DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 56048--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC, not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or
space, Metrocentre Gateshead
DIR By: Fowler1981
Date: January 31, 2025, 10:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good evening. Just reminding about help for the POPLA appeal.
Thank you.
#Post#: 56056--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC, not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or
space, Metrocentre Gateshead
DIR By: b789
Date: January 31, 2025, 11:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a suggested POPLA appeal:
--- Quote ---
> POPLA Verification Code: [Insert Code]
> UKPC Parking Charge Reference: [Insert PCN Reference]
> Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM]
> Appellant: [Your Name]
>
> Grounds for Appeal
>
> I am appealing as the Hirer of the vehicle, and I contest this
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the following grounds:
>
> [indent]1. UKPC’s Notice to Hirer (NtH) is non-compliant with
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), so the Hirer cannot
be held liable.
>
> 2. UKPC has not established the identity of the driver.
>
> 3. The signage at the site is inadequate and does not comply
with the BPA Code of Practice.
>
> 4. UKPC has not provided evidence of landowner authority to
issue and enforce parking charges at this location.[/indent]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. UKPC’s Notice to Hirer (NtH) is non-compliant with PoFA, so
the Hirer cannot be held liable
>
> Under Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 (PoFA), a parking operator can only transfer liability
to a vehicle's Hirer if they have fully complied with the
requirements of the Act. UKPC has failed to do so, meaning I, as
the Hirer, cannot be held liable for this charge.
>
> Key Failures in UKPC’s Notice to Hirer:
>
> [indent]• UKPC did not include the mandatory documents
required by Paragraph 13(2) of PoFA, which states that to
transfer liability to the Hirer, the operator must provide
copies of:
>
> [indent]• The Notice to Keeper (NtK)
>
> • The hire agreement
>
> • A statement of liability signed by the Hirer[/indent]
>
> • UKPC’s Notice to Hirer (NtH) does not comply with Paragraph
14(5), as it omits crucial statutory wording and fails to inform
the Hirer of their liability conditions.[/indent]
>
> Since UKPC has failed to meet these legal requirements, they
cannot transfer liability to me as the Hirer, and I am not
liable for this charge.
>
> 2. UKPC has not established the identity of the driver
>
> Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(PoFA), the operator may only hold the Hirer liable for an
unpaid parking charge if they fully comply with all the
requirements outlined in Paragraph 14. As demonstrated above,
the NtK issued by UKPC is non-compliant with PoFA in the
following critical ways:
>
> [indent]• UKPC did not include the mandatory documents
required by Paragraph 13(2) of PoFA, which states that to
transfer liability to the Hirer, the operator must provide
copies of:
>
> [indent]• The Notice to Keeper (NtK)
>
> • The hire agreement
>
> • A statement of liability signed by the Hirer[/indent]
>
> • UKPC’s Notice to Hirer (NtH) does not comply with Paragraph
14(5), as it omits crucial statutory wording and fails to inform
the Hirer of their liability conditions.[/indent]
>
> Since UKPC has failed to meet these legal requirements, they
cannot transfer liability to me as the Hirer, and I am not
liable for this charge. I put the operator to strict proof that:
>
> [indent]• They have fully complied with all the requirements
of PoFA Schedule 4, allowing them to transfer liability to the
Hirer.
>
> • The person being pursued (the Hirer) was, in fact, the
driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged
contravention.[/indent]
>
> There is no presumption in law that the Hirer was the driver.
In VCS v. Edward [2023], it was ruled that the operator must
provide sufficient evidence to prove that the Keeper/Hirer and
the driver are the same person. Without such evidence, the
Keeper/Hirer cannot be held liable for the charge.
>
> Without evidence of the driver’s identity and given the clear
PoFA non-compliance, the operator has no lawful basis to pursue
me, the Hirer, for this charge.
>
> 3. The signage is inadequate and does not comply with the BPA
Code of Practice
>
> The BPA Code of Practice (version 8, 2024), which still
applies to existing car parks until the new Private Parking
Single Code of Practice (PPSCOP) comes into effect in 2026,
outlines clear requirements for signage.
>
> Section 18.3 of the BPA Code states that signs must be clear
and legible, with terms and conditions clearly visible to
drivers upon entering and throughout the site. UKPC has failed
to meet these requirements:
>
> [indent]• The signs do not contain prominent terms regarding
vehicles that exceed standard bay sizes.
>
> • The charge amount is buried within a large block of text and
is not prominent, contrary to Beavis v ParkingEye (2015) UKSC
67.
>
> • Below is a comparison of the HUPC signage and the sign from
the Beavis case:
>
> [center]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/kUoExmB.jpeg[/center]
>
> Given that the signage is inadequate and does not comply with
the BPA Code, it cannot form the basis of a legally enforceable
contract.
>
> 4. UKPC has not provided evidence of landowner authority
>
> The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of
contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority
flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the
operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to
the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of
operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to
complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises
this operator to issue parking charges or what the land
enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether
this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own
name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf
of’ the landowner.
>
> The operator is also put to strict proof of full compliance
with the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice. As
this operator does not have proprietary interest in the
“relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted
copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any
'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including
exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine
resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto'
charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this
operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the
landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of
a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is
contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge
Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts
with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce
the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding
land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner
only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above,
often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying
the case in hand or even the site rules.
>
> A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA
but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently
evidence the definition of the services provided by each party
to the agreement. I require UKPC to provide an unredacted copy
of their contract with the landowner as evidence. If they fail
to do so, this charge must be cancelled.
>
> Conclusion
>
> For the reasons set out above, this Parking Charge Notice must
be cancelled. UKPC has:
>
> [indent]• Failed to comply with PoFA, so I, as the Hirer,
cannot be held liable.
>
> • Failed to identify the driver, so there is no enforceable
claim against me.
>
> • Failed to provide adequate signage, meaning no contract was
formed.
>
> • Failed to provide proof of landowner authority, meaning they
have no legal standing.[/indent]
>
> As UKPC cannot enforce this charge, I respectfully request
that POPLA uphold my appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel this
PCN.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 59898--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC, not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or
space, Metrocentre Gateshead
DIR By: Fowler1981
Date: February 27, 2025, 11:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
UKPC has cancelled the parking charge. Thank you very much.
HTML https://imgur.com/a/QYQVUKF
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page