In the search box at the top of this page, type in "popla appeal" (include the quotation marks) and see what you get.
Is this okay, anything else I should add?
POPLA Verification Code: [Verification Code]
UKPC PCN Number: [PCN Number]
Re: Appeal against UKPC Parking Charge Notice
I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXX and am writing to appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by UKPC on XXX at XXX. This appeal is based on the following detailed grounds, which demonstrate that the charge is invalid, unfair, and unenforceable.
1. No Evidence of Landowner Authority
UKPC must provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charges and to enforce these charges through court action. This requirement is mandated under Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.
Key Points:
- No Valid Contract Provided: I request UKPC to produce an unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner. A witness statement is not sufficient proof. The contract must explicitly authorise UKPC to issue parking charges and to take legal action to recover unpaid charges.
- Scope of Authority: The contract must confirm that UKPC has the right to issue PCNs in their own name and pursue them legally. Without this, UKPC lacks legal standing.
Supporting Case Law:
- ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011]: This case established that an operator must demonstrate a clear interest in the land or express authorisation from the landowner to enforce parking charges.
- POPLA case 6060674050 emphasised the necessity for operators to provide conclusive evidence of landowner authority.
2. Non-compliance with Keeper Liability under PoFA 2012
UKPC has not met the requirements for keeper liability under PoFA. As they have not fully complied with PoFA, they cannot hold the registered keeper liable for the alleged parking charge. Since the operator has failed to establish the driver’s identity and has not provided sufficient evidence to meet PoFA requirements, the liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper.
Relevant Case Law and POPLA Decisions:
ParkingEye v Beavis [2015]: This case confirmed that compliance with PoFA is essential for holding the registered keeper liable.
3. Inadequate and Unclear Signage – No Contract Formed
The signage at the location in question is insufficient to form a contract between UKPC and the driver. The signs must comply with the BPA Code of Practice, Section 18 and Appendix B, to adequately inform the driver of the terms and conditions.
Issues with Signage:
1. Lack of Prominent and Clear Signage:
Signs must be prominently displayed and easily readable. The signage at the site is obscured, too high, or positioned in such a way that it cannot be seen or read by a driver entering the car park. This contravenes the BPA Code, which states that terms must be clear and legible.
2. Small and Inadequate Font Size:
The terms are in small print, making it impossible for a driver to read them without stopping and getting out of the vehicle. This is particularly problematic for any clauses that might impose a penalty. According to the "Red Hand Rule," established in J. Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956], terms that seek to impose a significant detriment or penalty must be displayed in a particularly clear and prominent manner. In this case, the terms were not prominently highlighted, akin to the "red hand" standard mentioned by Lord Denning, which requires that any unusual or onerous terms be drawn to the attention of the other party in a conspicuous manner.
***ADD IMAGE****
Supporting Case Law:
- Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000]: The motorist is not bound by terms they did not see or know about.
- POPLA case 5960956830: The appeal was upheld because the signage was deemed insufficient to form a contract.
4. Failure to Comply with BPA Code of Practice
UKPC is a member of the BPA and must adhere to its Code of Practice. Multiple sections of the Code have been breached in this case:
4.1. Section 18.1 – Entrance Signs
- The BPA Code of Practice mandates that entrance signs must clearly indicate that the car park is managed and that terms and conditions apply. No such signs were visible at the entrance to this car park, which means no contract could be formed upon entry.
4.2. Section 13 – Grace Periods
- The BPA Code requires a reasonable grace period for drivers to read the terms and decide whether to stay and another grace period to leave. The PCN issued does not reflect that the driver was allowed any grace period to comply with these terms.
4.3. Section 20.5 – Complaints Procedure:
- UKPC must have an accessible and clear complaints procedure. The correspondence provided did not offer information on how to file a complaint about this unfair charge.
Supporting POPLA Decisions:
- Case reference 6060674050: POPLA upheld the appeal due to the absence of clear entrance signage.
- Case reference 1771073004: The appeal was upheld as the operator failed to observe the mandatory grace period.
5. The Charge is Not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
The parking charge demanded does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and serves as a penalty rather than a fair reflection of any loss suffered by UKPC or the landowner.
Arguments Against the Charge:
- No Financial Loss: The car park is either free or has a very low parking fee, meaning that the operator has suffered no actual loss.
- Disproportionate Charge: The charge is punitive and does not reflect any actual loss. It is clear that the charge is designed to penalise the driver rather than to recover a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
- Beavis Case Not Applicable: In ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court ruled that a charge could be justified if it served a legitimate commercial interest. This does not apply in this case, as there is no comparable interest being protected, and the charge remains disproportionate.
- Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1915] established that a penalty must not be excessive and should reflect the actual loss suffered.
6. No Contract Formed – Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration
For a contract to be formed, there must be an offer, acceptance, and consideration. In this case, these elements are not present:
1. Offer: The terms and conditions must be clearly communicated through signage, which they were not. As such, there was no valid offer made to the driver.
2. Acceptance: without being aware of the terms due to inadequate signage, the driver could not have accepted them.
3. Consideration: If no payment is required or has been made, there is no consideration. This lack of consideration means that no contract was formed between UKPC and the driver.
- Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971]: The court ruled that a contract is only formed if the terms are made clear before the contract is entered into.
Conclusion
Based on the above points, it is evident that UKPC has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the BPA Code of Practice, and the basic principles of contract law. The signage is inadequate, no valid contract was formed, and there are multiple breaches of the Code. Therefore, I respectfully request that this appeal be upheld, and the Parking Charge Notice be cancelled.
Thank you for your consideration.
