Azure Parking - how to appeal "No parking at any time" PCN?

kryten3000

Point 38 states that the registered keeper was in breach.  This is a complete falsehood as only the driver could breach the contract. 

The POFA enables the transfer of liability for the breach to the RK, but that does not mean the RK was in breach of the contract. 

Signage is forbidding in nature so there is no contract offered. 

Ulrich

@Coupon-mad
@kryten3000
@Fruitcake
Here's the draft of my comments, please have a look and tell me if that will do the job:
"I appealed to Azure Parking and to POPLA as the registered keeper.

The main point of the appeal is the PCN is not compliant with Protection of Freedom Act 2012 as it has no "period of parking" as required by Schedule 4.

I reiterated that in my appeal to POPLA pointing out that registered keeper can be held liable for unpaid parking charges ONLY if certain conditions of Schedule 4 are strictly complied with.

Namely, the PCN must specify the period of parking, as well as the fact the operator does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

It must invite the registered keeper to pay the parking charge.

Nothing of the above was true in my case, which makes the PCN not complaint with the POFA 2012 and the registered keeper not being liable for any charges.

The operator failed to address or even mention these issues in their appeal rejection dated 04/12/2024 (which they decided not to include in the supporting documents).

In p.37 of the Case Summary uploaded by ZZPS they clearly indicate that my appeal to Azure Parking was rejected on the basis that the Terms and Conditions had been breached, not a word about the main appeal point - compliance with POFA 2012.

ZZPS also failed to address the same point I'd made in my appeal to POPLA and just stated at the end of their Case Summary that "this Parking Charge is POFA 2012 compliant", which is not quite enough.

In p.38 ZZPS state that the Registered Keeper is in breach of the contract formed, which is only possible if they proved the Registered Keeper had been the driver as only the driver could breach the contract.

However, p.29 clearly states that "the identity of the driver was not known" meaning the statement in p.38 is plainly false.

The POFA 2012 enables the transfer of liability for the breach to the Registered Keeper, but that does not mean the Registered Keeper was in breach of the contract.

Even more, as I also pointed out in my POPLA appeal, the signage on the site is clearly forbidding in nature so there is no contract offered (No offer, no consideration resulting in No contract) and as a result, there is nothing to breach.

Since the operator has failed to address the key points of my appeal, they must accept them and the appeal must be allowed.

The previous assessment by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator supports my point regarding POFA 2012 compliance:

"There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.

If [POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is] not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass."

My point about the PCN has not been issued correctly with regards to a "no parking at any time" is supported by a successful POPLA appeal (assessor Richard Beaden):

"When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. I am allowing this appeal I will explain my reasons below. The appellant challenges that a valid parking contract was formed. The signs on site advise that this location is a no parking area and there is no option for a motorist to park in this location. The operator can issue a parking charge notice for trespass but this is not what has happened. The operator has referred to the site as a car park and has advised the PCN advises that the driver was parked in breach of the terms and conditions but there were no parking facilities which the driver could have used. The PCN makes no mention of trespass and the driver would not have to form a contact to have been trespassing. The operator has issued the PCN as though the driver had breached the terms and conditions but the operator should have treated this as a case of trespass. As such I must conclude that the PCN has not been correctly issued and on this basis I am allowing the appeal."

I believe that it is imperative that the assessor reviewing my case has been sufficiently trained to understand both the PoFA, and contract law."

ChirpyChicken

Far to long.
Couple of paragraphs max

Ulrich

@ChirpyChicken
How about this:

As the registered keeper, I insist that the PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and that no contract was formed.

Registered keeper can be held liable for unpaid parking charges ONLY if certain conditions of Schedule 4 are strictly complied with.

Since the operator has failed to address and even mention these key points of my appeal at all stages, they must accept them and the appeal must be allowed.

I believe that it is imperative that the assessor reviewing my case has been sufficiently trained to understand both the PoFA, and contract law.

ChirpyChicken

sounds good enough to me

Ulrich

Ok, if there is no other things to mention, I'll submit my comments to POPLA soon and we'll see how it goes.

Coupon-mad

Ulrich said:

Ok, if there is no other things to mention, I'll submit my comments to POPLA soon and we'll see how it goes.

What happened in the end?

Umkomaas

A bit frustrating that after all the advice given, we have radio silence. Just a brief update, whether positive or negative, would be good. 

Ulrich

Coupon-mad said:

Ulrich said:

Ok, if there is no other things to mention, I'll submit my comments to POPLA soon and we'll see how it goes.

What happened in the end?

Well, the last POPLA communication I received was on 1 Feb 2025 that my appeal is ready to be assessed and they expect to make a decision in 6-8 weeks from the point the appeal was first submitted (7 Jan 2025 in my case).
On their website it still shows "POPLA assessment - in progress".
The only change is ZZPS rolled back their fee from £170 to £100
I'm patiently sitting on my hands - happy with the current state of things as ZZPS stopped sending me their ransom emails and letters.
Will promptly update the community on any material changes.

@Umkomaas
what advice and silence are you talking about?
I normally sleep from 1030pm until 7am, hope you do the same

Ulrich

Hi All,

My appeal was allowed today.
Thanks everyone who helped me in any way.

Here's POPLA's assessment and decision:

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Rachel Hankinson

Assessor summary of operator case: The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for no parking at any time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds, which have been summarised: • The PCN has not been issued correctly due to the reason ‘’no parking at any time’’ as the areas is a small lay-by off a public road • They feel that as the area does not permit parking at any time, there are no parking facilities and no contract or agreement can be entered into as it fails the contractual basic test with no offer, no consideration resulting in no contract • The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as the PCN does not specify the period of parking as required or state that the creditor does not know the name of the driver and current address • The PCN doesn’t invite the keeper to pay the charge. Therefore, it fails to comply with PoFA • The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge and there has been no admittance as to who was driving by the appellant • There is no evidence of landowner authority After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence pack, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal in further detail regarding PoFA 2012. The appellant has provided a third party court case transcript as evidence towards their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal and will detail my reasoning below: By issuing a parking charge notice to the appellant the operator has implied that a breach of the terms and conditions has occurred. When an appeal comes to POPLA, the burden of proof begins with a parking operator to demonstrate that the appellant has breached the restrictions of the car park as they claim. Within their grounds of appeal, the appellant states that as the area does not permit parking at any time, there are no parking facilities and no contract or agreement can be entered into as it fails the contractual basic test with no offer, no consideration resulting in no contract. The signage on site states that no parking at any time is permitted and failure to comply would result in a £100 PCN. It must be recognised that the area in question does not permit motorists to park within the managed area as there are no parking facilities such as bays offered within the privately manged land. The operator would be permitted to issue a PCN for trespass. However, this is not the case. As the PCN does not explicitly mention trespass and the driver would not have to form a contract to trespass on the private land, I cannot be satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.