Free Traffic Legal Advice

No evidence of landowner 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, and 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

There are multiple points to my appeal:

1. The Notice to Keeper (attached copy for reference) does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Specifically, in PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, item 9(2)(e)(i), 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".
The NtK does not fulfil the requirements of 9(2)(e)(i) as there is no invitation (or synonym thereof) to pay the unpaid parking charges as the registered keeper. There is only the invitation to pay as the driver, or nominate someone else as the driver.

2. The NtK does not comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice, e.g. items 2.4, 21.2, 21.13, 22.6 & 24.3.

2.1 BPA CoP item 2.4 states that all AOS  member should be aware of their legal obligations, include the PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, which is shown above in point 1 that ParkingEye do not comply with.

2.2 BPA CoP item 21.2 states that as long as the strict conditions of Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012 are met, unpaid parking charges can be reclaimed from the keeper, rather than the driver of the vehicle. As shown above in point 1, Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012 aren't met and therefore there is no right to reclaim the unpaid parking charge from myself, as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2.3 BPA CoP item 21.13 states "You should see the relevant part of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 to make sure you know: what contents you need to include in the Notice to Keeper (paragraph 8(2) or 9(2))" As shown above in point 1, Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012 is not met.

2.4 BPA CoP item 22.6 states "If you want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and you have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the car park where the parking event took place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict
requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9)." As shown above in point 1, Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012 is not met.

2.5 BPA CoP item 24.3 states "Under POFA 2012, you can gain the right to recover unpaid charges from keepers only if particular conditions have been met. Once the conditions are met you may use your right to recover, after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the Notice to Keeper was given. You should read paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 to understand what these conditions are" As shown above in point 1, Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012 is not met, and therefore there is no right to recover unpaid charges from the myself, as the registered keeper.

As shown above, there are multiple requirements in both the BPA CoP & PoFA 2012 that ParkingEye have not complied with & therefore the NtK is invalid & they have no right to reclaim any unpaid parking charges from myself, as the registered keeper.

3. No evidence of landowner 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, and 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