Parking Eye - Parking Notice Charge for parking in Aldi, Bangor

Jo4

Should any of this be in the appeal but amended to show PE or just point 7.3 as you previously stated?

2. No Authority

Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. I do not believe that Indigo has landowner authority and, as such; the operator has not met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice.

Section 7.1 states “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

Section 7.3 states “The written authorisation must also set out:

a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement


Indigo are required to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. Any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with any landholder). In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner otherwise there is no authority.

As Indigo do not have proprietary interest in the land, I demand that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner that authorises them to offer contracts for parking in their name, issue Parking Charge Notices and take legal action in their name for breach of contract. I do not believe they have such authority.

Indigo has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

Jo4

The rejection letter, within which they issued a POPLA reference, was dated 25 August 2016 and states that we have to appeal within 28 days which I would think is the 22nd September 2016 so we only have 5 days to get the appeal lodged.

How long will we have to wait to hear POPLAs decision?

Coupon-mad

Jo4 wrote: »

Should any of this be in the appeal but amended to show PE or just point 7.3 as you previously stated?

2. No Authority

Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. I do not believe that Indigo has landowner authority and, as such; the operator has not met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice.

Section 7.1 states “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

Section 7.3 states “The written authorisation must also set out:

a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement


Indigo are required to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. Any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with any landholder). In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner otherwise there is no authority.

As Indigo do not have proprietary interest in the land, I demand that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner that authorises them to offer contracts for parking in their name, issue Parking Charge Notices and take legal action in their name for breach of contract. I do not believe they have such authority.

Indigo has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

Yes you can add more of para 7 (not just 7.3) so you can add some of the above (not including the word 'Indigo' of course, a different firm). Or you could copy verbatim, the template version I have just edited into 'POPLA Decisions' at post #2343 there.

Re your point #4, I would just add the bits in red and separate the 'wall of text' into paragraphs, like I have below:


4. Notice to Keeper - not properly given under POFA 2012

The Notice to Keeper (NTK) supplied by PE claims the period of parking to which this notice relates is 0 hours 54 minutes but the ANPR evidence provided [STRIKE]clearly[/STRIKE] shows the driver entering and leaving, in moving traffic out on the road [STRIKE]the car park[/STRIKE] at that time. This[STRIKE], this[/STRIKE] disproves their own calculation since, by definition, any 'period of parking' must be exactly as stated in the Act, the time the vehicle was actually parked on the private land.

[STRIKE]In order for an NTK to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) Schedule 4 (2012) it MUST define a true, stated and evidenced period of when the vehicle was actually ‘parked’. [/STRIKE]PE have not complied with the statute as it is clear from their own evidence the vehicle was not ’Parked’ for a duration of 0 hours 54 minutes.

[STRIKE]“By remaining at the car park for longer than was made permitted, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable to ParkingEye Ltd (as the Creditor)”. [/STRIKE]Apparently one is allowed to park for 90 minutes in this car park but the arrival time and departure time is only 0 hours 54 minutes so the PCN has not properly set out the reasons that caused the charge to arrive.

Finally on the point of non-compliance, this PCN tells me that after 29 days I 'will be liable as registered keeper under the POFA 2012'. However, that Act does not apply to people living in Northern Ireland who cannot be bound by 'keeper liability'. As the PCN clearly stated my address as being in NI, I contend that PE have failed to scrutinise the facts of the case and have misstated the truth about keeper liability in an attempt to mislead me into paying when I am not liable. I will be reporting this serious matter to the DVLA once I have prevailed with this appeal. It is clear this PCN was not properly given.

Jo4

Thank you for all your help. :T :beer:

Here is draft 3, hopefully it is nearly correct.




I would like to appeal this PCN from ParkingEye at Aldi Bangor car park, on the following grounds:

1. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

2. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

3. POFA 2012 does not apply to registered keepers in Northern Ireland.

4. Notice to Keeper - not properly given under POFA 2012.

5. Unclear / Inadequate Signage.



1. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
The burden of proof rests with the Operator in both showing that I, the appellant and registered keeper, have not complied with terms in place on the land and showing that I am liable for the parking charge issued. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, it is my right, under Schedule 4, to not name the driver and still not be lawfully held liable.
There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the keeper of a vehicle was the driver at the time of a charge being recorded. Operators should never suggest this. Furthermore, a failure or refusal to name the driver on the part of the recipient of a parking charge notice under Schedule 4 does not mean that the recipient accepts they were the driver at the material time. A keeper has no obligation to name the driver.
Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle as they have not met the critical conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. As the registered keeper, I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a registered keeper without a valid NTK.

Furthermore the paramount importance of compliance with POFA 2012 was confirmed by Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in his 2015 POPLA Report: ''If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''



2 No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the 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.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement



3. POFA 2012 does not apply to registered keepers in Northern Ireland.

The operator cannot assume keeper liability or attempt to ‘recover’ any charge since I the registered keeper of the vehicle live in Northern Ireland. POFA does not apply to keepers in Northern Ireland and therefore the operator cannot possibly pursue their 'claims' in Northern Irish Court.



