POPLA Appeal Stage - NTK Validity

SwankyKumquat

Hello. Have been following through steps in Newbie thread on forum to fight PCN. NTK recieved 02/12. Tried unsuccessful attempt to nip in the bud with landowner. Appeal to Operator using template provided, not identifying driver (09/12). Rejected on 15/12. Currently at POPLA stage. Clear generally about grounds of appeal that can be employed.

Was looking for some advice at this stage to check the postal NTK received is generally POFA compliant with information required under schedule 4? No obvious blunders but know this is often the first ground of appeal in many cases so thought it prudent to double-check before appealing.

Otherwise, from other appeals and info browsed so far, seems the best ground is in terms of insufficient signage. Here is the image of entrance signage provided by the Operator themselves (in subsequent response to the first instance appeal):

There is no clear note whatsoever of parking charge £sum, that could be reasonably read by a passer-by never mind a driver. Seems to contravene what was required in Beavis and has been a successful avenue in other POPLA appeals.

Will employ the “operator has not shown individual pursued is driver” and “challenge to landowner authority” grounds that seem to be other useful avenues in POPLA appeals to unscrupulous and complacent PCOs. Can provide other context as is helpful, in the meantime will produce draft POPLA appeal.

Many thanks for the assistance in advance and the wealth of resources available in the forum.

Gr1pr

Looks compliant to me, but I cannot see anything prominent about paying £100 on those wordy signs, not like in the Beavis case

Coupon-mad

Those are 'P' entrance signs though. They don't have to state the PC level.

We would need to see the signs (and pics of areas of bays with a lack of signs).

SwankyKumquat

Helpful to know. Managed at the time to get a picture of the bays in question. 

Appreciate not fully clear in image, but there is no signage whatsoever from memory here on this back row - the bays are encountered straight after entering the car park. Can only assume that the Operator wouldn't be naive enough to use this evidence alone as was sent in their response to the first appeal - IE they fail to show the PC level at all 

(other image provided by Operator in first instance appeal response for reference)

Will return at a later time after some more diligent inspections and with better pictures. Appreciate can only get any useful advice here and build a good POPLA case with some more concrete evidence. Many thanks for advice so far

SwankyKumquat

Updated pictures from car parking site. This is PC sign at the entrance, which is displayed above the P charge uploaded in the previous post (can see how small it is by comparison and difficult to read)

This is evidence with regard to spaces concerned that there is a lack of any signage:

Many thanks, will draft POPLA submission over the weekend

Coupon-mad

What are all those signs? Got a close up?

SwankyKumquat

They aren't parking signs and are completely blank, can see if you look closer at the image - sorry if not clear. Think they are used to reserve certain spaces sometimes at this particular college when there are events but nothing restricting parking/notice of charge.

Coupon-mad

Winnable at POPLA, as long as you make it clear these are blank (or get a close up).

SwankyKumquat

Hi again, I've compiled my first draft for my POPLA appeal based on the two grounds potentially applicable to my case. I've taken note of other previous appeals on the forum with comparable circumstances and based on the BPA's current COP. The formatting has changed slightly posting on the thread, but I have highlighted with the images with blank signs that they are blank.

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 02/12/2025 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – NSGL Parking – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 09/12/25 and rejected via an email dated 15/12/25. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1)      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

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

1) 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

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Clause 3/Annex A in the latest version of the BPA’s Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is not sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist.

Clause 3.1.3 lists requirements for a notice of T&Cs including that of any indicated penalty charge. Notably it must:

-          “be sufficiently large to be visible from a distance, and legible on approach” (b)

-          “use a sentence-case font size appropriate for the location of the sign so as to be clearly readable by a driver, having regard to the likely position of the driver in relation to the sign” (f)

-          “display the parking charge that the parking operator may apply for breaches of such terms and conditions as may apply in a large font” (j)

Figure 1 shows signage displayed at the entrance of the premises. The road sign that is below provides a helpful comparison to indicate how small the sign is. The lettering is of a small size and difficult to view from a distance. It is displayed at a height that makes it difficult to view as a driver when approached, compounded by the small font size in which the T&Cs are displayed. The parching charge lettering is not in a sufficiently large font and difficult to distinguish from the rest of the sign.

                                                                                 Figure 1 

Clause 3.1.3(a) also requires that signs 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”. Noting that repeater signs may be required in larger premises, it follows that a single sign will not be sufficient in itself to give notice. Figures 2 and 3 show the parking bays of concern in the present case. This is a large area where there is no signage whatsoever to indicate any parking charge applicable. This can be considered confusing to any driver wishing to use these bays; it fails to comply with this 3.1.3(a) requirement.  

 Figure 2 (the signs shown are blank)

Figure 3

The signage in this case can be distinguished from the well-known 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case. Figure 4 shows the sign at issue in Beavis, where by contrast the parking charge is displayed in a large font accompanying legible and unambiguous terms. The signage was also prominently displayed throughout the car park much unlike the sporadic signage in the present case

Figure 4

As the signage is inconsistent with existing case law and the BCAP’s COP requirements, it cannot be said that these terms have been properly brought to the driver's attention and no contract has been formed.

2) 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.

Clause 14 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements, and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

(a)    the identity of the landowner(s)

(b)    a boundary map of 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(s) and the duration of that 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, residents or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery drivers and couriers;

(f)      the means by which parking charges will be issued

(g)    responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs

(h)    the obligations under which the parking operator is working, in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;

(i)      notification of the documentation that the parking operator may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies detailing the relationship with the landowner; and

(j)      the parking operator’s approach to the handling of appeals against parking charges.

Coupon-mad

Yep that'll do.

SwankyKumquat

Super thanks for all the help so far. Will submit appeal today and update further as the appeal progresses