Welcome Break Rotherham Parking Eye PCN

nhussa22

I appeal against the decision from Parkingeye (the Operator) on the following grounds:

Parkingeye 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, the Operator must deliver a Notice to Hirer in full compliance with POFA's strict requirements. A Notice to Hirer is not a courtesy but in fact a statutory requirement as per POFA. 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 (Parkingeye in this instance) must meet in order 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):

(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.

The Operator did not provide me with copies of any of these documents, (a), (b) or (c).

Should the Operator try to suggest that there is any other method whereby a vehicle's keeper (or hirer) can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I draw POPLA's attention to the guidance given to operators in POPLA's 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Lead Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper's (or hirer's) right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA. I draw POPLA's particular attention to the section entitled 'Keeper Liability' on page 12 and 13 in which the previous Lead Adjudicator of POPLA, Mr. Greenslade, explains that:

'…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...

…However keeper information is obtained, 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'.

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from me as hirer of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against Parkingeye Ltd 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.''

Through its failure to deliver a compliant Notice to Hirer, the Operator has forfeited its right to claim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle's hirer. For this reason alone, POPLA may determine that the Operator's claim against me is invalid.

Breach of BPA Code of Practice

Point 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, in relation to camera images, states that “Parking operators may use camera technology to remotely manage parking on controlled land as long as they do so overtly (my emphasis), and in a reasonable, consistent and transparent (my emphasis) manner. I put it to the Operator to produce evidence that the ANPR camera can be seen clearly and in a transparent manner, in the dark i.e. illuminated and clearly seen by drivers.

Inadequate signage and no lit and readable signage

Parkingeye’s own pictures of the car will show that on Wednesday 31st December at 8:58pm, the driver pulled onto the service station and there was no lighting whatsoever. The pictures on the Parking Charge Notice shows how the car and the surrounding area was in complete darkness making it impossible to see or read any non-illuminated signs. The picture upon exit from the car park does not even legibly show the car or the number plate and so I question in the first instance if the driver of the car actually left at that time. It was completely pitch black and the driver at no time saw any signs, illuminated or otherwise, describing the parking conditions or the contract they were unknowingly entered into.

In contractual law, there are three important elements:

a) an offer,

b) acceptance, and

c) consideration.

If one of these is not present, then logically there is no contract.

For a), a car park usually makes the offer via signage. For an offer to be valid, it must be communicated clearly. If the signs are hidden, unlit, or the text is too small to read from a driver’s seat, the “offer” was never properly made.

Therefore, if there is a lack of signage, any signage is difficult to see in the dark (especially if unlit) or any terms and conditions stipulated on the signage is too small to read from a driver’s seat, then no contract can be entered into or accepted. If there is no contract, the terms of that contract cannot be enforced (e.g. the £100 parking charge for breaching the contract).

I put to Parkingeye to provide their evidence that shows there was adequate signage from the moment the car entered the car park up to where it parked, each sign was illuminated for the purpose of 'after dark' reading on the day, and to provide mapping of the signage on the day of alleged incident. Note that any evidence should be from the angle of the driver’s perspective and not stock examples of the signage in isolation/close-up. It is submitted that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere “stock examples” of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

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

Parkingeye does not own the car park, and I dispute that they have the authority to enter into contracts regarding the land or to pursue charges allegedly arising. Parkingeye has also not provided any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the registered keeper. They do not own nor have any proprietary or agency rights or assignment of title or share of the land in question. I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park they do not own, or indeed the lawful status to allege a breach of contract in their name.

I request from Parkingeye evidence, in the form of an unredacted copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier. Specifically, to comply with the BPA Code of Practice, the contract needs to specifically grant Parkingeye the right to pursue parking charges in the courts in their own name, as creditor.

The landowner authority must also fully comply with the new extended rules and clauses in the Joint Code, which go further than before and, in essence, means that the authority cannot be dated prior to Summer 2024 because it won't cover all of the strict requirements:

Para 14 - Relationship with landowner

'Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s) covering:

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.'

They must also comply with Annex G: (the sample landowner/operator notice and the 'purpose' clauses):

Annex G.1 Purpose

‘Where a parking operator is to manage parking on privately owned land, it is important that the parking operator and the landowner are both clear about the approach the parking operator intends to take, the terms and conditions they will apply, the regulatory constraints within which they are working, and the respective responsibilities of the landowner and the operator in respect of the management of the land.

Hence, the purpose of this document is:

• to confirm that the landowner has appointed the operator to manage the land;

• to confirm that the landowner has been informed and has properly considered the issues relating to management of the land when appointing the operator including all terms and conditions (e.g. restrictions, parking tariffs and parking charges, and exemptions) to be applied by the operator to third parties in managing the land;

• to confirm the identity of the landowner;

• to confirm that the landowner has been provided with a copy of the Code and is aware of the obligations of all parties under the Code; and

• to confirm that all provisions relating to the terms and conditions (including restrictions, parking tariffs and parking charges, and exemptions) to be applied by the operator to third parties in managing the land are complete and accurately and consistently cover the operator’s duties under the contract under which the operator is to manage the land.’

