Free Traffic Legal Advice

As the response is limited to 20,000 characters or less, here is the response, with the points in order of priority:

1. Invalid and unclear landholder authority:

In my appeal, I put ParkingEye to strict proof of a valid contract with the landowner, which they have failed to provide. The landowner authority document ParkingEye submitted is dated 23 March 2021, with an 'Initial Term' of 36 months starting from the 'Service Commencement Date.' However, the contract does not specify this commencement date. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume the term began on the date the contract was signed, meaning it would have expired by 22 March 2024. Since the parking event occurred after this date, ParkingEye has not demonstrated that a valid contract was in place at the time of the incident.

Additionally, the copy of the contract provided by ParkingEye is of such poor quality that several terms are unreadable. This lack of clarity raises serious concerns about the enforceability of the document. Furthermore, whole sections of the contract, including the Termination clause, have been redacted. These redacted sections may contain crucial information relevant to this case, such as specific terms about the contract’s validity or conditions for its termination. ParkingEye has failed to address these issues in their operator response, leaving significant doubts about their authority to issue PCNs at the time of the alleged breach.

2. Prohibitive signage – No contract formed:

In my original appeal, I argued that the signage at the car park was prohibitive, particularly before 10:00 am, meaning no offer to park was available during the time the vehicle was parked. Consequently, no contract could have been formed under basic principles of contract law, which require a clear offer and acceptance. Additionally, the signage does not meet the fairness and transparency requirements under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. ParkingEye has failed to rebut this critical point in their response, ignoring the argument that prohibitive signage precludes the formation of a contract. They have also not addressed the CRA violations concerning the fairness and transparency of their terms.

3. Non-compliance with PoFA (Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)):

My appeal specifically highlighted that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by ParkingEye does not comply with Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as it fails to "invite the keeper" to either pay the parking charge or provide the driver's details. This omission is a fundamental breach of PoFA. Despite this, ParkingEye has not provided any evidence or argument in their operator response to rebut or rectify this critical point. As such, they cannot hold the registered keeper liable for the parking charge.

4. No proof the keeper is the driver:

In my appeal, I stressed that ParkingEye had not shown that the individual being pursued is the driver. Since they failed to comply with the conditions of PoFA to hold the keeper liable, they are required to prove that the person they are pursuing was the driver at the time of the event. In their operator response, ParkingEye has completely failed to rebut this point. They have not provided any evidence identifying the driver, nor have they shown full compliance with PoFA, meaning they cannot pursue the keeper in place of the driver.

5. Insufficient signage and no evidence of vehicle location:

In my appeal, I raised concerns about the lack of evidence showing where the vehicle was parked in relation to the signage. ParkingEye's case summary does not provide details about the exact location of the vehicle in relation to the signage, making it unclear if the driver had any reasonable opportunity to see or read the terms. In their operator evidence, ParkingEye has failed to rebut this point, offering no further proof to demonstrate that the signage was clear, visible, or properly located in relation to where the vehicle was parked.

Conclusion:

ParkingEye has failed to rebut the main points raised in my initial appeal. They have not demonstrated compliance with PoFA, provided sufficient evidence of the vehicle’s location relative to signage, or proven that they have valid landholder authority. For these reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel the parking charge.

I am unsure if this difference between the contract and signage renders the PCN unenforceable however.

Whether or not it was 10am or 11am, the vehicle entered shortly after 9am, so would have breached either version of the T&Cs. If that issue were in dispute, you'd have a strong argument to be able to rely on the terms communicated via the signage on the site. I think a far bigger issue in this case is they've not demonstrated that they hold a valid contract.

Just a quick update on this.

The POPLA appeal was unsuccessful. I can add their response here if its important but otherwise I won't (note POPLA did say that the contract automatically renews, I could not find this in the contract myself)

I understand that any debt collection letters can be ignored.

What should I be looking out for that cannot be ignored?

Thanks!

Hi

Thanks for your reply. I will await the LoC and advise further.

In the meantime, here is the POPLA response. I have tried to break it up as best as possible to make it readable...

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. The parking operator has transferred liability to the registered keeper so they are not holding the driver liable. The PCN also invites the registered keeper to name the driver to transfer liability and if no driver details are provided, they will hold the registered keeper liable for the charge. It also advised that if no driver is identified they have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from the keeper. I am satisfied that it invites the keeper to pay the charge if no driver is identified.

The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows the signs state “…2 hour max stay between 10am – 11pm…NO PARKING OUTSIDE OF THESE TIMES…Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of:£100…”. The signs clearly inform motorists of the terms of parking at the site, and offers a contract to motorists using the site, if they overstay the maximum stay time or park at the site when no parking is allowed the motorists is accepting a PCN will be issued to them. I am satisfied that the terms and conditions are fair under The Consumer Right Acts 2015 as the terms are made clear to motorists and it is the motorist’s choice if they choose to park there and accept the terms that are on offer.

The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking.

Section 19.2 of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows there is an entrance sign to inform motorists they are entering private land and terms and conditions apply. The site map provided by the parking operator shows there are 6 signs installed at the site informing motorists of the terms and conditions of using the site. There is sufficient signage installed at the site based on the size off it.

While I appreciate there are no images of the appellants vehicle parked near a sign, there is no requirement for the parking operator to provide these as their evidence shows signs are installed throughout the site.

Section 19.4 of the Code of Practice states that if parking operators intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, the signs must give adequate notice of the charge. The signs have the PCN amount in large white text on a black background, I am satisfied that the PCN amount is adequately brought to motorists’ attention.

Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question. This can come in the form of a witness statement under Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice or a full contract. In this case the parking operator has provided as signed contract from March 2021 which is valid for 36 months. The contract does say it renews automatically unless either party terminates the contract. I am satisfied the parking operator has a valid landowner contract.

The parking operator uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras at the site to record how long each vehicle stays on the site for and the time they entered. As the parking operator has shown that the appellants vehicle entered the site at 09:12, 48 minutes before parking is allowed at the site, and left at 10:08 the PCN has been issued by the parking operator the vehicle was parked at the site for 38 minutes when no parking was allowed. Whilst I note the appellant has raised comments to POPLA after reviewing the operator’s case file, the comments expand on the initial grounds raised and I have addressed those within my report. Therefore, the comments do not require any further consideration.

After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellants vehicle was parked at the site when no parking was allowed without being authorised to do so and therefore the driver did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.

Obviously they redacted the contract where it stated that the contract is automatically renewed but, according to the moronic POPLA assessor, they let them see it. I would dare them to try that at court and see how quickly they are slapped down.

The assessor did not mention the PoFA failure. They simply accepted that the NtK was PoFA compliant..

Just goes to show how useless they really are. Never mind. Onwards and upwards.