UKPC Mcdonald's overstay appeal to POPLA

bbluvbb

Hi everyone,

I have read through the newbies and various threads regarding an appeal to POPLA.

I received a NTK a week after a stay in the car park of McDonald's on Bristol Road in Birmingham. I wasn't the driver myself and made an appeal to UKPC. Subsequently, I received an email from UKPC requesting the driver's information and reply within 7 days, which I ignored. After a month, I received a POPLA code and have now conducted research for my POPLA appeal.

On the day in question, my wife drove to McDonald's at around 10 am. She then placed her order with friends around 10:30 due to multiple issues with the McDonald's app. After they finished and left the restaurant, she realized they had been parked for more than an hour. She approached the branch manager, who refused to assist. Consequently, I assisted her in emailing McDonald's to request the cancellation of the PCN, but they also refused to help.

As I am currently drafting my POPLA appeal after reviewing similar cases, I revisited the site myself and took some pictures. Thank you so much in advanced for any advices!

Dear POPLA Assessor,

UKPC verification code xxxxxxxxxx

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from UKPC. I believe I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds:

1) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers

2) No genuine pre-estimate of loss.

3) Notice to Keeper not compliant with the PoFA 2012.

4) Signage not compliant with BPA Code of Practice and no valid contract formed between UKPC and the driver

5) ANPR Accuracy and Compliance

6) Unlawful penalty clause – Revenue for UKPC

1) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers

UKPC do not own the land mentioned in their Notice to Keeper and have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. Under the BPA CoP Section 7, a landowner contract must specifically allow UKPC to pursue charges in their own name in the courts and grant them the right to form contracts with drivers. I require UKPC to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner as I believe it is not compliant with the CoP and without it, UKPC have no legal standing nor authority at this site which could impact on visiting drivers.

In ParkingEye v Sharma, Case No. 3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court 23/10/2013. District Judge Jenkins dismissed the case on the grounds that the parking contract was a commercial matter between the Operator and the landowner, and didn’t create any contractual relationship with motorists who used the land. This decision was followed by ParkingEye v Gardam, Case No.3QT60598 in the High Wycombe County Court 14/11/2013 where costs of £90 were awarded to the Defendant. District Judge Jones concurred with the view in ParkingEye v Sharma that a parking operator has no standing to bring the claim in their own name. I submit that this applies in my case as well because the parking contract - if one is even produced - is a similar business agreement between an agent and landowner, nothing more.

If UKPC produce a 'witness statement' I contend that there is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract terms, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I contend, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, that this should be disregarded as unreliable and not proving full BPA compliance nor legal standing.

2) No genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The Notice from UKPC alleges that a breach of the terms and conditions of parking have occurred and so the charge levied must be damages that UKPC are seeking in redress. But this car park is free and there is no provision for the purchasing of a ticket or any other means for paying for parking. There was no damage nor obstruction caused so there can be no loss arising from the incident. Given there has been no genuine pre-estimate of loss the charge levied is unenforceable and the charge should be cancelled.

The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event, so this charge breaches the code and is unenforceable.

3) Notice to Keeper not compliant with the PoFA 2012.

Under the terms of the Protection of Freedoms Act, specifically Schedule 4, paragraphs 8 and 9, UKPC must identify the creditor who is legally entitled to recover parking charges on their Notice to Keeper. They have failed to do so, and so they have no right under the PoFA to reclaim parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. In a previous ruling, POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the validity of a Notice to Keeper is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability under Paragraph 8 or 9 it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act. As the Notice was not compliant with the Act, it was not properly issued.

4) The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice and there was no valid contract formed between the UKPC and the driver

Due to their high position, overall small size and also the size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read, understand and no notices are positioned near the entrance or exit.

I contend that the signs and any core parking terms the operator are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand. I require that the Operator's provides documentary evidence and signage map/photos on this point, lighting at night, colours used in cases of driver colour blindness and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements.

I contend that the signs on this land (wording, position, clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011 and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2])

In relation to the installation of signage, UKPC also state in their process that a no obligation proposal is sent, a signed contract returned, and then a site survey is conducted and signage installed. This appears to suggest that terms and signage are UKPC’s own and are not agreed within the contract prior to signature.

5) ANPR Accuracy and Compliance

I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require the Operator in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system in the Fox-Jones case and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:

''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)

21.1 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.

21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.

21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.

21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:

• be registered with the Information Commissioner

• keep to the Data Protection Act

• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data

• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

At this location, there are merely a couple of secret small cameras up high on a pole. No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the POFA 2012 (keeper liability requires strict compliance), a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.

6) Unlawful penalty clause - revenue for UKPC

Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011) and in Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012).

This transparently punitive charge by UKPC is a revenue-raising exercise and is therefore unenforceable in law. UKPC's own website is damning in this regard;

link removed

From the UKPC website, November 2013:

''frequently asked questions:

How much would it cost us to use your parking management services? Nothing at all! We provide parking management services to our clients free of charge.

So how do you earn your money? Our revenue is generated from the parking charges issued.

