Free Traffic Legal Advice

That'll do. Even if you get the Gimp they keep in cellar assessing your appeal on the day, it doesn't matter, if it is not accepted. This would never reach a hearing in court.

I submitted the appeal and PPS have responded to POPLA with the following, along with the NtH, NtK, Hirer agreement, statement signed by or on behalf of the hire company confirming that the vehicle was on hire, a copy of the liability agreement and copy of contract with land owner:

"Dear Assessor,

The contract that we are seeking payment on has arisen from a breach of the notified terms and conditions of parking stated on the signs that the landowner has requested us to erect and permitted to remain erected at this location. The evidence demonstrates that the signage is clearly located to make motorists aware of the terms and conditions and the potential consequences of non-adherence to the terms have been made fully available "No parking at any time. Private land, strictly no parking, waiting or loading at any time, unauthorised parking will result in the issue of a £100 parking charge notice".
The parking charge was issued because the appellant’s vehicle was parked in a no-parking area, which is a direct contravention of the site's terms and conditions. As there is no evidence of any circumstances forcing the driver to park in no parking at any time area, the warden acted in line with the signage in issuing the charge. As there are no rules in that a PCN has to be fixed to a windscreen, we then requested the registered keepers’ details from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK) to the registered keeper at the address listed.
The evidence shows that ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR LTD is the registered keeper of the vehicle. On *DATE* (17 days after the parking event), ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR LTD provided a Hire Agreement signed by *HIRER*. According to the hire agreement, *HIRER* had the option to add an additional driver but chose not to do so.  According to the same hire agreement, *HIRER* accepts responsibility for any parking charges that may be incurred with respect to the vehicle while it is hired by the hirer. Notice to Hirer was sent to *HIRER* in full compliance with PoFA 2012. Therefore, we have the right to pursue the appellant, *HIER*, for the unpaid parking charge, as they became liable by parking in an enforcement zone within a strictly no-parking area.
Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure they seek out and understand the terms and conditions of the car park before deciding to park."

Thank you and certainly! I'll upload the evidence pack here.

The notice to hirer and appeal rejection should be available in an earlier post. All I've left out is additional images of the vehicle and a picture of the sign.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Instead of us having to download it, just host it on DropBox or Google Drive

Copy and paste this rebuttal into the POPLA webform in response to the operators evidence pack:

Rebuttal to the operators response and evidence pack

1. The NtH as given did not comply with PoFA 14(2)

The operator’s claim that the Notice to Hirer was issued “in full compliance with PoFA 2012” is completely untrue. It is an outright lie – and not an unexpected one from this rogue firm with a long track record of disregarding legal requirements in pursuit of easy money from unsuspecting motorists.

The operator has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that copies of the mandatory documents required under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 were enclosed with the Notice to Hirer at the time it was served (given). These documents are:

- A copy of the hire agreement;
- A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer;
- A statement signed by or on behalf of the hire company confirming that the vehicle was on hire to the hirer at the time of the alleged contravention.

Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2) of PoFA is absolutely clear on this point. It states:

“The conditions are that—
(a) the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a ‘notice to hirer’), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper.”

This is not a guideline. It is a statutory requirement. Unless all three of the listed documents were enclosed with the Notice to Hirer, liability cannot be transferred to the hirer under any circumstances.

The operator has not even attempted to demonstrate that these documents were enclosed. Their evidence shows only one of the documents themselves, but that is not proof that even that was served correctly. There is no covering letter, no declaration, no statement from the operator – nothing. They have simply dumped the document into their evidence pack long after the fact and asserted, without proof, that the NtH was compliant. That is legally meaningless.

It is not the job of the assessor to speculate or give the operator the benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof is entirely on the operator to demonstrate compliance. They haven’t. In fact, by ignoring this issue completely in their response, they have effectively conceded it.

They served a Notice to Hirer in isolation – without copies od ALL the documents required under Paragraphs 13 and 14 of PoFA – and therefore they failed the statutory test. They cannot pursue the hirer, and this appeal must now be upheld.

2. Operator’s reliance on prohibitive signage is irrelevant

In their evidence, the operator claims that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) arose from a breach of the terms and conditions of parking, stating that the vehicle was parked in a "no-parking area" in contravention of the site's terms and conditions. However, this claim is fundamentally flawed because the signage at the site does not create a contractual agreement, but instead imposes a prohibition on parking altogether.

The operator refers to the sign stating: "No parking at any time. Private land, strictly no parking, waiting or loading at any time, unauthorised parking will result in the issue of a £100 parking charge notice." This is not a contractual offer but a prohibitive term. Under contract law, a prohibition cannot form the basis of a contract, as there is no offer to park, no invitation to treat, and therefore no contract formed between the motorist and the operator.

For a valid contract to exist, the signage must contain terms that provide an offer to park and an invitation for the motorist to accept the terms. A prohibitive sign, such as the one described here, does not meet these legal requirements and cannot form a binding agreement. The operator’s own admission in their evidence demonstrates their reliance on prohibitive signage, and this directly contradicts their claim of contractual agreement.