For any of the above reasons, POPLA must find in my favour. The PCN was not properly given.

cooldude255220

I haven't read through it yet but I have noticed you've included a link.

POPLA will not click on links.

Anything you wish to exhibit needs to be attached as a file.

nhussa22

Thanks. I've referenced a quote so don't technically need to include the link.

Looking forward to some feedback!

Coupon-mad

It all looks good to me, except replace this:

"Specifically, to comply with the BPA Code of Practice, the contract needs to specifically grant Parkingeye the right to pursue parking charges in the courts in their own name, as creditor. Please note that a 'Witness Statement' to the effect that a contract is in place between Parkingeye and the landowner will be insufficient to provide all the required information."

with this:

Specifically, to comply with the BPA Code of Practice, the contract needs to specifically grant Parkingeye the right to pursue parking charges in the courts in their own name, as creditor.

The landowner authority must also fully comply with the new extended rules and clauses in the Joint Code, which go further than before and, in essence, means that the authority cannot be dated prior to Summer 2024 because it won't cover all of the strict requirements:

Para 14 - Relationship with landowner

'Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s) covering:

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.'


They must also comply with ANNEX G: (the sample landowner/operator notice and the 'purpose' clauses):

Annex G.1 Purpose

Where a parking operator is to manage parking on privately owned land, it is important that the parking operator and the landowner are both clear about the approach the parking operator intends to take, the terms and conditions they will apply, the regulatory constraints within which they are working, and the respective responsibilities of the landowner and the operator in respect of the management of the land.

Hence, the purpose of this document is:

• to confirm that the landowner has appointed the operator to manage the land;

• to confirm that the landowner has been informed and has properly considered the issues relating to management of the land when appointing the operator including all terms and conditions (e.g. restrictions, parking tariffs and parking charges, and exemptions) to be applied by the operator to third parties in managing the land;

• to confirm the identity of the landowner;

• to confirm that the landowner has been provided with a copy of the Code and is aware of the obligations of all parties under the Code; and

• to confirm that all provisions relating to the terms and conditions (including restrictions, parking tariffs and parking charges, and exemptions) to be applied by the operator to third parties in managing the land are complete and accurately and consistently cover the operator’s duties under the contract under which the operator is to manage the land.

And replace 'Regards' with this at the end:

For any of the above reasons, POPLA must find in my favour. The PCN was not properly given.

nhussa22

Thanks for this. I have updated my wording with your recommendations. Do I need to attach any evidence/pictures or leave it to Parkingeye to come back with what I've requested?

Gr1pr

Evidence or pictures etc should be included with the popla appeal, if you have any

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81921387#Comment_81921387

Examples of what a POPLA appeal PDF looks like are in post 3 of the NEWBIES thread.

In my view it should not just be a wall of words. More like an illustrated report.

Don't attach images separately. Let the Assessor read & see everything in one document.

nhussa22

Hi. So Parkingeye have responded to my POPLA appeal and have submitted some photos and other evidence which I will summarise: (I will post my planned response in the next post)

A statement (copied below) as well as a redacted "letter of authority", scanned copies of the PCN's and other correspondence between us, and pictures of signage in broad daylight dated a year earlier (January 2025) (alleged incident was at 11pm on 31st December 2025 so it was very dark). The pictures of the signage are close-ups and there's no evidence that these are even from the site in question. Even in the pictures of the signage, the T&C's are so small that you can't even read it. They've provided a signage plan which has a document that appears to be a plan for where the signs are to be installed (it says "sign to be installed") and a map of where the signs are supposedly are (but it's so unclear and you can't even read the wording on it). They've also submitted stock images of the signage boards and even in those, the T&C's are so small, you can't read it (I even tried zooming in but still couldn't read it!)

Rules and Conditions

Welcome Break Rotherham is a 2-hour free stay car park, after this time parking tariffs apply as clearly stated on the signage (enclosed). We have included a signage plan showing that there are signs situated at the entrance, exit and throughout the car park displaying the terms and conditions of the site.

The facility to pay by phone is also available at this site on the provision of the vehicle registration and payment card detail.

Please see below information relating to the payment options on site:

Payment Options: Pay by phone, Petrol Forecourt & WHSmith

Authority

We can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).

It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ourselves and the motorist will be enforceable by us as a party to that contract.

Additional Information

Please be advised the motorist was able to manually select the amount of time they would need to pay for parking, in relation to time spent on site. It is the motorist’s responsibility to purchase the correct parking to cover the duration of their stay.