So in conclusion, this is (as is proven by the Operator's own website) a revenue-raising scheme disguised as a 'parking ticket' - so in fact it is an unenforceable penalty.

I respectfully request the POPLA assessor to consider my points and order that this charge be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

xxxxxx

THE REGISTERED KEEPER

No signs at the entrance indicating the parking duration 

Coupon-mad

I'm afraid you must bin that.  You've been reading a VERY old version from a decade ago, which we can tell because you've put "No genuine pre-estimate of loss."

bbluvbb

Understood, I have looked through the other templates again, thank you once again for the headup.

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, wish to appeal the parking charge issued by UK Parking Control, as notified in the letter dated 18/01/2024. Despite my initial appeal being rejected on 14/03/2024. I maintain that I am not liable for the charge for the following reasons:

1. No grace period was granted to the driver, as required by the BPA Code of Practice sections 13.2 and 13.4, which mandate a minimum 10-minute grace period both to decide on staying and after the parking period ends.

2. The operator has not provided proof of Landowner Authority, a necessary compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

3. The car park's signs are neither sufficiently prominent nor clear, lacking proper indication of the parking charge sum.

I am contesting the mentioned 10-minute overstay charge, as it falls within the reasonable grace period outlined by the BPA Code of Practice, making the charge non-compliant with the code and should consequently be revoked.

This stance is supported by section 30.2 of the code concerning ANPR sites, which dictates a minimum 10-minute grace period post the parking event before any enforcement action can be taken. Moreover, Kelvin Reynolds from the BPA emphasizes that the time allocated for drivers to read the signs and decide to adhere to the parking terms should be flexible, considering factors like disabilities which might necessitate more time.

Historically, during a meeting on 30th July 2015, the Professional Development & Standards Board agreed to adjust clause 13.4 in the BPA Code of Practice to denote an 11-minute grace period, in alignment with DfT guidelines, endorsing a unified standard and acknowledging that any duration less than 10 minutes (like the case in point) is reasonable.

Given the BPA acknowledges a minimum 10-minute grace period for exiting a car park, it logically extends to the time required to enter the car park, identify and comprehend the terms and conditions, complete the payment process, and then exit the premises post the stay.

Therefore, the 10-minute overstay claimed by NCP is also unreasonable due to:

a) Insufficient signage in the car park, violating BPA Code of Practice 18.3, which naturally prolongs the time needed to find and understand the signs before agreeing to a contract. b) The inadequacy of sign visibility from both the entrance and parking spots, and their illegibility without leaving the vehicle, as evidenced by the attached pictures.

1. The operator hasn't shown any evidence of having Landowner Authority, which is necessary for full adherence to the BPA Code of Practice.

In this context, I request that the operator present an uncensored version of the contract with the landowner. This contract, alongside any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' illustrating details such as 'genuine customer' or 'resident' exemptions or any 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights sanctioned by site occupiers, is crucial in delineating the extent of the operator's authorization and the situations where the landowner or firms on site have the power to nullify a charge. It should not be presumed that the agent, assigned merely to install signs and issue Parking Charge Notices, possesses the authority to enter into contracts with all categories of drivers visiting the site or to enforce charges in court under their name - a jurisdiction generally reserved for the landowner.

I argue that witness statements cannot be considered reliable evidence for the aforementioned reasons since they tend to be pre-signed, generic documents that often fail to specify the case at hand or the site regulations. Even though POPLA might accept witness statements in some instances, in this case, it's unlikely to adequately demonstrate the services outlined in the agreement by each party.

Moreover, such statements do not disclose crucial information like charging schedules, possible exemption clauses, grace periods (which might exceed the minimum durations outlined in the BPA CoP), and fundamental details such as the exact land boundary and specific bays subject to enforcement. They also lack confirmation of the various restrictions approved by the landowner that can incur a charge and the actual amount the landowner permits this agent to levy (which cannot be presumed to be the figure noted in small print on a sign since standardized private parking terms and amounts may vary from the authentic landowner agreement).

I insist that the operator meets the compulsory stipulations mentioned in Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP, which mandates the operator to present substantial proof of:

7.2 Obtaining the landowner's (or their designated agent's) written consent before initiating any legal action concerning unpaid parking charges.

7.3 The written approval should explicitly illustrate:

a. A clear delineation of the land where operations are permitted.

b. Any conditions or limitations imposed on parking control and enforcement, including restrictions on operational hours.

c. Specific conditions or restrictions concerning the kinds of vehicles subject to, or exempt from, parking control and enforcement.

d. Identification of the entity responsible for installing and maintaining signs.

e. A precise description of the services each party agrees to in the contract.

3. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

Neither the Notice to Keeper nor appeal rejection from UK Parking Control contain any photographic or any other evidence in support of UK Parking Control request for payment.

The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself when viewed from a vehicle.It should be noted that at entrance sign 

“The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers

without their needing to look away from the road ahead. Any

text on the sign not intended to be read from a moving vehicle

can be of a much smaller size”

As you can see from the attached photos of the entrance parking sign it is not legible for drivers entering the car park from the left.


There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:


''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''


''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a '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 Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case.

