEye has failed to provide me (as Hirer) any of these relevant documents:

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

As these documents were not included, the Operator has not met the statutory conditions under PoFA Schedule 4 for transferring liability from the Keeper to the Hirer.

You may want to remind the POPLA assessor that you are appealing as the Hirer and therefore cannot be liable for the charge! Just quoting PoFA to the assessor without establishing that the driver is not identified and your capacity as the appellant is that of the Hirer.

Introduction
I am appealing as the Hirer of the vehicle to which this Parking Charge Notice relates. The driver has not been identified.

I note that ParkingEye has failed to address the central grounds of my appeal, namely:

1. Their non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and 14; and
2. The absence of any evidence as to the identity of the driver.

The operator’s failure to engage with or rebut these material points may reasonably be interpreted as a concession that the requirements of Schedule 4 have not been met. Accordingly, there is no lawful basis to transfer liability for this charge to me as the Hirer.

Conclusion

I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal. The Operator has failed:
•   To comply with the statutory requirements to transfer liability to a Hirer;
•   To produce any evidence identifying the driver; and
•   To engage substantively with any of the key issues raised.

As a result, this charge is legally unenforceable against me, as the Hirer, and must be cancelled.

The Notice to Keeper Fails to Identify the Relevant Land – No Keeper Liability Under PoFA 2012

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) allows a parking operator to hold a vehicle’s registered keeper liable only if the Notice to Keeper (NtK) strictly complies with the requirements set out in Paragraph 9.

Paragraph 9(2)(a) states that the notice must:
"specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates."

The NtK issued by Parking Eye merely states “ASDA BEXLEYHEATH” as the location, without giving the full postal address or any further detail. This is wholly inadequate to satisfy the requirement to identify the “relevant land” under PoFA.

Importantly, there are two ASDA locations in Bexleyheath:

1. ASDA Bexleyheath Superstore – The Broadway, Bexleyheath DA6 7BN
2. ASDA Petrol Station – Crook Log, Bexleyheath DA6 8EQ

Without a full and specific address on the PCN, there is no way for the registered keeper to determine where the vehicle was alleged to have been parked, and no fair opportunity to verify or contest the claim. This ambiguity is material and renders the notice non-compliant with PoFA, and as such, the keeper cannot be held liable.

As a result, the NtK fails to specify “the relevant land” as required under PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(a), and Parking Eye has not met the conditions required to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the keeper. This step is necessary for them to subsequently transfer the liability to myself (the Hirer).

The operator is also put to strict proof that they held a valid contract with the landowner to operate and issue PCNs at “ASDA BEXLEYHEATH”. Any evidence submitted must be unredacted and must include all elements required under Section 14.1(a) to (j) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).

Before issuing any parking charges, the operator must hold written confirmation from the landowner that includes:

1. Identity of the landowner
2. A boundary map of the managed land
3. Any applicable byelaws
4. Permission granted and its duration
5. Parking terms and conditions (e.g. free periods, tariffs, exemptions)
6. Method of issuing charges (e.g. windscreen or post)
7. Responsibility for obtaining consents (e.g. planning, signage)
8. Documentation to be supplied to authorised bodies on request
9. Approach to handling appeals

All of the above must be evidenced in full and unredacted if the operator relies on landowner authority. A simple letter of authority does not satisfy the requirements of section 14.

As there is no lawful basis to pursue the keeper, the liability cannot be transferred to the Hirer, therefore the PCN is invalid and this appeal must be upheld.

Please note that these comments must relate to the grounds of appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA, we do not accept new grounds of appeal or evidence at this stage