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 PermittedAs 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. Signage – Ambiguous and Unenforceable TermsThe signage at the site makes reference to different conditions on a “match day” or “event day,” yet provides no explanation or definition of what qualifies as a “match” or “event,” nor does it indicate how a motorist is supposed to identify such days.
There is no calendar, noticeboard, or real-time information provided on site. The ordinary motorist — the reasonable person — cannot be expected to research third-party sports fixtures or event schedules online to determine whether enhanced restrictions apply.
This renders the term “match day” vague, ambiguous, and incapable of forming a clear and enforceable contract. This is contrary to the requirement that all contractual terms be communicated transparently and unambiguously before a contract can be said to have been accepted.
This is particularly important in the context of parking charges, which carry an element of penalty. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of prominent and transparent signage in forming enforceable parking contracts.
In this case, the signage fails to:
• Define a key term (“match day”),
• Indicate when that term applies,
• Offer any clear method for determining whether additional restrictions are active.
Consequently, any term reliant on this ambiguity fails the test of fairness and transparency under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
4. The operator has not provided evidence of landowner authority or signage validityParking Eye is put to strict proof that it has a valid and current contract with the landowner. POPLA is respectfully reminded that the burden of proof lies with the operator. It is not sufficient for the operator merely to assert that it has authority.
Accordingly, I require that POPLA compel the operator to produce:
• A full and unredacted copy of the contemporaneous written agreement with the landowner;
• Evidence that the contract specifically allows Parking Eye to issue Parking Charge Notices in its own name and to take legal action to enforce them;
• Proof that the signage relied upon — particularly any referencing "match day" restrictions — formed part of the landowner’s authorisation;
• Confirmation that there have been no material changes to the signage, site layout, or contractual terms since the date of that agreement, or evidence that any such changes were approved by the landowner.
If the operator fails to provide this evidence, then it has no standing and no legal authority to pursue this charge.
• 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.
• The signage is ambiguous, particularly in relation to undefined “match day” or “event day” restrictions. These terms are unclear, not time-specific, and cannot be reasonably understood by a typical motorist without external research, rendering them incapable of forming a fair and transparent contract.
• The operator has failed to provide evidence of landowner authority, and no contract has been shown that demonstrates the signage relied upon forms part of the landowner’s authorisation, nor that any material changes have been approved.
