Here's my assessment of the RCP Parking Ltd Landowner Agreement (as provided in the redacted copy) in the context of PoFA 2012 and the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) v1.1 (17 February 2025) compliance, particularly regarding proof of authority to issue parking charges.
1. Purpose and ScopeThe agreement purports to grant RCP Parking Ltd authority to “install, control, and operate” parking enforcement systems at Rochdale Road, Manchester, M9 6AJ. It refers to RCP Parking as the “Operator” and the other party as the “Landowner” (name redacted).
However, under PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(1) and PPSCoP Section 7.1, the operator must have written authorisation from the landowner confirming its right to:
• Issue parking charges in its own name, and
• Pursue them through the courts if necessary.
The copy provided does not clearly demonstrate these rights beyond generic management powers.
2. Landowner Identity and Legal StandingThe Landowner’s name and company details are redacted, which makes it impossible to verify:
• Whether the signatory is the actual landholder or a tenant/agent;
• Whether they have the legal interest or delegated authority to enter into the contract.
Under PPSCoP 7.2, evidence must identify the landholder and confirm their capacity to authorise enforcement. A redacted or anonymised signature prevents verification and fails to meet this evidential requirement. POPLA should reject redacted agreements on this basis, just as any court would.
3. Signatory ValidityThe RCP representative signed as “Contracts Manager – Declan and Sam King”. This is not a personal signature, but two names handwritten in a way that suggests ambiguity as to who actually signed. The document lacks:
• A printed name of the RCP signatory,
• Any witness or counter-signature validation, and
• A company seal or letterhead confirmation that the individual is authorised to bind RCP Parking Ltd.
These omissions undermine the agreement’s evidential weight.
4. Term and DurationThe document refers to the start date but the commencement and expiry dates are not visible. Without a defined duration, it cannot be established whether the contract was in force at the date of the alleged parking event. This breaches PPSCoP 7.3(a), which requires a “clearly defined start and end date”.
5. Extent of AuthorityThe operative clause gives RCP Parking permission to:
“Install and operate a parking management system to control and enforce parking on the Site.”
However, it does not expressly state that RCP Parking:
• May issue Parking Charge Notices in its own name, or
• Take legal action in its own name against motorists.
This is crucial. Under PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(1), only the “creditor” may recover unpaid charges. If RCP is merely acting as an agent for the landholder, it cannot lawfully claim or litigate in its own name. The absence of a clause expressly granting those rights renders the agreement insufficient to establish RCP as the “creditor”.
6. Annex A – Site Plan and FacilitiesThe annex identifies the site and lists features such as “Tariff machines”, “Lighting”, “Signage” and “CCTV”, but these are purely descriptive. There is no clause cross-referencing Annex A as a schedule of rights or indicating it forms part of a legally binding contract. The plan also lacks date validation, which is relevant where signage has changed over time.
7. Photographic EvidenceThe attached photographs show:
• RCP-branded signage with tariffs and contact details.
• However, there are no clear terms or notice of the charge for breaching any terms.
Photographs alone cannot prove contemporaneous authority; they may merely show operational presence rather than ownership or control.
8. Overall AssessmentThe provided agreement does not satisfy the requirements of:
• PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 (Paragraphs 2(1) and 4(1)), or
• PPSCoP Sections 7.1 to 7.3, which require transparent evidence of landowner authority.
Specifically, it fails on:
• Redacted landowner identity (cannot be verified);
• No explicit right to issue or pursue PCNs in RCP’s name;
• No proof the contract was in force at the material date;
• Ambiguous signatures and lack of execution details.
9. Suggested Conclusion for a POPLA
The operator’s redacted “Landowner Agreement” fails to meet the evidential requirements under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and Section 7 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice. The document does not identify the landholder, does not demonstrate that the signatory had authority to grant enforcement rights, and does not confer any express right upon RCP Parking Ltd to issue or pursue Parking Charge Notices in its own name. As such, RCP Parking Ltd has failed to establish itself as the creditor and has no locus standi to pursue this charge.
