DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 71526--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - Spring Parking - on car
DIR By: b789
Date: May 14, 2025, 1:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please host their evidence pack on DropBox or Google Drive.
Without seeing their evidence, it is impossible to advise fully.
How on earth are we supposed to know whether the contract they
have evidenced is even valid?
You say they have stated that an email appeal was received from
the "driver". Is that true or are they being mendacious?
The core of this appeal is that you, the Keeper have not
identified the driver and because no NtK was issued, they cannot
hold you liable.
#Post#: 71532--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - Spring Parking - on car
DIR By: purpleshadow
Date: May 14, 2025, 1:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello, here the link to the images. I have not added the
original appeal or their response as they are already on here. I
didn't notice that they said driver rather than registered
keeper. I guess I could say something along the lines that it
raises serious concerns about their record keeping, and
reinforces the question the fundamental accuracy of their
evidence.
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1tTi7r5IwHOBIlAlBsopTVeo5jOabRRdu?usp=sharing<br
/>
#Post#: 71547--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - Spring Parking - on car
DIR By: b789
Date: May 14, 2025, 3:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Copy and paste the following as your response to the operators
evidence:
--- Quote ---
> 1. Failure of the operator to issue a Notice to Keeper
>
> The operator claims they issued a “reminder Notice to Keeper”
after obtaining DVLA data, but they have not supplied a copy of
this document in their evidence pack. There is also no record of
any original Notice to Keeper (NtK) being issued before that.
Under PoFA, a parking operator can only hold the registered
keeper liable for a parking charge if they serve a valid NtK
within strict statutory timeframes and containing all the
required information.
>
> In this case, the operator first issued a Notice to Driver
(NtD), and the registered keeper then submitted an appeal using
the operator’s internal process. The operator rejected that
appeal and confirmed that the internal process had ended.
However, they did not issue a formal NtK before or after that
stage, only stating in their evidence pack that a “reminder” was
sent. A reminder is not a substitute for a PoFA-compliant NtK.
>
> PoFA Paragraph 6(1)(a) states that if an NtD has been given,
then the NtK must be served not less than 28 days and not more
than 56 days after the alleged parking event. It must also
include specific mandatory information as set out in Paragraph 8
of PoFA. Without a valid NtK that meets all these conditions,
the operator has no legal basis to hold the keeper liable.
>
> As no NtK has been produced and no evidence has been submitted
to show that one was ever issued in the correct form or
timeframe, the operator cannot rely on PoFA. Therefore,
liability cannot transfer from the unidentified driver to the
registered keeper, and the appeal must be allowed.
>
> 2. Failure to evidence an entrance sign defining the boundary
of the private land
>
> There is no entrance signage shown anywhere in the operator’s
evidence pack. This is a serious omission, especially given that
the appeal specifically raised the lack of entrance signage as a
key reason why no contract could have been formed with the
driver.
>
> Under Section 3.1.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP) and section 19.2 of the BPA CoP (v9), it is a
mandatory requirement that operators place a clear and prominent
entrance sign at the entry point to the land they are managing.
This sign must inform drivers that they are entering private
land and that terms and conditions apply. Without such a sign, a
driver cannot be expected to know they are entering a controlled
area or that they may be entering into a contract by remaining
on the land.
>
> In this case, the location is not a traditional car park but a
residential road with no ground markings or clear boundaries.
This makes proper entrance signage even more important. If the
driver entered what appears to be an ordinary residential street
with no clear notice at the entry point, they would have no
reasonable opportunity to know that private parking terms
applied.
>
> The operator has submitted only isolated images of signs
placed somewhere within the site. These are not dated, not
mapped, and not shown in context. There is no visual evidence of
a sign at the point of entry to the site, and no indication that
the driver would have seen or had the chance to read any terms
before stopping or parking.
>
> The absence of an entrance sign means that no contract can
have been formed, and the driver was not adequately informed of
any terms or charges. This is a breach of both the BPA CoP (v9)
and the PPSCoP which undermines any claim that the parking
charge is enforceable. The appeal should be upheld on this basis
alone.
>
> 3. Failure to evidence that any contract could have been
formed
>
> The NtD issued by the operator does not evidence any breach of
contract because it fails to show that the vehicle was parked
for a period of time that exceeds the minimum consideration
period required under the PPSCoP.
>
> The NtD simply states an “observation time” of 14:01 and an
“issue time” of 14:04. This shows only that the vehicle was
present for a total of three minutes. Under Section 5.1 of the
PPSCoP, a driver must be allowed a minimum consideration period
of at least five minutes from entering the site before a Parking
Charge Notice may be issued. This time is intended to allow
drivers to locate, read, and understand the terms and conditions
displayed on signs before deciding whether to accept them and
remain on the land.
>
> The operator has not provided any evidence that the vehicle
remained on site beyond this minimum period. Without proof that
the vehicle was parked beyond the minimum consideration period,
no breach of contract can be established.
>
> Additionally, courts have confirmed in decisions such as
Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) that a single
snapshot or short time period is not enough to show parking,
particularly where the vehicle may have stopped only briefly to
assess the terms or turn around.
>
> As the NtD does not show any period of parking, and only
records a 3-minute window, it fails to satisfy the evidential
burden required to establish a breach. The operator has
therefore failed to show that a contract was ever accepted and
breached, and the parking charge is unenforceable on this basis.