This is a key point: a contract cannot exist where the signage only prohibits parking, and as the signs do not contain an offer or invitation to park, no contract was formed. The operator’s argument that they issued a valid parking charge for a breach of terms is therefore completely invalid.

Additionally, the operator has not provided any evidence that the driver actually parked in breach of any enforceable contract, given that no such contract could have been formed under the terms of the signage. Their claim for the parking charge is therefore unenforceable, and the appeal must be upheld.

3. Although this appeal focused solely on the operator’s failure to comply with PoFA by omitting the required documents with the Notice to Hirer, it must also be noted that the Notice to Hirer itself fails PoFA for another reason: it does not specify any period of parking, as required by Paragraph 9(2)(a) (which applied to the Notice to Keeper).

If, as the operator is now claiming, the signs were contractual (they are not), and that the PCN was issued for breach of those terms, then there is absolutely no evidence that the vehicle was parked for longer than the minimum consideration period that must be allowed for a driver to find, read, understand, and either accept the terms of the supposed contract or reject them and leave.

So if the signs were contractual, there is no evidence that the driver breached any contractual term, because there is no evidence the vehicle was parked beyond the allowed consideration period.

Or, if—as the wording of the signs makes plain—the signage is prohibitory in nature (“No parking at any time”), then no contract could have been formed in the first place, and the operator’s position collapses on that basis instead.

In short, the operator has boxed themselves into a corner. Either way, their claim fails and the charge must be cancelled.

4. The operator’s contract is irrelevant to the actual grounds of appeal
The contract provided by the operator appears to be broadly compliant with the legal requirements for establishing standing. The named signatories are identified as directors of the managing agent and leaseholder, and the contract is dated and signed appropriately.

However, the operator’s right to issue PCNs at the location was never in dispute. As such, the inclusion of the contract is superfluous and unnecessary.

More importantly, this contract does nothing to address or rebut the actual ground of appeal – namely, the operator’s failure to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Specifically, it provides no explanation or evidence that the Notice to Hirer was served with the documents required under Paragraphs 13 and 14, which is a statutory precondition for pursuing a hirer.

Whether or not the operator has the right to issue parking charges is irrelevant in circumstances where they have failed to meet the legal conditions to pursue this appellant. This contract, even if accepted at face value, does not repair or excuse the fatal PoFA breach already set out. As such, it cannot assist the operator in defending this charge.

So, did you amend it to note that?

Hey both!

Just heard back from POPLA with a successful appeal Thank you ever so much, here is their response:


Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The Notice to Hirer (NtH) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 & 14, meaning liability cannot be transferred to the Hirer. • To transfer liability from the Keeper to the Hirer, PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2) explicitly requires that the operator provides a copy of the hire agreement, a copy of the statement of liability signed by the Hirer and a statement signed by or on behalf of the hire company confirming that the vehicle was on hire during the alleged contravention which they state the parking operator has failed to provide with the NtH and therefore without full compliance with these mandatory conditions, the Hirer cannot be held liable under PoFA. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal as well as raises new grounds of appeal in relation to: • The parking operator’s reliance on prohibitive signage is irrelevant making reference to the parking operator claims that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) arose from a breach of the terms and conditions of parking, stating that the vehicle was parked in a "no-parking area" in contravention of the site's terms and conditions stating this claim is fundamentally flawed because the signage at the site does not create a contractual agreement, but instead imposes a prohibition on parking altogether. Furthermore, they say for a valid contract to exist, the signage must contain terms that provide an offer to park and an invitation for the motorist to accept the terms. A prohibitive sign, such as the one described here, does not meet these legal requirements and cannot form a binding agreement. • The NtoH also fails PoFA for another reason as it does not specify any period of parking, as required by Paragraph 9(2)(a) (which applied to the Notice to Keeper). • The contract provided by the operator appears to be broadly compliant with the legal requirements for establishing standing and the named signatories are identified as directors of the managing agent and leaseholder, and the contract is dated and signed appropriately, however the operator’s right to issue PCNs at the location was never in dispute and as such, the inclusion of the contract is superfluous and unnecessary.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:
I will be allowing the appeal, and my reasoning is outlined below: It is the responsibility of the parking operator to provide POPLA with sufficient and clear evidence to demonstrate that it issued the parking charge notice correctly. In this case the PCN was issued for parking in a no parking area. The parking operator is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA), which has a code of practice detailing the standards that it needs to uphold as a part of its membership. The appellant states the Notice to Hirer (NtH) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4, more specifically Paragraph 14(2) which states: 14(2) The conditions are that— (a) the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper. 13(2) 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. While the parking operator has provided this evidence from Paragraph 13(2) to POPLA, there is no evidence to support this was provided to the appellant, as per Paragraph 14(2) of PoFA, when the PCN was issued to the appellant. As such, I am in agreement the PCN is not compliant with PoFA and therefore I am not satisfied that the parking operator has adequately rebutted the appellant’s grounds of appeal. The appellant has referenced other points within their comments to POPLA, but as I have allowed the appeal, I do not feel that it is necessary to address them.


You both are providing an amazing service to the people!