Workplace permit - lost and got parking notice

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle. I received a Notice to Keeper from Car Parking Partnership (CPP) on 21 January 2014 for a parking charge of £75 issued on 9 December 2013 for a breach of contractual terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle.
I have denied all liability to CPP. Following rejection of my submission I wish to appeal on the following grounds:

1. The parking charge of £75 is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
2. CPP have formed no contract with the driver (lack of signage, no consideration/acceptance).
3. CPP have no proprietary interest in the land and no standing.
4. The Notice to Keeper fails to establish 'keeper liability' under PoFA 2012.

Detailed submission

1. The parking charge of £75 is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. A staff permit was purchased for this vehicle in September 2013 by the member of staff driving the car on the day of the incident. This permit allows parking in any designated staff car parking area during the period 1 October 2013 to 30 September 2014. Photographic evidence supplied by CPP confirms the location as the staff parking area.

The parking charge should compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges.

In this instance, unpaid charges are nil as a permit for the vehicle was purchased well before the date of issue of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and was in force at the time. Any breakdown purporting to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss cannot include general business expenses because these would remain the same whether or not there were any alleged breaches of contract by drivers.


2. CPP have no contract with the driver of the vehicle; no consideration nor acceptance has flowed between the parties so the elements of a contract do not exist. The issue of a staff parking permit and parking privileges is strictly between the employer and staff member and is the only extant contract relating to parking this car on this site by this driver. Despite what they may say, CPP cannot re-offer the same parking space on different terms and allege a charge is due when there has been no loss suffered and the driver is permitted to park there.

CPP signs in this car park are sparse and unclear, to the extent that they are incapable of forming a contract even if the driver had seen and agreed to the terms, which is not the case in this instance. A lack of signs at the entrance to a car park, and unclear wording, is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice and creates no contract.


3. It is my belief that CPP have no proprietary interest in the land to issue charges and pursue them in their own name, including at court level. In the absence of such title, CPP must have specific contractual authority from the landowner to issue and pursue charges in the courts, and to make contracts with drivers. I do not believe such a document is in existence. I therefore put CPP to strict proof to provide POPLA with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between them and the landowner which provides them with the authority to issue and pursue charges. In accordance with the BPA Code of Practice paragraph 7, This must include assignment of the right for CPP to make contracts with drivers and for CPP to pursue them at court in their own name. Please note that a 'witness Statement' or 'site agreement' will be insufficient to provide all the required information set out in 7.1 and 7.2 and I put CPP to strict proof that their contract covers every point in this section of the BPA CoP.


4. The Notice to Keeper is not properly given and does not establish keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This is on two grounds:
(a) The Notice to Keeper does not specify the 'period of parking'. It states only that the car was seen at 09.15 am on the day in question.
(b) The Notice to Keeper does not identify the 'creditor'.

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the NTK is a fundamental document in establishing keeper liability. The requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA2012 as regards the wording in a compliant NTK are clear and unequivocal and a matter of statute. Any omission or failure in the NTK wording means there is no 'keeper liability'. As I was not the driver myself, there is no case against me at all so it is, at best, surprising and irksome that CPP are pursuing this matter and wasting my time. I expect POPLA will see the significance of an operator trying to pursue a keeper, in a case where no keeper liability can be established by virtue of the operator's own failures.

In view of the above, I contend that this is an unenforceable penalty and request that my appeal be upheld and the parking charge cancelled.