C.U.P Enforcement POPLA Appeal

Wade_Barrett

Ok so here are my updated comments taking on board your help. I have also attached the landowner authority pack pages - I previously didn't because I didn't realise they were important here, my apologies:

In response to the statements provided by CUP Enforcement regarding my POPLA appeal, I first wish to emphasise their fundamental failure to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Specifically, the Notice to Keeper (NTK) issued by CUP Enforcement does not explicitly state the "period of parking" as required under paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. Additionally, because the driver has not been identified, it is even more imperative for CUP Enforcement to strictly adhere to all POFA requirements to lawfully transfer liability to me, the registered keeper. Without clearly specifying the relevant parking period and considering the absence of driver identification, CUP Enforcement has no lawful basis to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. This failure alone is sufficient to invalidate the Parking Charge Notice.

Furthermore, I strongly refute CUP Enforcement's claim that the driver's identity has been established. Throughout both my initial appeal directly to CUP and the subsequent POPLA appeal, the identity of the driver was never at any points confirmed or disclosed. I explicitly identified myself only as the registered keeper of the vehicle, and nothing in these correspondence implies or confirms my presence at the scene. Therefore, CUP Enforcement’s repeated assertion of having identified the driver is entirely incorrect and misleading. The absence of driver identification further reinforces the critical importance of CUP Enforcement’s compliance with POFA 2012, which they have demonstrably failed to achieve.

Additionally, I contest their assertion regarding the adequacy and clarity of the signage at the location. One particular sign included in their submitted evidence is significantly distant—approximately a one to two-minute walk from where the vehicle was parked—yet they misleadingly represent this as clearly visible and conveniently positioned near the vehicle. Furthermore, the photographic evidence provided by CUP Enforcement of the signage is dated several months prior to the issuance of the PCN, raising serious concerns about its relevance, accuracy, and current applicability. Moreover, the photograph I provided in my POPLA appeal clearly demonstrates the lack of clear and obvious signage at the entrance to the site, as well as clearly showing the parking location where the PCN was issued. This photograph further highlights that there are no signs nearby, and all of their limited signage is located deep into the site, further underscoring CUP Enforcement's misleading claims. The metadata of this photograph shows it to be from (insert metadata date). Consequently, their assertions regarding signage adequacy and visibility do not accurately reflect the actual circumstances present at the time of the alleged contravention.

Additionally, CUP Enforcement has provided only a heavily redacted version of their purported authority agreement with the landowner, making it impossible to confirm the extent or validity of their enforcement rights at this location. In my appeal, I explicitly requested an unredacted copy of the relevant contract to verify their authority. Without complete transparency and clear evidence of their contractual rights, CUP Enforcement has failed to establish conclusively that they have proper authorization from the landowner to enforce charges at this site. This lack of transparency further undermines the validity of their enforcement action.

CUP Enforcement has also inadequately responded to significant points raised in my appeal, including the detailed explanation and supporting evidence provided regarding the mechanical fault that made correct parking temporarily impossible. Their complete disregard of this substantive mitigating evidence further weakens their position.

Moreover, CUP Enforcement has entirely failed to address my robust arguments concerning their breaches of the Consumer Contract Regulations 2013 and Ofcom guidelines. Specifically, their use of an 0844 premium-rate number breaches Regulation 41 of the Consumer Contract Regulations 2013, as it imposes additional charges on consumers seeking to contact them regarding contractual or charge-related disputes. Furthermore, by omitting clear and prominent notification of call costs associated with their premium-rate number, they are also in breach of Ofcom's transparency requirements, which have been effective since July 2015. Their complete omission of these critical points suggests either an inability or unwillingness to engage with these legitimate compliance issues, further damaging the credibility and strength of their case.

In conclusion, given CUP Enforcement’s failure to comply with POFA 2012, their incorrect claims regarding driver identification, their inadequate and outdated signage evidence, lack of transparency regarding landowner authority, their disregard for compliance with consumer regulations, and their failure to engage meaningfully with key mitigating circumstances, I respectfully request that this appeal be upheld and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.

_____

is the above okay? here is landowner authority part of the evidence pack:

thank you for your help and guidance

Gr1pr

You dont attach anything at all to the popla comments stage, no evidence is submitted with comments 

You comment on the content within the evidence pack, referring to the evidence pack,  which popla already have 

But 

You can attach Exhibits here in your thread for people to comment on,  if that is what you meant   ?