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

Therefore it is respectfully requested that this Notice to Keeper request appeal be upheld on every point.

patient_dream

Sadly, McDonalds have no respect for their customers. If you must visit them, make sure they have a drive-thru and never use their car park where a cowboy is employed

You are right that UKPC are rubbish and minus an entry sign ot a hidden sign cannot form a contract.

The BPA and POPLA side with parking companies. A court does not
Let us know what POPLA says

nopcns

Will you or any of your family continue to spend your hard earned money at McDonalds after their refusal to get the added £100 charge removed? I hope you're not addicted to MDs.

With regards to your POPLA appeal, the assessor will only look at breaches of law or the BPA CoP. You mention Grace Periods. Have you read and understood what is meant by a Grace Period and under what circumstances it applies? This is a link to the current v9 version of the BPA CoP where you can familiarise yourself on whether you can use the Grace Period as an argument that POPLA will consider. Section 13 applies:

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8(2).pdf

While you are reading the CoP, you may be able to find other breaches on things such as signs to use in your POPLA appeal.

bbluvbb

Yes, I will keep posted, thank you. Is it necessary to include the photos that I have of the signages and entrance in the POPLA appeal as well?

nopcns

Yes. Use everything that can back up your appeal. You include as many points of appeal as you can muster. UKPC must rebut all points successfully. You only need to win on a single point.

1505grandad

"Therefore, the 10-minute overstay claimed by NCP is also unreasonable due to:"

Make sure that any c & p actually relates to your case  -  and that BPA CoP para numbers are for the relevant version  -  i.e. there is a para quoted relating to Scotland & N.I.

bbluvbb

Hello everyone,

I've recently received feedback from POPLA indicating that the appeal against UKPC has uploaded its evidence to my appeal. The evidence they provided includes a poster version of the sign and some unclear pictures of the signage. Here is the evidence they uploaded.

In addition to these findings, I am planning to focus on attacking the point that they do not have a clear, large sign at the entrance indicating the parking hour limit. Additionally, the signs they placed around the site are not visible in all parking spaces. Moreover, it is even harder to read the text clearly if the driver is seated in the car. Furthermore, I intend to emphasize any discrepancies between the signage requirements outlined by relevant regulations and the actual signage present in the parking area. These discrepancies could strengthen our argument and highlight the inadequacy of the current signage.

[Image removed by Forum Team]

I have also screen cap a photo of the current exit from google map which you can tell there isn'y any sign 'AT' the entrance

fisherjim

Point out to POPLA also the following:

Not one of their photographs is time or date stamped they are not admissible evidence for that reason.

Their photographs show nothing all images are blurred and signage is unreadable.

The detailed images of signage provided are office masters and there is no evidence what so ever that these are displayed on site I would contend that that is why they have included them as signage on site does not conform.

The parking charge indicated on their master copy is not prominent as required by BPA COP and Schedule 4 of POFA, it is in small white font embedded in a wall of text in a red block!

bbluvbb

I just got a reply from POPLA today and it was a successful appeal! Thank you so much for all of your indeed. Much appreciated!

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Barry Arledge

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice due to parking in excess of the maximum stay time of 1 hour and 30 minutes. 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal • No grace period was given • A meeting in July 2015 means an 11 minute grace period should be applied • No evidence the operator has the authority of the landowner to manage/enforce parking at this site • Inadequate and unclear signage, with section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice violated • Section 20.5a states the photographic evidence should refer to the incident and contain a date stamp. The operator has not included photographic evidence on the PCN or in their appeal rejection • PCN sum not prominently displayed • PCN not compliant with Consumer Rights Act 2015 After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal and comments why they feel the operator’s evidence is inconclusive. . The appellant has provided evidence to support their appeal. • A PDF letter further elaborating on the appeal grounds • An image of where they parked • View of a parking signs from inside the vehicle • View looking across site entrance The above evidence will be considered in making my decision. 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. In the case the appellant has not identified themselves as the driver and the parking operator is using POFA legislation to pursue the appellant as the keeper of the vehicle. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.4 of the Code of Practice states that if parking operators intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, the signs must give adequate notice of the charge. I do not dispute the operator has submitted digital images of the signs which list the PCN sum as £100. This information is referenced in a red box to mirror one of the main terms of use, notably that parking is authorised for a maximum of 90 minutes only. This does make it stand out to a degree from other information seen. Nevertheless, I would still expect to see evidence these signs with this PCN sum information was present at the car park on this day. Images of the signage is included in photographs sent by both parties. Notably the signs appear differently in each case. The appellant’s photographs show largely blue and white signs that identifiably tell motorist the maximum stay is 90 minutes, but other information cannot be made out. The appellant’s images are not date stamped and have ‘meta data’ with creation dates in March 2024 which is after the parking event. The operator has sent images of signs in situ also, and they are notably/predominantly red and white. They do appear to be a match to the digital recreations sent that show the PCN sum, however, there is again no date or time stamp. As such I cannot be fully satisfied these were the signs present this days and that these signs clearly communicated the PCN sum payable for instances of non-compliance. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.