1. Failure to Specify a Period of Parking (PoFA 9(2)(a))The NtK does not specify a "period of parking" as required under PoFA 9(2)(a). Instead, it only provides a single timestamp, indicating a contravention time of 14:33 on 30/12/2024. The legislation requires a period of parking to be specified, not just a single moment in time.
In the
Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (2023) persuasive appeals case (Plymouth County Court), His Honour Judge Mitchell confirmed that the absence of a recorded period of parking renders a NtK non-compliant with PoFA. In paragraphs 27 and 28 of the judgment, the judge clarified that while the entire period of parking does not need to be recorded, there must be at least a short period recorded, even as little as five minutes. The judge stated that an instant in time is insufficient, as it fails to show, for example, whether the vehicle was briefly on-site while the driver was reviewing the terms on the signage before deciding to leave.
Without a period of parking recorded, it is impossible to know whether the vehicle was only on-site momentarily. Therefore, the NtK fails to meet the statutory requirement and is invalid for keeper liability.
2. Contradictory Payment Deadline Wording (PoFA 9(2)(f))The NtK contains contradictory payment deadline wording, further rendering it non-compliant with PoFA. In one paragraph, the notice correctly states that the registered keeper has 28 days beginning the day after the notice is given to pay or provide driver details, in line with PoFA 9(2)(f). However, the following paragraph states, "If after 29 days we have not received payment...", which conflicts with the earlier statement and creates ambiguity.
The inconsistency in deadlines makes the NtK unclear and confusing, failing the requirement to provide an accurate warning to the keeper as required by PoFA.
3. Inadequate and Unclear SignageUpon reviewing the evidence provided by RCP Parking Ltd on their website, the contractual signage contains minuscule text that is difficult to read. The parking charge amount is buried in a large block of terms and conditions, rather than being clearly prominent, as required by consumer protection laws. Signage must meet the adequate notice standards set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. The signage at this site fails to do so.
4. Photos Provided Do Not Prove a ContraventionThe photos provided by RCP Parking Ltd do not show any evidence of a parking contravention. The photos show the vehicle in a parking bay but fail to demonstrate that the vehicle was parked in breach of any specific terms and conditions. Without a recorded period of parking, there is no evidence that the vehicle was parked for longer than a brief period during which the driver could have been reviewing the signage before leaving.