Your comments are overly wordy,  but the order is good and the content is OK to me, dealing with the main issues first.  The heavily redacted contract is exactly one major issue of note, but Pofa2012 and driver not identified are the best pair, the last 3 probably won't even be considered, popla wll look for one stand out item

Wade_Barrett

Hey guys, here is POPLA's response. They ignored what I said about the driver identity issue and the point on consumer contract regulations and Ofcom guidelines. What may I do next? Thank you

 
POPLA:

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the 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.

A copy of the Parking Charge Notice has been provided and on page 2 under the section “Protection of Freedoms Act” the keeper is warned that if after 29 days from the PCN date the charge is not paid in full and the name and address of the driver is not known then the charge will be recovered from the keeper as named on the PCN. This is given under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This is sufficient to allow the motorist to know they will be liable to pay the Parking Charge.

Information is also given of what action to take if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle.

Under section 9 schedule 5 of POFA scheduled states the relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking globed. Schedule 5 states a notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless Raven contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper that was sent on 08 January 2025 with the incident date being 05 January 2025 which means the parking charge notice was sent within 2 days, therefore being POFA compliant.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which detail the terms and conditions of parking. The signs advise no parking on yellow lines and no parking on roads and footpaths. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PC Famous being issued for £100.

As a member of the British Parking Association the operator is required to comply with the British Parking Association single code of practice. The operator has provided warden photos of the vehicle not parked in a parking bay and left on the road causing an obstruction.

The operator has also provided a site map and photos of all signage to demonstrate that clear terms and conditions are viewable to all users. The appellant has stated that the signs at this site are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the Terms and Conditions. Under 3.1.3 of the single code of practice states signs within controlled land displaying the specific terms and conditions applying must be placed within the controlled land, such that drivers have the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle and be sufficiently large to be visible from a distance.

From reviewing the signs provided by the operator I can see that clear and ample falconry is located around the car park and the terms and conditions are clear on the signage in bold black writing on a white background.

The appellant has also stated that there is no visible entrance sign. Under 3.1.1 of the single code of practice states an entrance sign must be displayed and maintained at the entrance to the controlled land to inform drivers as appropriate whether parking Clapton permitted to terms and conditions. Again from reviewing the site map there is a clear entrance sign on site making all users aware that terms and conditions apply on site.

The appellant has stated that there is no evidence of landowner authority which is a breach of Consumer Contract regulations 2013 and Ofcom regulations for having no landowner authority. Under section 14.1 in the single code of practice states where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner covering: A. The identity of the landowner, B. A boundary map of all the land to be managed, C. Such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking, D. The permission granted to the parking operator by the landowner and the duration of Clipboard permission, E. The parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs and specific permissions and exemptions e.g. for staff, resident or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery driver and couriers, F. The means by which parking charges will be issued.

A copy of the Landowner Authority has been supplied by the operator and there is a valid contract for the operator to manage parking at this site including issuing Parking Charges for breaches of terms and conditions. This document is compliant with the British Parking Association single code of practice Section 14. This document does show that the contract started on 15/08/24. The operator would therefore be authorised to manage parking and enforcement on this car park.

The appellant has also stated that their vehicle suffered an electrical fault for which a purchase was made from Euro Car Parts making it impossible to park in a bay. While I sympathise with the appellant and the issues they were facing, unfortunately as the appellant decided to leave their vehicle not parked in a marked bay, they have breached the terms and conditions of the site and therefore the parking charge notice was issued correctly.

POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, as the appellant failed to park in a marked bay, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.

Car1980

...clear and ampul [sic] signage is located around the carpark and the terms and conditions are clear on the signage in bold black writing on a white background

On the contrary, the signs are appalling. I had to read it umpteen times to find out what you did wrong (restricted area term seems to the be the issue). Tiny writing, all in caps, does not become magically clear if emboldened.

THIS SIGN COVERS A MULTIPLE AMOUNT OF SPACES OR AREA. UNAUTHORISED, INCORRECTLY PARKED VEHICLES NOT DISPLAYING A VALID PERMIT, OR VEHICLES PARKED IN THE WRONG BAYS OR IN A RESTRICTED AREA, ON DOUBLE YELLOW LINES OR CAUSING AN OBSTRUCTION OR PARKED ON ACCESS

WILL RECEIVE A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE (PCN).

Just need the word RAH! at the end.

The appellant has also stated that their vehicle suffered an electrical fault for which a purchase was made from Euro Car Parts making it impossible to park in a bay. While I sympathise with the appellant and the issues they were facing, unfortunately as the appellant decided to leave their vehicle not parked in a marked bay, they have breached the terms and conditions of the site 

Er, so he should have lifted the car with his super hero strength?

By the way, you should have gone legal here (frustration of contract) rather than used mitigating circumstances. Which will invoke sarcastic sympathy at most.