4. Notice to Keeper - not properly given under POFA 2012.

The Notice to Keeper (NTK) supplied by PE claims the period of parking to which this notice relates is 0 hours 54 minutes but the ANPR evidence provided shows the driver entering and leaving, in moving traffic out on the road at that time. This, disproves their own calculation since, by definition, any period of parking must be exactly as stated in the Act, the time the vehicle was actually parked on the private land.

PE have not complied with the statute as it is clear from their own evidence the vehicle was not ’Parked’ for a duration of 0 hours 54 minutes.

Apparently one is allowed to park for 90 minutes in this car park but the arrival time and departure time is only 0 hours 54 minutes so the PCN has not properly set out the reasons that caused the charge to arrive.

Finally on the point of non-compliance, this PCN tells me that after 29 days I 'will be liable as registered keeper under the POFA 2012'. However, that Act does not apply to people living in Northern Ireland who cannot be bound by 'keeper liability'. As the PCN clearly stated my address as being in NI, I contend that PE have failed to scrutinise the facts of the case and have misstated the truth about keeper liability in an attempt to mislead me into paying when I am not liable. I will be reporting this serious matter to the DVLA once I have prevailed with this appeal. It is clear this PCN was no properly given.



5. Unclear/Inadequate Signage.

There are whole areas of the car park with no sign in view so I put ParkingEye to strict proof (e.g. with photos of the car, the signs in situ that day) showing where the car parked and where the nearest sign was. It is contended that any purported 'aerial photo' supplied in an evidence pack is archive information and is out of date and not evidence of where signs actually are/are not positioned now, nor does it prove that such signs are not twisted round, broken or obscured by trees. In fact the car park is sporadically signed in 2016 and it is perfectly possible to drive in and park in the middle bays or beside the Aldi store where there are either no signs at all or they are obscured by the trees in the middle:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.2289155,-4.1258895,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKPqIYVmveYpmfCs1kk8wjg!2e0!7i1 3312!8i6656

At first glance, Google StreetView might suggest there is a yellow entrance sign but there is not. The sign shown on the right on Google StreetView is placed inexplicably, at the exit lane (proved by the white 'give way' dotted markings). There is no sign at the entrance lane on the left as a car comes off the mini roundabout. No transparent and legible entrance signage (or none there at all) contravenes the BPA Code of Practice which calls for mandatory entrance signs (badly placed exit signs do not pass and can't be seen).

The StreetView (2016) also shows the trees in the middle bays and no yellow signs at all. So a car can drive in and park straight ahead in the middle and the driver can walk to the Aldi store without ever reading any terms of parking at all.


In circumstances where contract terms are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in the terms set out in any contract formed with the driver, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing the contract. This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA 2015”) including;
Paragraph 68: Requirement for Transparency
(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.


The signs do not properly explain what the data captured by ANPR cameras would be used for

Paragraph 21.1 of the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice states that "You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for”.

PE did not state what they would use the date captured by ANPR cameras for consequently, PE did not obtain the consent of the driver or the keeper or the owner, to use any photographs of the vehicle that had been captured by the ANPR cameras. PE’s Parking Charge Notice is therefore invalid.

Jo4

Is Draft 3 alright to send to POPLA?

Coupon-mad

Yes, after one typo (which was originally mine!) is put right:

It is clear this PCN was not properly given.

As long as at no point have PE been told who was driving, you WILL win this POPLA appeal.

Jo4

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, after one typo (which was originally mine!) is put right:



As long as at no point have PE been told who was driving, you WILL win this POPLA appeal.

Thank you!! :j:beer:

I did notice that amd I meant to fix it, oops. I will keep this thread updated with the outcome.

How long does it take for them to respond? Will it be an email or letter?

Coupon-mad

Save the appeal as a PDF naming it with your name & POPLA code.

Submit it by attaching it under 'other' on the POPLA webpage. Just put 'Please see my full appeal as a PDF' and do not try to answer any other sections about 'I didn't see the signs' or other BPA-written leading questions. Make sure your PDF does upload and shows as a weird little packet that then morphs into a strange tiny 'bin' icon! Make sure it is there, hover your mouse over it to check, then submit the appeal.

POPLA should email almost straight away with a password to 'track' the case.

Then you wait, sometimes 3 weeks or so, to see if the PPC contest it. In your case I FULLY expect ParkingEye to drop it like a hot potato when they realise they have alleged 'keeper liability' to a person living in NI, which gets them into hot water with the DVLA.

Jo4

Jo4 wrote: »

Thank you!! :j:beer:

I did notice that and I meant to fix it, oops. I will keep this thread updated with the outcome.

How long does it take for them to respond? Will it be an email or letter?

At the beginning in point 4 I did amend it but not at the end, so thank you for correcting my mistake.

Jo4

Appeal submitted there now. :eek: