Free Traffic Legal Advice

So, why have you not shown us the NtH? Is there ay evidence of the vehicle not correctly parked within the markings of a bay? Have you checked their website for other evidential photos of the alleged contravention?

The first point of your appeal is the main one that should get it cancelled. However, the wording needs tightening top slightly.

Any other points should be about lack of evidence of the alleged contravention, deficient signage and put them to strict proof of valid landowner authority to operate and issue PCNs in their one name at the location.

HC Andersen's point is valid, as far as procedural clarity: It frames the issue as a binary legal question—has UKPC complied with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 para. 14 or not? It avoids over explaining.

The assessor is pointed directly to the statutory requirements without being burdened by multiple subsidiary points. It subtly places the burden on UKPC and POPLA to prove compliance, not on the hirer to prove non-compliance.

However, it may feel incomplete if the operator does submit documents at evidence stage and the Hirer doesn’t follow through with the indicated “further representations”. It also assumes knowledge. POPLA assessors vary in competence; some might fail to scrutinise the documents unless prompted.

Here is a suggested update to point #1 of the appeal:

I am the Hirer of the vehicle and I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice issued by UKPC.

UKPC is attempting to transfer liability to me as the Hirer under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). They can only do this if they comply fully with Paragraph 14 of that Schedule.

As of the date of this appeal, UKPC has failed to provide copies of the documents required under PoFA to transfer liability to the hirer.

There are four documents that must be provided with the Notice to Hirer in order to comply with Paragraph 14 of PoFA:

1. A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
2. A copy of the hire agreement;
3. A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement; and
4. A copy of the Notice to Keeper (NtK).

To date, UKPC has not provided all four documents. Without all four of these documents, UKPC has not met the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4. Therefore, they cannot transfer liability to the Hirer and may only pursue the driver, who has not been identified.

If UKPC attempts to rely on any new documents in their evidence pack to POPLA, it is now too late as they were required to have been provided together with the Notice to Hirer within the relevant period of 21 days of the liability having been transferred from the Keeper.

I therefore request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the charge.

We're getting there, but aren't there yet.

we received a note from the leasing company (business lease) that there was an impending notice to hirer coming our way some time back.

Where is this 'note' pl?

And by the way, whether or not the correct enclosures were given, the NTH doesn't comply with PoFA para. 14.

The NTH:
Under the terms of Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 you are now liable to pay the unpaid Parking Charge.The registered keeper has supplied us with the signed statement to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to you under a hire agreement, a copy of the hire agreement and a statement of signed by you under that hire agreement.

If no payment or representation is received within 28 days the outstanding debt will be forwarded to a debt recovery agency. at which point additional charges will apply in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking.

Under the terms of Schedule 4 of thr Protection of Freedoms Act2012 you are now liable to pay the unpaid Parking Charge. (my emphasis)

Oh really!

As Richard Burton said to Colonel Kramer in Where Eagles Dare:

'Now compare it with my original' (in this case para. 14 PoFA):

14(1)If—

(a)the creditor is by virtue of paragraph 13(2) unable to exercise the right to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges mentioned in the notice to keeper, and

(b)the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below are met,

the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer.


(2)The conditions are that—

(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;

(b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed


If probably fails on (2)(a) because they won't have supplied a copy of the original NTK sent to the hire company. And it certainly fails on (2)(b).

There is NO presumption that the hirer is liable, it is still the driver. However, as with a NTK, the creditor may exercise the right to recover unpaid parking charge from the hirer after a period of 21 days has elapsed.

Not 28 days and there's no liability until the (correctly stated) period has expired.

Hi - underneath is my POPLA appeal, if there's any suggestion on top of this or changes, then please let me know. Thanks!

Grounds for Appeal

1. Non-compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) – No Hirer Liability Established

UKPC has failed to establish hirer liability under Schedule 4 of PoFA. As the hirer, I am not liable for this charge, and the operator has not met the strict requirements to transfer liability from the driver to the hirer.

2. Inadequate Signage – Failure to Form a Contract

The signage within the car park is insufficiently clear to form a contract with the driver. The terms and conditions are not prominently displayed or legible, especially regarding the requirement to park within bay markings.

3. No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss – Charge is Punitive

The charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore punitive, contravening the principles established in case law.

---

Detailed Appeal Statement

1. Non-compliance with Schedule 4 of PoFA

I am the Hirer of the vehicle and I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice issued by UKPC.

UKPC is attempting to transfer liability to me as the Hirer under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). They can only do this if they comply fully with Paragraph 14 of that Schedule.

As of the date of this appeal, UKPC has failed to provide copies of the documents required under PoFA to transfer liability to the hirer.

There are four documents that must be provided with the Notice to Hirer in order to comply with Paragraph 14 of PoFA:

1. A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
2. A copy of the hire agreement;
3. A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement; and
4. A copy of the Notice to Keeper (NtK).

To date, UKPC has not provided all four documents. Without all four of these documents, UKPC has not met the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4. Therefore, they cannot transfer liability to the Hirer and may only pursue the driver, who has not been identified.

If UKPC attempts to rely on any new documents in their evidence pack to POPLA, it is now too late as they were required to have been provided together with the Notice to Hirer within the relevant period of 21 days of the liability having been transferred from the Keeper.

2. Inadequate Signage

The signage in the car park managed by UKPC does not meet the standards set by the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Specifically:

The signs are not prominently placed or easily readable.

The terms and conditions, including the requirement to park within bay markings, are not clearly stated.

Without clear signage, no contract can be formed between the operator and the driver, rendering the charge unenforceable.

<will add the image shared by b789>

3. No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss

The £100 charge does not reflect any genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred by UKPC due to the alleged parking breach. In the case of ParkingEye v. Beavis, the Supreme Court held that charges must not be punitive or unconscionable. In this instance:

There is no evidence of loss suffered by UKPC. The charge is disproportionate to any potential loss. Therefore, the charge is punitive and unenforceable.

---

Conclusion

Given the above points:

UKPC has not established hirer liability under PoFA.

The signage is inadequate to form a contract.

I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the Parking Charge Notice.