Thank you. I have added some more detail and an extra point asking for their contract:
VEHICLE REG: **** ***
Dear Assessor,
I am writing to formally appeal against the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC) on the grounds of inadequate signage, failure to comply with PoFA requirements, non-compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and potential lack of contract and permission to issue PCNs. I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.
1. No mention of period of parking on the PCN
UKPC has failed to fully comply with the strict requirements of PoFA 9(2)(a) and (b), which stipulates "The notice must—(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the **period of parking** to which the notice relates; (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified **period of parking** and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;". The period of parking ,which is the keyword on both of the strict requirements, is not mentioned on the UKPC's parking charge notice (PCN). The failure to meet the requirements of PoFA 9(2)(a) and (b) means UKPC cannot recover the charge from me as the registered keeper.
2. Poor or lack of signage
The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and here was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver. From where the vehicle is parked, none of the signs can be seen. The only sign visible at the entry of this car park, which is bizarrely placed on the right hand side of the entrance, only mentions there is a 2 hour limit at this car park (please refer to the attached photo of the entrance, with the sign in red circle). It is plausible that the driver neither saw any signs nor knew about any terms & conditions which governed the paved area where the alleged parking violation occurred. Having visited the location, I noted that the sign on entry to the car park is almost impossible to read safely, especially while driving a motorcycle. Any drivers entering this car park need to make a sharp turn to the right (the road leading to the car park is a dead-end, so almost any vehicle entering the car park have to make a right turn). This means immediately after completing the turn, the sign would be to the far right side of the driver and practically impossible to read safely. There is no other signage on the opposite side, nor any sign that can be seen from where the vehicle was parked. The closest sign I could find on the site, was at least 6 meter away and **not facing** where the vehicle was parked and its driver. This means the driver could not possibly see the sign, and a contract have not been formed. Please refer to the attached photo of this sign, in yellow circle. To be relied on as having formed a contract, all terms and conditions must be readable, understood and agreed to by any driver/motorcyclist (elderly, disabled, short sighted etc) on entering the area and in any lighting and all weather conditions. As no contract was formed with the driver, UKPC cannot issue a PCN let alone hold the registered keeper responsible for it.
3. The motorbike was parked on the paved area designed for bikes
The vehicle was **not** parked on the car park, but on a paved area designed for bikes/bicycles therefore UKPC had no authority to issue a PCN. On my appeal, I had asked UKPC for landowner's permission to issue PCNs AND if their permission extends to vehicles that are not parked on the car park, but neither were addressed/provided on their refusal. I assume UKPC does not have this permission. Please refer to the attached photo of this paved area, particularly the area marked with a purple rectangle. It is reasonable for any motorcyclist to assume this area is for bikes as it has the security ground anchors. There is no sign in the area to specify whether it is designated for motorcycles only, or bicycles only, or both. It is reasonable for people on motorcycles and bicycles to assume this paved area is permissable to use hence UKPC was in the wrong to issue a PCN here.
4. No evidence to show UKPC has landowner's permission to issue PCNs
I have seen no evidence of a compliant contract with the landowner. I do not believe that UKPC has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give them any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and to pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor. Therefore this Operator has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs) which could be BPA Code of Practice compliant. In addition, UKPC's lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge, I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to UKPC. I expect UKPC to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code. I, therefore, put UKPC to strict proof of the contract terms with the site landowner (not an individual lessee or managing agent as they are another third party). A site agreement/witness statement saying they 'can issue Parking Charge Notices' will not suffice; this is not the issue. The whole unredacted contract is required to show what is authorised by way of charges and whether only for breach. The contract must also show the boundaries of the site they are hired to enforce it on.
UKPC has not met the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. As UKPC have not complied fully with the requirements of PoFA, they have also breached the BPA Code of Practice at 2.4, 19.4, 21.2, 21.12 and 21.13. The parking company can therefore only pursue the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As the parking company have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were, liability cannot flow from the driver to the keeper. Therefore I am not liable to any charge.