>
> 4. Rebuttal to Operator’s Agreement – Lack of Sufficient
Evidence of Landowner Authority
>
> The operator includes a document titled "Car Park Management
Agreement" in their evidence pack and seeks to rely on it as
proof of their authority to operate and enforce parking charges
at Mill Parc, Isleworth. However, this agreement does not meet
the evidential requirements set out in Section 14 of the Private
Parking Single Code of Practice (version 1.1, dated 17 February
2025).
>
> The agreement is between Spring Parking Ltd and Proxima GR
Properties Ltd c/o Firstport Property Services Ltd. It includes
a generic statement that the client "confirms that it has
authority from the site owners" to contract out car park
management. However, no evidence has been provided to prove that
Proxima GR or Firstport is the landowner or has been granted the
necessary legal authority by the landowner to authorise parking
enforcement on this site. There is no lease, deed of
appointment, or written authority from the landholder confirming
the capacity in which the client is acting.
>
> Furthermore, the agreement has been signed by an individual
whose name is printed, but no job title or position is given.
This omission raises doubt as to whether the individual was
authorised to bind the client company in this matter.
>
> Section 14 of the Code requires operators to have written
authorisation from the landholder or a person acting with the
authority of the landholder. That authorisation must confirm the
identity of the site, the duration of the contract, and the
ability of the operator to issue parking charges. Crucially, it
must also be clear that the person signing the agreement has the
appropriate authority. The absence of supporting documents and
the failure to identify the signatory's position mean that the
operator has not discharged the burden of proof in this regard.
>
> In summary, the agreement included in the operator’s evidence
pack is insufficient to demonstrate that they hold the necessary
authority to manage and enforce parking at the location. It
lacks any supporting evidence of landowner status or delegated
authority, and the signatory’s role is unstated, making it
impossible to verify whether the agreement has been validly
executed. Given the requirements of Section 14 of the PPSCoP,
the operator has failed to establish that it has the legal
standing to pursue parking charges at this site. The appeal
should therefore be allowed.
>
> 5. Rebuttal – Misrepresentation of Keeper Appeal
>
> In the operator’s Case Summary, it is falsely stated that an
“email appeal was received from the driver.” This is factually
incorrect and misleading.
>
> The appeal was explicitly submitted by the Registered Keeper,
not the driver. The wording of the appeal clearly stated:
>
> - “The Notice to Driver (NtD) was passed to me by the driver,
and I am now submitting this appeal as the Keeper. I am
providing my details as the Registered Keeper...”
>
> The operator has chosen to disregard this clear and
unambiguous statement and instead recorded the appellant as “the
driver”, presumably to mislead the appeals process or to suggest
that liability has been admitted. This is not only inaccurate
but also undermines the operator’s credibility.
>
> Moreover, the appeal expressly instructed the operator not to
request the Keeper’s data from the DVLA, since it had already
been voluntarily provided. The relevant extract from the appeal
reads:
>
> - “Since you now have my details, you must not request my data
from the DVLA.
> Any such request would be a breach of the UK GDPR and Data
Protection Act 2018... and a misuse of the DVLA KADOE system...”
>
> As the operator has subsequently requested the Keeper’s
details from the DVLA, this constitutes unlawful processing
under the UK GDPR and a breach of their KADOE contract with
DVLA.
>
> In light of the above, any assertion that the driver appealed
or admitted liability must be dismissed. The operator’s
misrepresentation in their evidence undermines the reliability
of their case and supports the position that the charge must be
cancelled.
--- End Quote ---
It is under the 10,000 character limit for the webform.
#Post#: 71599--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - Spring Parking - on car
DIR By: purpleshadow
Date: May 15, 2025, 3:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks for this. I will submit this today.
#Post#: 79451--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - Spring Parking - on car
DIR By: purpleshadow
Date: July 3, 2025, 2:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I wanted to update you on the my popla appeal and have today
received a message saying that it was successful.
The reason stated is as follows:
I am allowing this appeal for the following reason: When an
appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with an
operator to demonstrate that the parking charge has been issued
correctly. The driver’s details are unknown therefore, I need to
assess if the PCN is complaint with the relevant aspects of the
Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, in order to transfer the
liability to the registered keeper. POFA 2012 Paragraph 6,
subsection (1) (a) outlines that if a Notice to Driver is issued
according to Paragraph 7 and the driver is not identified a
Notice to Keeper must be sent in accordance with Paragraph 8.
Having reviewed the operator’s casefile the operator has claimed
that a Notice to Keeper was sent via post however, they have
only provided a copy of the initial Notice to Driver issued,
with no copy of the Notice to Keeper claimed to have been sent
attached. I therefore cannot conclude that a compliant Notice to
Keeper has been sent in accordance with Paragraph 8. I am
therefore not satisfied that the operator has met the
requirements set out in POFA 2012. And, as such, I am allowing
this appeal. I acknowledge that the appellant has brought other
grounds of appeal to POPLA, but as I am allowing this appeal
based on the reasoning above, there is no requirement to address
these grounds as they will not affect the outcome of this
appeal.
I would like to thank all contributors to my post but especially
b789. I am truly grateful.
Many thanks.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page