POPLA appeal - company car PCN NTK

Coupon-mad

It's explained in the NEWBIES FAQS post 5 which gives all the acronyms.

tincombe

As I understand it, NTH is a Notice to Hirer but I can't find any suggestion that this applies here i.e. that the vehicle is leased/hired.  Certainly the dates would suggest that the PCN was issued to the DVLA registered keeper. 

Maybe this could be clarified. 

Coupon-mad

Good point. Reviewing the OP it looks like the employee appealed a NTK not addressed to them? 

fresh_air_sunshine

Yes, that's correct - NTK was appealed. It was addressed to the company who owns the car (for whom I am a Director)

fresh_air_sunshine

From reviewing the templates I can find on the search function, does the following work as a POPLA appeal in this case?

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to appeal a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL) on 12 December 2024. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I was not the driver at the time of the alleged parking infringement. I believe the parking charge is invalid, and I respectfully request that POPLA upholds my appeal on the following grounds:

 

1. Failure to Comply with POFA 2012

The Notice to Keeper (NTK) issued by Civil Enforcement Limited fails to meet the strict requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, Schedule 4.

• Vague allegation: The NTK states, "Payment not made/permit not obtained in accordance with notified terms," but it does not provide specific details about the alleged breach. POFA requires clear evidence of the breach to hold the keeper liable.
• Creditor not identified: The NTK fails to clearly identify the creditor entitled to recover the parking charge. This is a mandatory requirement under POFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(h).

As these requirements have not been met, CEL cannot transfer liability to me, the registered keeper.

 

2. No Evidence of Driver Identity

I was not the driver at the time of the alleged incident, and CEL has provided no evidence to identify the driver. Under POFA, liability can only be transferred to the registered keeper if strict compliance with the Act is demonstrated, which has not occurred in this case.

Without evidence proving the driver’s identity, CEL has no legal basis to pursue the charge from me as the registered keeper.

 

3. Insufficient and Non-Compliant Signage

The operator has not demonstrated that the signage at the site complies with the BPA Code of Practice. The Code requires that:

• Signs be prominently displayed at all entry points and throughout the car park.
• The terms and conditions be clear, legible, and easily understood.

CEL has provided no photographic evidence to confirm that the signage at the car park was visible, legible, or compliant. Without clear signage, no contract could have been formed between the driver and CEL.

 

4. Excessive and Unfair Charge

The parking charge of £100 is disproportionate and does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss. While the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v. Beavis allows for higher charges, it applies only in circumstances where the charge is justified as necessary for deterrence and there is clear evidence of a contract.

In this case, CEL has not provided justification for the charge or evidence of a contract.

 

Given the above points, I respectfully request that POPLA upholds my appeal and instructs Civil Enforcement Limited to cancel the parking charge.

 

Yours faithfully,

XXX

Coupon-mad

Remove 4 which has not been good law for a decade!  No no no!

Change "I wasn't the driver" to "The appellant is a company and cannot possibly be the driver" and do not put your own name in the MOTORIST box in POPLA's appeal page.

Put the Company name as the 'Motorist' (yeah I know it's daft!).

Add to point 1 that there was no obligation to obtain nor display a 'permit' because it isn't a permit car park and nor is it a pay & display car park.  So the NTK is incorrect and was not properly given (use that phrase).

Add instead of your point 4, the usual 'no landowner authority' point from the 3rd post if the NEWBIES thread.

Add another point saying that this was a mere 'keying error' if anything (or a Keypad system fault, more likely) because the driver is a gym member who always inputs their VRM.  Nothing to do with permits. As this is a company vehicle, it is possible the driver got the VRM wrong but the company appellant is being forced to guess. No evidence has been provided of the VRM log from that day and nor did CEL offer to settle at £20.  This is a breach of the BPA CoP. Even if the VRM does not appear on the list, this was at best a major keying error. Should have been offered at £20 instead if obfuscating the facts and pretending the issue was a generic 'not paying / no permit', which is denied.

fresh_air_sunshine

Amazing! Thank you @Coupon-mad for your feedback! How is the below amended document?

