Dear Folks,
I've now had a formal rejection from ParkingEye. Seems pretty standard but have been provided a POPLA code.
Would you be able to critique my POPLA appeal, please?
Thank you!
Dear POPLA Assessor,
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced in the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by ParkingEye Ltd on 12 August 2024 at VHK, Southall car park. I am appealing this charge on the following grounds:
1. Failure to Comply with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with the mandatory wording requirements as outlined in PoFA 2012. Specifically:
Lack of an Explicit "Invitation to Pay": Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA requires the NtK to explicitly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge. The NtK issued by ParkingEye does not contain such an invitation in clear terms. The wording is insufficient and ambiguous, failing to convey a direct obligation for the keeper to pay. As PoFA demands strict compliance, this failure invalidates the NtK and prevents the transfer of liability from the driver to me, the registered keeper.
2. Insufficient Identification of "Relevant Land" as per Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA
The NtK does not properly identify the “relevant land” on which the alleged contravention occurred. The vague reference to “VHK, Southall” fails to provide an adequate and specific description of the location. The requirement under PoFA is to specify the land clearly so that the registered keeper can identify where the vehicle was parked. Without a full address or postcode, this NtK is non-compliant with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA, and therefore, ParkingEye cannot hold me, the registered keeper, liable.
3. Breach of BPA Code of Practice – Inadequate Signage
The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires that all parking terms and conditions be clearly displayed on signage throughout the site. This includes the charge amount and the conditions for parking. The signage at [VHK, Southall car park] is inadequate for the following reasons:
Insufficient Visibility: The signs are not clearly visible upon entering or throughout the car park. They are poorly positioned, and the font is too small to be easily read, particularly in the hours of reduced visibility (e.g., at 19:50, when the alleged contravention occurred).
Lack of Clarity: The terms and conditions, including the consequences of non-compliance, are not prominently displayed in a clear and concise manner as required by the BPA Code of Practice.
This lack of adequate signage makes it impossible for a driver to be fully aware of the contractual obligations they are entering into, which undermines the legitimacy of the parking charge.
4. No Evidence of Landowner Authority
ParkingEye has not provided evidence that they have the authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charges at this site. The BPA Code of Practice (Section 7) requires that ParkingEye have a written contract with the landowner, granting them the authority to operate on the land and pursue parking charges. I request ParkingEye provide an unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner, demonstrating their authority. If they cannot provide this, the charge is invalid.
5. The Charge is Not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
The amount demanded, Ł100, does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss incurred by the landowner. The car park is free, and the charge is purely punitive. This contravenes the principles established in previous cases, where only genuine pre-estimates of loss can justify such charges. ParkingEye must justify the charge amount with a breakdown of actual losses caused by the alleged contravention.
Conclusion
The NtK issued by ParkingEye is non-compliant with PoFA 2012 on multiple counts, and the signage at the site is inadequate, breaching the BPA Code of Practice. Furthermore, the legitimacy of ParkingEye’s authority to issue charges is in question, and the amount charged is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. For these reasons, I request that POPLA upholds my appeal and cancels this Parking Charge Notice.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours faithfully,
