Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello all,

Can you please advise on the legality of this POFA 2012 notice (PCN and signs below)? I believe there are several grounds for appeal, but I would appreciate your guidance. I am trying to help a neighbour out with this one.

It seems like a very dodgy notice, and it does not even have a valid address as the alleged contravention site on the notice (postcode)!

Should I focus on keeper liability and include the other content (below) as additional points of appeal? Basically, state that the creditor has not complied with POFA 2012 Paragraph 9(2) requirements, and there will be no admissions on the identity of the driver. Specifically,
- Paragraph 9(2)(e): The creditor has not indicated that they do not know the identity of the driver.
- Paragraph 9(2)(e): The creditor has not specifically mentioned that the creditor should be provided with the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver. The creditor merely asked the registered keeper to provide the driver with the notice which is an incomplete requirement.
- Paragraph 9(2)(f)(ii): The creditor has not complied with POFA 2012 requirements which indicate that the registered keeper will only be pursued for payment if the identity of the driver is not provided after 28 days.

POTENTIAL GROUNDS FOR APPEAL(Based on Signage and Notice Compliance)


1. Failure to Specify the Period of Parking
o Regulation Breached: POFA 2012, Paragraph 9(2)(a)
o Issue: The notice does not specify the "period of parking," only a timestamp (16:44). POFA requires the notice to state the duration of the parking event to establish a breach of terms.

________________________________________

2. Lack of a Presumed Delivery Date for the Notice
o Regulation Breached: POFA 2012, Paragraph 9(2)(I)
o Issue: The notice fails to include the presumed delivery date, which is necessary to determine when the 28-day period for keeper liability begins. The notice was received after the 28-day period and the postage envelope does not include a marking which could be relied upon to evidence the presume date of delivery of the notice.
________________________________________

3. Insufficient Explanation of Keeper Liability Conditions
o Regulation Breached: POFA 2012, Paragraph 9(2)(f)
o Issue: The notice does not sufficiently explain all the statutory conditions under which keeper liability applies, such as the need for reasonable efforts to identify the driver and issuing the notice within the required timeframe. The notice does not ask the driver to identify the driver and instead insists that the registered keeper pay the charges.
________________________________________

4. Failure to Clearly Display the Parking Charge
o Regulation Breached: POFA 2012, Paragraph 9(2)(d) & IPC Code of Practice, Part E
o Issue: The parking charge (£100) is not prominently displayed on the signage. Key terms like the parking charge must be prominent and legible to form part of the parking contract. The sign uses small font for critical information, and the positioning may not ensure it is visible from all entry points or parking bays.IPC Code of Practice mandates that a standard font size is used for key terms and conditions, in this case the sign is mounted at a height and the parking charges are in a small font size that makes it clear and legible.
________________________________________

5. Poor Visibility and Positioning of Signage
o Regulation Breached: IPC Code of Practice, Part E.3
o Issue: The signage is mounted at a height that could make it difficult for drivers to read from within a vehicle. Signs must be positioned to ensure they are visible and legible upon entering the site and while parking.
________________________________________
6. No Mention of ANPR Usage
o Regulation Breached: IPC Code of Practice, Part B.2 & Data Protection Act 2018 (GDPR)
o Issue: The signage does not mention that ANPR cameras are in operation, even though a CCTV or camera type device is collecting vehicle data as evident from the photographs taken to process this parking . This omission breaches transparency requirements. The data processing notice at the bottom does not clarify the terms under which personal data is being collected and processed. This is a breach of IPC Code of Practice and data protection laws.
________________________________________
7. No Evidence of Authority to Operate
o Regulation Breached: POFA 2012, Paragraph 9(2)(h)
o Issue: The signage does not explicitly state that Parking & Property Management Ltd is authorised to enforce charges or manage parking on the land. This is a requirement to validate the notice.
________________________________________
8. Failure to Prove Reasonable Cause for Accessing Keeper Data
o Regulation Breached: POFA 2012, Schedule 4 & DVLA Access Rules
o Issue: The creditor must demonstrate reasonable cause for accessing the DVLA’s keeper data. The signage and notice do not clearly explain the alleged breach or provide sufficient evidence to justify accessing personal data, if the contract is not being enforced on legally enforceable terms then the creditor is breaching data privacy regulations by making false representations to DVLA.
________________________________________
9. Unfair or Disproportionate Parking Charge
o Regulation Breached: IPC Code of Practice, Part E.4
o Issue: The parking charge (£100, increasing to £170) is considered disproportionate, particularly if signage and terms are unclear. Charges must be proportionate and clearly communicated in order to form a valid contract with the driver.
________________________________________
10. Non-Compliance with Timeframes
o Regulation Breached: POFA 2012, Paragraphs 9(4) & 9(5)
o Issue: The PCN was issued on 18 October 2024 for a contravention on 15 October 2024. While this appears within the 14-day limit, no evidence has been provided to confirm delivery within the statutory timeframe.
________________________________________
Additional Signage-Specific Points

