Returning closed issue with CPP

Hi guys,

Thank you for the feedback and sorry for the delay.

I think I need to clear up the template.

The NTK was served, did I leave any remnants of it in my latest copy of the appeal?

I think the trouble is that the thread you linked Umkomaas is that I'm not sure what stuff from the template needs to stay and what needs to go in my situation.

The big thing with my case is that they issued me a ticket on land owned by my landlord, evidenced by a title and statement of it's purchase I have.

Could you perhaps tell me what parts of the template I need to keep included and where I can add my case.

Many thanks!

Hi Guys,

Can you read over my appeal please.

Dear POPLA,
PCN Number: xxx
POPLA Verification Code: xxx


I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx, I wish to appeal the £100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Car Parking Partnership.

As the keeper of the car, I have contacted the driver of the event, and was allowed to quote the words here: "This is my landlords space and I have full authority to use the space, as proven in the deed and map of the space attached that my landlord owns."

Based on the quotation and evidence attached I submit the reasons below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1. Car Parking Partnership Ltd has no contractual authority
2. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act
3. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper
4. The car parking space has signage 'albeit unclear' but the signage has no place on private land.


1. Car Parking Partnership Ltd has no contractual authority

In the notices they have sent me Car Parking Partnership Ltd have not shown any evidence that they have any proprietary interest in the car park/land in question. Also they have not provided me with any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from either driver or keeper. It would seem that they do not own or have any interest or assignment of title in the land. I can only assume instead they are agents for the owner/legal occupier instead. I submit therefore that they do not have the necessary legal right to make the charge for a vehicle using the car park. I require Car Parking Partnership Ltd to provide a full, up-to date and signed/dated contract with the landowner (a statement saying someone has seen the contract is not enough). The contract needs to state that Car Parking Partnership Ltd are entitled to pursue matters such as these through the issue of Parking Charge Notices and in the courts in their own name. I clarify that this should be an actual copy and not just a document that claims a contract/agreement exists.


2. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act

As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right to provide the name of the driver of the vehicle at the time in question. As the parking company have neither named the driver nor provided any evidence as to who the driver was, I submit that I am not liable to any charge. In regards to the notices I have received Car Parking Partnership Ltd has made it clear that it is operating under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act but has not fully met all the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. The parking company can therefore in relation to this point only pursue the driver.

I would like to point out that Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act stipulates that some mandatory information must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The Act clearly states that the parking charge notice to keeper should invite the registered keeper to pay the outstanding parking charge (or if he/she was not the driver, to provide the name and address of the driver and pass a copy of the notice on to that driver). In their parking charge notice letter at no point did they actually invite me as the registered keeper to pay the parking charge. Instead they imply that my only choice is to give up the name of the driver of the vehicle (when in actual fact I am under no legal obligation to do so). The wording of the PCN actually makes it sound like I have little choice but to give up the driver and does not actually state the choice to pay it myself. I would also like to point out that the Act stipulates that the parking company must provide me with the period the car was parked. I would strongly argue that the format of evidence provided (photographs from a number plate recognition camera showing the vehicle enter and leave the car park) is not actually valid or sufficient on its own as a form of evidence. Parking Eye should also have issued a Notice to Driver stuck on the vehicle to back up their claims that the car was even parked in the first place, which in this case they failed to do.


3. No Contract was entered into between the Car Parking Partnership Ltd and the Driver or Registered keeper

Although I was not the driver of the event, I would like to point out that the signs at the car park in question are unsuitable to inform drivers of the full terms and conditions of what they are entering into by physically entering the car park. Car Parking Partnership Ltd clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of contract. It is not appropriate for a car park such as this to have such a limited amount of signs and rely on drivers to look carefully for where and how the terms are displayed. It is surely the responsibility of Car Parking Partnership Ltd to make the terms of their contract far clearer so that drivers have no doubt whatsoever of any supposed contract they may be entering into. I require Car Parking Partnership Ltd to provide evidence as to how clear the terms and conditions are and consider if the methods used are clear enough for this type of car park.

Furthermore a contract can only be considered to be entered into if enough evidence exists that it actually happened. For a contract to have been entered into the driver would have had to get out of the car, read the signs, fully interpret and understand them and then agree to them. None of which ever actually happened.

I request that Car Parking Partnership Ltd provide concrete evidence that a contract existed between themselves and the driver on the day in question, which meets all the legal requirements of forming a contract. They should include specific things including, agreement from both parties, clarity and certainty of terms etc. If they are not met then the contract would be deemed “unfair” under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.


4. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-bpa-compliant signage leading to the driver not being aware that a parking contract was being offered at the time (night, raining).

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount that Car Parking Partnership Ltd is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a permit.

The alleged breach occurred at night and the signs were not visible (readable) or illuminated to be seen by any driver entering the car park at that time of the day; the car park itself was not illuminated as the public lighting was off. These are not mitigating circumstances but failure by Car Parking Partnership Ltd plus to ensure that their signs were to be seen accordingly. The BPA Code of Practice section 18, state that clear signage must be erected at each entrance and additional signage installed throughout the area. The signs must be visible at all times of the day; these requirements were not met and I demand strict proof that those signs are visible at the time of darkness.

The BPA Code of Practice, Appendix B, under Contrast and illumination:

Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective. Clearly none of these conditions were met (see attached photographs of non-bpa-compliant, non-obvious signage).

Therefore, it is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and the appeal should be upheld on every point.

Yours faithfully

Hi Coupon,

I should of been on this more.. too much going on lately.

Thank you for your patience, help and advice. I'll be back if they try the small claims court.

Thanks guys!