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to appeal a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL) on 12 December 2024. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I was not the driver at the time of the alleged parking infringement. I believe the parking charge is invalid, and I respectfully request that POPLA upholds my appeal on the following grounds:

 

1. Failure to Comply with POFA 2012

The Notice to Keeper (NTK) issued by Civil Enforcement Limited fails to meet the strict requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, Schedule 4.

• Vague allegation: The NTK states, "Payment not made/permit not obtained in accordance with notified terms," but it does not provide specific details about the alleged breach. POFA requires clear evidence of the breach to hold the keeper liable.
• Creditor not identified: The NTK fails to clearly identify the creditor entitled to recover the parking charge. This is a mandatory requirement under POFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(h).
• Incorrect NTK: There was no obligation to obtain nor display a 'permit' because it isn't a permit car park and nor is it a pay & display car park.  Therefore the NTK is incorrect and was not properly given.

As these requirements have not been met, CEL cannot transfer liability to me, the registered keeper.

2. No Evidence of Driver Identity

The appellant is a company and cannot possibly be the driver, and CEL has provided no evidence to identify the driver. Under POFA, liability can only be transferred to the registered keeper if strict compliance with the Act is demonstrated, which has not occurred in this case. Without evidence proving the driver’s identity, CEL has no legal basis to pursue the charge from me as the registered keeper.

3. Insufficient and Non-Compliant Signage

The operator has not demonstrated that the signage at the site complies with the BPA Code of Practice. The Code requires that:

• Signs be prominently displayed at all entry points and throughout the car park.
• The terms and conditions be clear, legible, and easily understood.

CEL has provided no photographic evidence to confirm that the signage at the car park was visible, legible, or compliant. Without clear signage, no contract could have been formed between the driver and CEL.

4. 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 - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

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 authorised on the material date, 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 but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal 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

5. Potential keying error

If anything, this was likely a mere 'keying error' (or, more likely, a keypad system fault) because possible drivers of this company vehicle are gym members who always input their VRM.  This has nothing to do with permits. As this is a company vehicle, it is possible the driver got the VRM wrong but the company appellant is being forced to guess. No evidence has been provided of the VRM log from that day and nor did CEL offer to settle at £20. This is a breach of the BPA CoP. Even if the VRM does not appear on the list, this was at best a major keying error. The company appellant should have been offered at £20 instead of CEL obfuscating the facts and pretending the issue was a generic 'not paying / no permit', which is denied.

Given the above points, I respectfully request that POPLA upholds my appeal and instructs Civil Enforcement Limited to cancel the parking charge.

 Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

You still have "me, the registered keeper" at the end of both para 1 and para 2. There is no "me" appealing this. The company is!

Go through it all and change all mention of "I" and "me" including the whole intro.

fresh_air_sunshine

Done! Thank you!

fresh_air_sunshine

Hi all! CEL have replied to the POPLA appeal and attached their evidence, including photos of the car park signage in the day time, a case summary of Cavendish Square Holding v. Talal, and a lengthy letter including the phone and pay log for the day in question. 

First things I have noticed:

As is clear on the photographs provided by CEL, there is no lighting over the parking signs by the gym (page 1 and page 11 of the photograph document uploaded). The car was parked at night, and the signs were not visible at that time. 

The phone and pay log was not provided to the appellant when further evidence was requested upon the NTK appeal. This is all new evidence only submitted now. 

The payment charge for 1 hour parking is £1.00, yet a £100 fee is being pursued. This is an unfair cost and disproportionate to the cost to CEL for the car being parked on the car park. 

Furthermore, CEL refer to the driver as "her" and it is important to note that there is no record of who the driver was. This appeal is lodged by the Registered Keeper, the company. 

----

Any advice on how to respond to this evidence on the POPLA website? I have 7 days to make any comments on their evidence. Let me know if you'd like to see anything CEL submitted.