Please note that the Letter of Authority provided to demonstrate Parkingeye’s authority to operate at this site and issue Parking Charges is effective from when the enclosed Letter of Authority was signed. It should also be noted that it is widely accepted as a standard industry practice and in the County Court that the date of signature of any such agreements is the effective date from which the agreement commences, and the authority is given.

We believe that we have issued the Parking Charge Notice in accordance with Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012).

You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable. In this regard, we rely upon the Supreme Court decision in the matter of Parkingeye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was found in Parkingeye’s favour and concerned the value of our Parking Charges.

The Supreme Court considered the Defendant’s submissions that the Parking Charge should be considered to be penal and unfair, but the Justices supported the findings of the lower courts, where the charge was found to be neither ‘extravagant’ nor ‘unconscionable’.

The signage on site clearly sets out the terms and conditions and states that;

"By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with the terms of the Parking Contract, including making payment as required and entering your vehicle registration details into the payment machines and/or terminals as directed."

“If you fail to comply with the terms of the Parking Contract, you will become liable to pay the sum specified in this notice (the “Parking Charge”)"

All signs that pertain to the general terms and conditions of parking contain text which explains that, “[…] by entering this private car park, you [each motorist] consent, for the purpose of car park management, to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras […] and to the processing of this data […]”. In turn, consent is also provided so as to allow us to make a request for registered keeper from the DVLA “where the Parking Contract is not adhered to”. The wording used clearly details that the Parking Contract in question commences when the motorist “enters” the car park and that the data from the ANPR system will be used to enable us to take enforcement action against those who breach the parking terms and conditions in operation.

We operate a grace period on all sites, which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking. These grace periods are sufficient for this purpose and are fully compliant with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.

The BPA has provided clarity to both motorists and parking management companies regarding grace periods which can be found in the Private Parking Single Code of Practice.

www.britishparking.co.uk/code-of-practice-and-compliance-monitoring

Parkingeye are fully compliant with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice in relation to Grace Periods.

We ensure that all our signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice regulations. The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised in the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.

Please note, our website appeals portal now asks the appellant to confirm that all supporting evidence relating to the Parking Charge has been attached. This confirmation is displayed in the website appeal document included in this evidence pack.

Please find enclosed document showing that on the date of the parking event we had authority to issue and pursue a Parking Charge to this vehicle.

nhussa22

This is my planned response. I need to submit it today so would appreciate any feedback! TIA….

In my appeal, I stated that Parkingeye failed to deliver a fully compliant Notice to Hirer as required under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. Parkingeye’s response does not address any of the statutory failings I identified.

I also stated that Parkingeye are in breach of Point 7 of the BPA Code of Practice regarding the use of camera images. Parkingeye have not addressed this point and have provided no evidence that the ANPR camera is visible, transparent, or compliant with BPA requirements.

In my appeal, I provided evidence from Parkingeye’s own Parking Charge Notice showing how dark it was at the time of the alleged incident. It would have been impossible for a driver to see or read any non‑illuminated signage. Parkingeye have not provided any evidence to rebut this. Instead, they have submitted close‑up photographs of signage taken in broad daylight, dated 10 January 2025—almost a full year before the alleged incident on 31 December 2025, after 9pm, in darkness. There is no clear indication that these photographs were even taken at the Welcome Break Rotherham site.

More concerning is that even in these close‑up daylight photographs, the terms and conditions are so small that they cannot be read. If they cannot be read in a controlled close‑up image, it is unreasonable to expect a driver to read them from a vehicle in darkness.

Parkingeye have also submitted a “Key for Installation Locations” document showing how signs are “to be installed”. This raises serious questions as to whether the signage was actually installed at the site at all. No evidence has been provided showing signage in situ at the material time. This supports my point that the driver did not see any signage on the date of the alleged incident. Additionally, the “Car Park Signage Overview” document is so unclear that nothing can be read, even when zoomed in.

To summarise: Parkingeye have failed to demonstrate that adequate signage existed from the point of entry to the parking location, that any signage was illuminated for after‑dark visibility, or that the signage shown was actually installed at the site at the relevant time. In my appeal, I explicitly stated that stock close‑ups of signage would not be sufficient. Parkingeye have nevertheless provided stock‑style images, and even these do not show readable terms.

In my appeal, I also requested evidence of Landowner Authority, as required by the BPA Code of Practice. I stated that Parkingeye do not own the land and must therefore provide an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner, including explicit authority to issue and pursue parking charges in their own name. I also referenced the new requirements under the Joint Code. Parkingeye have provided no evidence whatsoever to address these points.

Finally, Parkingeye’s response states that “you have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is pre‑estimation of loss”. I have never raised this point. This suggests that Parkingeye have issued a generic, template response rather than addressing the specific grounds of my appeal.

For all of the above reasons, POPLA must find in my favour. Parkingeye have failed to demonstrate that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued.

1505grandad

No forgetting in you Summery the non POFA compliance point