Parking Charge Notice to Hirer ( from CUP enforcement )

Car1980

Yes, you agree to pay the charge, but you do not agree to pay any admin fee because a charge is not an offence or fine.

So they could pay it and pursue you for a refund, or they could pass it directly on for you to deal with. But you have not agreed to pay any admin fee on a Parking Charge Notice ie. invoice.

Switcher_Sam

"CUTOMER PARKING.."? Oh dear..🙄

PCNonsense

I received a debt recovery notice in the post today, dated 5th August 2025. As today is the 14th of August, I’m concerned about the delay in receiving this correspondence. The notice references a PCN for which I have not received any Notice to Hirer (NTH). However, the hire company did inform me of the PCN, as they charged me each time they received one. I don't believe they are even sending me these letters

ChirpyChicken

Ignore ALL DRP letters.

PCNonsense

The both appeals have now been rejected and POPLA codes have been provided

when i logged into the website to make an appeal i was presented with 3 options

1 - I was the Driver
2 - I am the registered keeper
3 - I am the hirer

I chose option 3 when submitting appeal

Letter below:

13/08/2025

Dear 

Re: Parking Charge Notice Number ----- (Vehicle: -----)

POPLA Verification Code: ------

Site: Cakes and Bakes, r/o 59 High st Barkingside

Issue date: 17/07/2025

Contravention: Unauthorised parking not on the whitelist

Thank you for your appeal received on 08/08/2025 regarding the above detailed Parking Charge Notice. We have

reviewed the case and considered the comments you have made. This appeal has been considered in conjunction

with the evidence gathered by the parking attendant. Our records show the notice was correctly issued as the

vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions of Parking.

Whilst we appreciate your concerns and comments raised, the vehicle was parked without authorisation, was not

exempt from the parking terms, and no supporting evidence was submitted of authority from the operator to use

the parking area.

The Code of Practice of The British Parking Association (BPA) sets the standards with which its parking operators

need to comply:

Section 22.8 states;

'While we have an expectation that operators will seek to use PoFA legislation, it is appreciated that there will be

occasions where this might not be possible. If a Non-PoFA Notice to Keeper is being issued it must be sent out as

soon as possible and no later than 7 months after the original parking event.'

The notice was submitted within the permitted time frame for Non-PoFA notices; you confirmed you were the hirer, therefore you are now liable for the charge.

Parking standards are a matter of safety, security and etiquette. Responsibility lays with the driver to ensure the

area selected for stay, no matter the occasion or duration, is suitable and parking complies with current terms and

conditions. A stationary vehicle is classed as parked whether or not the driver or any passengers are waiting

within the vehicle or in the surrounding area, and whether or not the engine is running. The time and date

stamped photographic evidence submitted by the operative, captured the vehicle parked at the location. Our

sitemaps confirm the signage at the site was clear, legible, unobstructed, in full operation and in proximity to the

vehicle.

Please note wardens are not obligated to place notices on vehicles parked within sites where signage is already

on display, or communicate directly with motorists and have the right to complete their duties without harassment.

Motorists do not have to use the site and are at liberty to park elsewhere. Those who choose to park on private

land without permission are trespassing therefore, any vehicle found parked in the area without due authorisation

will incur a charge.

CUP Enforcement is authorised to issue clearance, parking permits and charges in cases of contravention. The

driver entered a contract with CUP due to the following: Firstly, there was an offer, which was reasonably brought

to attention via signage at the site which sets out the terms and conditions. Secondly, the driver was afforded a

reasonable opportunity to read and understand the offer and consequently, is now required to comply with the

contract. Ultimately, it is the responsibility and duty of the motorist to ensure upon arrival, that they seek out, read

and comply with terms and conditions accepted upon parking if they wish to use land that does not belong to them.

By parking the vehicle at the site in contravention, they accept the potential consequence of incurring a PCN.

Terms and conditions were undoubtedly displayed and contact information is displayed on all CUP signage,

however, none was made. Unfortunately, sufficient evidence was not provided in order to warrant the cancellation

of the PCN. The terms and conditions are displayed on CUP signage throughout the development to notify drivers

of the contractual agreement when entering the above location. We can confirm the warden followed the correct

procedure and the PCN was issued correctly.

Having considered all grounds for the appeal you will understand that sadly we are unable to accept your appeal.

When parking on private land, the motorist agrees to abide by any clearly displayed conditions of parking in return

for permission to park. This location is private property and is managed by CUP Enforcement on behalf of the

landowner. CUP Enforcement fully complies with the guidelines set by the British Parking Association. Please note

photographic evidence is taken with every PCN that is issued.

