Hi - here's the appeal drafted, appreciate any help on it:
I am the hirer of the vehicle and wish to appeal this Parking Charge Notice issued by UKPC on the following grounds:
1. The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) and therefore liability cannot be transferred to the hirer.
Under Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), a parking operator seeking to transfer liability to a vehicle hirer must provide the following documentation with the Notice to Hirer (NtH):
• A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK).
• A copy of the relevant hire agreement.
• A statement, signed on behalf of the hire company, confirming the name and address of the hirer and the duration of the hire period.
UKPC’s Notice to Hirer failed to include the above documentation in full. In particular:
• No copy of the original Notice to Keeper was enclosed.
• No signed statement from the hire company identifying me as the hirer was provided.
• No copy of the hire agreement was included.
PoFA stipulates that all these documents must be provided for a parking operator to establish keeper/hirer liability. Without full compliance, UKPC is unable to pursue the hirer and can only seek recovery from the driver, who has not been identified.
As such, liability cannot be transferred to me under statute.
2. The photographic evidence does not demonstrate a clear breach of parking terms.
The images provided by UKPC do not clearly show that the vehicle was parked in contravention of the stated terms and conditions.
• There is no clear evidence that the vehicle was parked outside the lines of a marked bay.
• The images are inconclusive due to the angle, lack of reference points, and poor clarity.
• No timestamped series of images has been provided to establish the duration or nature of any alleged contravention.
As such, UKPC has not discharged the burden of proof required to demonstrate a contractual breach. The absence of reliable and objective evidence weakens the basis of the charge.
3. Lack of clear, prominent signage on site.
If UKPC allege that the parking terms were breached, it is necessary for them to provide dated photographs of the relevant signage near the location of the alleged contravention. These should show:
• That signs were visible, legible, and prominent from the location where the vehicle was parked.
• That the terms and conditions were clear and accessible at the time of parking.
• A site map showing the position of signs relative to the bays.
Without sufficient evidence of visible and readable signage, no contract can be deemed to have been established with the driver.
4. UKPC’s conduct appears disproportionate and predatory.
The issuing of a Parking Charge Notice under ambiguous circumstances, with unclear evidence and without statutory compliance, may be seen as inconsistent with guidance issued by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities regarding fair and proportionate parking enforcement.
The approach adopted in this case—particularly the lack of due diligence in evidencing the alleged contravention—raises concerns over the fairness and transparency of UKPC’s conduct. It is respectfully submitted that this undermines confidence in the integrity of private parking enforcement.
5. UKPC may be in breach of data protection principles under the UK GDPR.
As the Notice to Hirer does not meet the statutory conditions under PoFA, UKPC has no lawful basis under Article 6(1)(f) of the UK GDPR to pursue the hirer using their personal data.
The principle of data minimisation and lawful processing requires that data controllers (in this case, UKPC) only process personal information when there is a legitimate legal basis to do so. As UKPC has not met the legal requirements to establish hirer liability, the use of my personal data obtained from the hire company may constitute unlawful processing.
In light of the above, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the Parking Charge Notice. The failure to comply with PoFA Schedule 4, the absence of clear evidence, concerns regarding signage, and potential data protection issues provide multiple, independent reasons why this charge should not stand.