11. Lack of Prominence for Key Terms
o Regulation Breached: IPC Code of Practice, Part E.2
o Issue: Key terms, such as the parking charge and conditions for valid parking, are not sufficiently prominent on the signage. This fails to meet the requirement for clarity.
________________________________________


EVIDENCE FROM THE WEBSITE OF PPM LTD REGARDING PCN: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N4glL0REMeZ4SgZ7SPKUojv4sF3g8I5Y/

PCN FRONT



PCN REAR




SIGNAGE ON PCN EVIDENCE

Whilst you are assisting someone else, any appeal or subsequent defence can only be done in the name of the Keeper to whom the PCN was addressed.

Well noted, I will ask the registered keeper to submit the appeal. The registered keeper is not earning an income and I was trying to help them.

We need to know the circumstances of the PCN. Was the driver or the keeper of the vehicle a resident at the location?

Resident at one of the apartments (the address on the notice is weird, not sure if you had any comments about that).
Holds a valid council parking permit (but due to signage piled up two PCNs - one other similar to this).

If so, what does their lease/tenancy agreement say about parking? What it doesn't say about parking is equally important. If they were only visiting someone at the location, the lease of the person being visited will also apply.

The RK is a private tenant. I am unsure they can get the details from their landlord.

The RK has a council parking permit. The council permit parking signage is a mess which confused them and they thought they were parking on the council permit parking area. I attempt to explain this through the image below.

Green shading: Private parking area.
Yellow shading: Council permit parking area - the yellow star at the start of CADET DR is the only entry and exit out of this entire area.

Pink shaded area (overlapping with the text): Interestingly, at the entrance of the private parking area, the first parking space on the left is on private land (where neither the council nor the private parking operator has the authority to operate).

RED X marks the entry and exit of the private parking area: There is no 'END OF PERMIT PARKING' and 'START OF PERMIT PARKING' signs before and after entering the private parking area; usually councils are supposed to put these up and Southwark Council has indicated that the entire CADET DR is a permit parking area.

In the majority of these "residential" cases, the operator does not have a valid contract with the landowner or they owner/tenant lease has supremacy of contract and the operator cannot simply override the terms of the lease just because thy have been allowed to put up some signs.

Going to be hard to ascertain in this case as the landlord would be unlikely to handover their leasehold documents to the private tenant.

Regarding your points of appeal, whilst they are points that could be used, assuming they were valid (which in this case almost none of them are), no initial appeal, under any circumstances is going to succeed. Also, as they are IPC members, there is less than 4% chance of an IAS secondary appeal succeeding either.

I am not surprised at the bias shown by IAS :/

the most likely outcome will be if a claim is made in the county court. That is ideally what you want to get this done and dusted. The county court is the ultimate independent dispute resolution service and in the majority of cases, when defended, are either discontinued, struck out or won.

Given the circumstances of this case do you think with the information we have we could succeed?

Now, to cover your PoFA points and why they are not necessarily relevant:

1. Failure to Specify the Period of Parking:

Whilst that argument has occasionally been successful at POPLA and in court, it would not work with an initial appeal or with the IAS.

3. Insufficient Explanation of Keeper Liability Conditions:

There is a flaw in their wording as PoFA states at 9(2)(f) "...the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid". Whereas in their Notice to Keeper (NtK) they state: "...the case will be passed to our Debt Recovery Agent which me escalate to court..." Again, a technical breach of PoFA requirements but would only be useful in court, not in an appeal.

Would IAS really choose to not uphold the need for strict compliance with the POFA wording?

4. Failure to Clearly Display the Parking Charge:

Always a good one but, again, only useful in court. You'd have to point out the obvious with a comparison to the Beavis sign like this:

I will prepare a sign. Could you reference some past cases where this was relevant so I can include it in the appeal nonetheless.

11. Lack of Prominence for Key Terms:

Again, as an IPC operator, only valid if it went to court.[/indent]

Any grounds for raising a consumer rights complaint against the parking operator?

have I missed where there is any mention by them of relying on Pofa

PoFA doesn't necessarily state that you must explicitly reference it by name to comply (although many do) - one can still make the arguments b789 suggests either way.

PoFA itself does not have to be referenced or even mentioned. Only the requirements of PoFA have to be complied with.