Payments made at this time will be for the amount of £100.00 within 14 days of the date of this notice. Failure to

pay the amount may result in further costs being incurred and may also result in CUP Enforcement, reluctantly

instructing a Debt Collection Agency to collect any sum due.

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options: You

can pay the total amount due or you can appeal to an Independent Appeals Service, POPLA (Parking on Private

Land Appeals) within 28 days using the POPLA Reference code provided. Should you wish to make a second

appeal, this can be done through POPLA - the independent appeals service - at www.popla.co.uk

By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides

an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not

chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to further appeal then

you must do so to POPLA, as outlined here. Your POPLA verification code is ------

Please note that if you wish to appeal to POPLA, and should POPLA's decision not go in your favour, you will then

be required to pay the full amount of £100.00 and all further charges.

Gr1pr

Appeal as hirer to popla, based on no hirer liability,  no compliance with Pofa2012 etc, plus the usual popla points about poor signage and no landowner authority etc

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for POPLA NTH appeal

Dead easy to win.

PCNonsense

I submitted my appeal to POPLA, but before it progressed, CUP Enforcement informed me that the store owner had contacted them and successfully cancelled two of the three tickets I have appealed.

Although I had spoken to the owner beforehand, they mentioned they couldn’t guarantee any outcome.

In total, I was issued four PCNs. Two have now been cancelled. One was never received, but I did receive a debt collection notice related to that missing one. The final PCN is still under review, response received below yesterday:

Dear xxx

Re: Parking Charge Notice Number xxxx (Vehicle: xxxx)

Site: xx xxx 

Issue date: 26/08/2025

We are unable to adequately process this appeal as we require further information as detailed below:

Within the appeal, you identified yourself as the hirer, however, claim that you cannot be held liable. Further

information will now be sought from the company from which you hired the vehicle.

The PCN will now be placed on hold pending review and a final response.

Yours sincerely,

Appeals Department

CUP Enforcement

Coupon-mad

Further information will now be sought from the company from which you hired the vehicle.

Oh-oh! Alarm bells!

Warn the owner/hire company NOT TO PAY as you have appealed it.

A parking operator cannot revert to the company if that company transferred liability by giving your name and address. Did they do that already?

PCNonsense

I drafted my POPLA appeal as follows, submitted for two appeals:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Parking ticket number: xxxx

Vehicle registration number: xxxx

As the hirer of the above numbered vehicle I received a Notice To Hirer dated 27th July 2025 from CUPE on 4th August 2025. I submitted an appeal to them on 7th August 2025 but this was subsequently rejected by email letter dated 13th August 2025.

I contend that as the hirer, I am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1) Notice to Hirer non-compliant with POFA 2012- The Operator ( CUPE ) failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

In order to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s hirer an operator must deliver a Notice to Hirer in full compliance with POFA’s strict requirements. In this instance, the operator’s Notice to Hirer did not comply.

The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA with the conditions that the Creditor must meet to be able to hold the hirer liable for the charge being set out in Paragraph 14.

Paragraph 14 (2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the Hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 13(2) (i.e. (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper

 The Operator did not provide me with copies of any of these documents.

Paragraph 14 (5) (b) specifies that the Notice to Hirer must refer the hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. The Operator's Notice to Hirer refers only to the Notice to Keeper, not to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. This is a fundamental omission, especially given that the Operator did not provide me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper as required under Paragraph 14 (2) (a). Consequently, the Operator failed to provide me with much of the information required to be included in the Notice to Keeper under Paragraph 9 (2) of Schedule 4 of POFA.

The original Notice to Keeper was non- compliant as the full wording of paragraph 9 of POFA 2012 was omitted.

Sub paragraph (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, states that the keeper must be warned that ‘after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver’. It goes on to state in (e) (ii) that ‘if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver’

2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

In cases with a hirer appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper/hirer liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the Hirer 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 hirer without a valid NTH.

As the hirer of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the hirer and ONLY Schedule 4 of the PoFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a hirer appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the PoFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the PoFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability

“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. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver.  If POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as hirer of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

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

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.

4) There was insufficient signage

I was unable to determine what the relevant parking restrictions were because there was no clear signage to explain what they were.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver entered the car park, the entrance to which had and still has insufficient signage. Not all entrance signs are suitably placed to be read from the distance of the driver of an approaching car.

The close-up image of the parking sign reveals an 0844 contact number, which has been banned for over a decade. Additionally, the sign fails to display a company name or registration number—both omissions constitute breaches of legal requirements.

Please see attached evidence as proof