Ignore the clowns and try in court.

Coupon-mad

This was always likely to lose at POPLA but please add ten paragraph breaks into that decision to break it up to be readable, then add it and a link to this thread, in POPLA Decisions and state which PPC and location it's about.

That helps others.

As I said back in March "probably unlikely to win at POPLA. No worries if not."

Totally ignore CUP and the £170 debt demands over the months/years but you MUST open every laughable letter and you MUST tell them if you move house.

That's it. Come back if ever they try a small claim. See post FOUR then post TWO of NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST.

Easy to defend. Not that CUP are litigious, so just check each threatogram and laugh.

There aren't even marked bays and it looks like habitual practice is - like most business parks - to park courteously but not all in a line. Also the line your car was purported to be straddling wasn't a bay edge, looks like some old markings:

Wade_Barrett

Car1980 said:

...clear and ampul [sic] signage is located around the carpark and the terms and conditions are clear on the signage in bold black writing on a white background

On the contrary, the signs are appalling. I had to read it umpteen times to find out what you did wrong (restricted area term seems to the be the issue). Tiny writing, all in caps, does not become magically clear if emboldened.

THIS SIGN COVERS A MULTIPLE AMOUNT OF SPACES OR AREA. UNAUTHORISED, INCORRECTLY PARKED VEHICLES NOT DISPLAYING A VALID PERMIT, OR VEHICLES PARKED IN THE WRONG BAYS OR IN A RESTRICTED AREA, ON DOUBLE YELLOW LINES OR CAUSING AN OBSTRUCTION OR PARKED ON ACCESS

WILL RECEIVE A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE (PCN).

Just need the word RAH! at the end.

The appellant has also stated that their vehicle suffered an electrical fault for which a purchase was made from Euro Car Parts making it impossible to park in a bay. While I sympathise with the appellant and the issues they were facing, unfortunately as the appellant decided to leave their vehicle not parked in a marked bay, they have breached the terms and conditions of the site 

Er, so he should have lifted the car with his super hero strength?

By the way, you should have gone legal here (frustration of contract) rather than used mitigating circumstances. Which will invoke sarcastic sympathy at most.

Ignore the clowns and try in court.

Thank you for this. I can't believe they didn't even acknowledge the photos I sent regarding signage and said that the signs are 'clear and ample'. it actually hilarious 

Wade_Barrett

Coupon-mad said:

This was always likely to lose at POPLA but please add ten paragraph breaks into that decision to break it up to be readable, then add it and a link to this thread, in POPLA Decisions and state which PPC and location it's about.

That helps others.

As I said back in March "probably unlikely to win at POPLA. No worries if not."

Totally ignore CUP and the £170 debt demands over the months/years but you MUST open every laughable letter and you MUST tell them if you move house.

That's it. Come back if ever they try a small claim. See post FOUR then post TWO of NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST.

Easy to defend. Not that CUP are litigious, so just check each threatogram and laugh.

There aren't even marked bays and it looks like habitual practice is - like most business parks - to park courteously but not all in a line. Also the line your car was purported to be straddling wasn't a bay edge, looks like some old markings:

my apologies, I have added the paragraph breaks, I just copied it over as it was on the POPLA website. Thank you for taking the time to check this out. Understood! I'll just see what happens.

Ralph-y

Oh and leave Euro Car Parts in Harold Wood some honest comments on social media / trust pilot ........

Coupon-mad

Wade_Barrett said:

Coupon-mad said:

This was always likely to lose at POPLA but please add ten paragraph breaks into that decision to break it up to be readable, then add it and a link to this thread, in POPLA Decisions and state which PPC and location it's about.

That helps others.

As I said back in March "probably unlikely to win at POPLA. No worries if not."

Totally ignore CUP and the £170 debt demands over the months/years but you MUST open every laughable letter and you MUST tell them if you move house.

That's it. Come back if ever they try a small claim. See post FOUR then post TWO of NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST.

Easy to defend. Not that CUP are litigious, so just check each threatogram and laugh.

There aren't even marked bays and it looks like habitual practice is - like most business parks - to park courteously but not all in a line. Also the line your car was purported to be straddling wasn't a bay edge, looks like some old markings:

my apologies, I have added the paragraph breaks, I just copied it over as it was on the POPLA website. Thank you for taking the time to check this out. Understood! I'll just see what happens.

You haven't put it in the POPLA Decisions thread yet, as I asked? That helps others.

Coupon-mad

Ooh I see it is in POPLA Decisions now but with some odd words in the text:

Raven
Famous
Clapton
Clipboard