There are evidential photos of the vehicle being stationary for 11 minutes and 51 seconds, which precludes using consideration period as an argument. It is going to hinge on no contractual liability as no contract can be formed by the signage.
The sign is primarily prohibitory, listing multiple restrictions:
“No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on the roads at any time.”
“No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on the footpaths at any time.”
“No causing obstructions at any time.”
These prohibitions do not suggest an offer to allow parking under conditions. instead, they explicitly state what actions are not permitted. This does not form an offer that can be accepted by conduct.
The sign states: “£100 Parking Charge Notice reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.” However, this charge is presented as a penalty for non-compliance with the prohibitions rather than as an offer for parking under conditions. There is no clear wording indicating that parking is allowed if certain conditions are met and that non-compliance will result in a charge.
The wording implies that the £100 charge is a consequence of breaching the prohibitions, but it does not indicate that the driver is entering into a contract by parking.
There is no explicit offer made to drivers in terms of allowing them to park under specific conditions. The sign simply lists prohibited actions without providing terms for permitted use.
There is no consideration offered to the driver (e.g., the right to park under specified conditions). Instead, the sign only lists what is forbidden and mentions a charge as a penalty.
The mention of a “Parking Charge Notice” suggests an intention to enforce penalties, but it does not clearly state that the driver is entering into a binding contract by parking there. The language used (“agree to pay”) is conditional and can only be interpreted as a deterrent rather than an offer.
Therefore, the signs as worded, are incapable of forming a valid contract. They fails to present an offer that a driver can accept by conduct. They are solely prohibitory, listing only what is not allowed without any indication that parking is allowed under certain conditions with a corresponding charge for non-compliance. The £100 charge appears as a deterrent or penalty rather than a term of a contract that the driver consents to by parking.
For the signs to be capable of forming a contract, they would need to:
1. Clearly state that parking is permitted under certain conditions.
2. Specify that by parking in the area, the driver agrees to those conditions and accepts the stated charge for non-compliance.
3. Use clear language that conveys an offer and the acceptance of terms, leading to the formation of a binding agreement.
They don’t do any of those things.
Also, the identification of the location on the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must be sufficiently clear to enable the recipient to understand exactly where the parking event occurred. Under PoFA, Paragraph 7(2)(a) requires that the relevant land where the vehicle was parked is described with enough detail to ensure the keeper is aware of the specific location.
The NtK mentions the location as "UXBRIDGE IND EST, Wallingford Rd, Salisbury Rd, Arundel Rd, UXBRIDGE, UB8 2RZ," which includes the name of the industrial estate and three different roads within it. Listing multiple roads without specifying the exact road or more precise details where the vehicle was allegedly parked creates ambiguity. The keeper cannot discern the exact location or spot within the industrial estate where the alleged breach occurred.
PoFA requires that the location be identified with enough particularity so that a reasonable person can understand where the alleged contravention took place. The inclusion of multiple roads and only a general reference to an industrial estate falls short of providing enough clarity, especially if the estate is large or comprises multiple car parks or different parking arrangements.
For full PoFA compliance, the NtK should specify which road or part of the industrial estate the vehicle was parked on to leave no doubt as to the location. Without this, the location is not defined with enough particularity to meet PoFA requirements.
So, there can be no Keeper liability and the POPLA appeal must be made only as the Keeper with no obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company.
The other point to include in the POPLA appeal will be to put the operator to strict proof that it has valid authority from the landowner to issue PCNs in its own name at the specified location. A signed statement or witness testimony alone is insufficient. An unredacted copy of the contract or agreement between the landowner and the operator must be provided to demonstrate that such authority exists. This is essential to establish that the operator has the legal standing to enforce parking charges at this site.
