PCN Park Watch Antelope Park Southampton

[FONT=Calibri, serif]This is my first appeal to PW. I have cut it down.I will attach the above image. Some may feel it is still too long but I wish to give the relevant facts. Is there anything missing that you guys can think of please. Many thanks for all your kind help[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]Dear Sir/Madam,[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]Re PCN number: [/FONT][FONT=Calibri, serif]xxxxxxxx[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]I appeal and dispute your purported 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny liability and consider the PCN pure intimidation.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]As the keeper of the car I have obtained the facts from the driver on the day. The driver was experiencing a cut out of the engine due to an oil leak or an electrical fault. In the interests of safety the driver came off the main highway and safely positioned the vehicle on Antelope Park Southampton to visit The Range for oil and to seek a garages advice where in 2017 he/she had parked before. The driver stopped here rather than the car park for the AA to have easy access as a courtesy to other users of the site.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]It appears that late 2017 new restrictions were introduced on this Road. The driver stopped in Gavan Street in a marked White line bay displaying no Yellow lines, no wording on the ground such as a “P” or zig zags to identify this was permit holders only bay. No visible signage on the drivers nearside can be seen from drivers seat. No signage facing the driver along the Road of entry. The driver had observed upon entering Antelope Park the various Parking Eye car park T&C signage which were clearly visible and understandable. Also later in the car park the driver confirmed and observed signage that advised and stated PE managed the site and there was Three hours Max.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]You now state in your PCN " Parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a Parking Charge at Antelope Park that we are authorised to manage ( conflicting as PE say they manage so who does.... this is not made clear to patrons ). The terms and conditions of parking on this private land are clearly set out on the signage installed [/FONT][FONT=Calibri, serif]within the car park[/FONT][FONT=Calibri, serif]".[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]I myself have visited the site in question to investigate the said car park as referred to in your PCN that you claim you are authorised to manage ( first sentence ) and have examined the facts to present to you and any legal representation that I should appoint at £250 per hour excluding costs etc which I shall be claiming as reimbursement should this PCN not be cancelled and proceed to court.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]I have observed the stopped view from the drivers seat of a car and cannot see any visible signs on the nearside of the road at the side of a car or in front of me on the corner where you would reasonably expect a sign of this importance to be positioned namely at the entrance of the Road. Furthermore on the approach there are no signs evident on the left hand corner to advise of private parking.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]I returned to the position where the driver would have stopped bay One and went and entered the car park where in your PCN notice you state sentence 2 “The terms and conditions of parking on this private land are clearly set out on the signage installed [/FONT][FONT=Calibri, serif]"[/FONT][FONT=Calibri, serif]within the car park[/FONT][FONT=Calibri, serif].”[/FONT][FONT=Calibri, serif] I have duly walked the full length and breadth of the car park and do not find the signs of yours you state are present at which this contract breach is based upon, only the clear signs of Parking Eye. Should this reach court stage my legal team will require you to show and prove on the day of question your signage was installed within the car park which are the terms you have stated in your PCN that the driver breached and why this PCN has been issued. [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]Gavan Street is NOT a car park just a no through road with bays and is separate fenced off by barriers from the car park at a different height. I therefore reasonably consider that the contract the driver would be entering into is that of three hours as displayed in the car park not your conflicting terms. [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]Even more conflicting is one of your sign[/FONT][FONT=Calibri, serif]s[/FONT][FONT=Calibri, serif] on one side of a post facing one direction that on the other side is covered and hidden by a larger Parking Eye sign. This is conflicting as only one regulation can be in force!!![/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn, nor was there any agreed contract. Your signage terms fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence of the parking charge, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, which is fully distinguished.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]Should you fail to cancel this PCN, I require the following information numbers with your rejection letter. As this is purely a claim under a purported contract, and you have no statutory footing to issue penalties, I wish to make you aware of the following details and require the specific information so that I can assess the validity of your claim:[/FONT]



[FONT=Calibri, serif]1. Who is the party that contracted with Park Watch Ltd for the provision of their services at the site of the alleged to have taken place in Antelope Park?[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]2. What is the full legal identity of the landowner?[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]3. If the charge is based on damages for breach of contract, please provide justification of this sum.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]4. Please provide dated photos of the signs on site, which you state formed a contract also photos of the signage installed as you state are within the car park that I am alleged to have breached. [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]5. Please provide all images taken of this vehicle on that day, at the material location.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]6. The signs in this road are inadequate, not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, wrongly positioned and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]6b Why there is conflicting signage including one of each company stating to control the parking on One post.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]7. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. 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 keeper without a valid NTK.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]As the keeper 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 and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]The burden of proof rests with the Operator 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]8. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]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).[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]9. This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates. Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions must be met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]Park Watch have failed to fulfill the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-[/FONT]
’’[FONT=Calibri, serif]The notice must be given by: [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif](a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif](b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore,[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]paragraph 9(5) states:[/FONT]
’’[FONT=Calibri, serif]The relevant period...is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived some 17 days after the alleged[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]event. Even if they had posted it on the same day that they describe as the ‘Date Issued’[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]it would be impossible for the notice to have been actually delivered and deemed ‘served’[/FONT]
‘[FONT=Calibri, serif]or given, within the 'relevant period' as required under paragraph 9(4)(b). This means that you have failed to act in time for keeper liability to apply.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and will also be making a formal complaint about your predatory and aggressive conduct to your client landowner, and retailers as well as complaining in writing to my MP.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]Attached is an image confirming details of lack of signage. Other images can be provided as evidence.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]Yours faithfully[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]Keeper of the car[/FONT]

Keith,


I have sent the blue text template with a few other lines of key points but nowhere as long as before with the last version I posted and certainly far shorter than my first effort.


I have also requested a "read receipt" so I know it's been received and read. I now await their reply then I suppose go to Popla. I note there is a 2000 character limit on their forms which is again unjust if on a lawful basis you can't defend yourself because of limitations.


May I thank you for your patience and understanding. Your time and kind help has been very much appreciated. Also that of Coupon Mad. Betman

[FONT=Calibri, serif]Again can I firstly thank Keith, Coupon Mad and others for the invaluable help you provide. Having redrafted this so many times over countless days I know it so well, you guys must know the main points inside out !!!.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]Having sent the template Blue print 1st appeal to the PCC as Keith suggested it has been refused by email not letter as requested. They cite for not displaying an authorised permit.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]I have now finally compiled this draft to send to POPLA. Please note there are gaps for insertion of images which I can post on here later if appropriate at the final draft. Spacing and spelling will be checked so it is presented professionally.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]Questions please:
[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]1. As I have received in the post the NTK and have unsuccessfully appealed. Do I send to POPLA straight away or is there advantage in delaying please. I have till July 2018 to appeal[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]2. Is there anything I have missed or misquoted etc[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]3. Is there anything I have put that may alienate or harm my appeal[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]4. On the PCN the two colour images of the vehicle are orange date stamped with time and date but not length of time stayed in the permit parking bay. Is this worth mentioning ref 10 minute grace period or can the photographer claim they waited 10 minutes before recording.[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri, serif]Hopefully I have put enough appeal points across and I thank you very much indeed for taking the time to read the appeal and make your comments.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]BM[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]Draft to follow:
[/FONT]

Justifiable Grounds for appeal


1.Misleading and forbidding signage; non-compliance with the British Parking Association Code of Practice; parking conditions not clear; no clear offer made.Infisicent and unclear signs


Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the BPA AOS Code of Practice version 7 discuss the clarity needed to make drivers aware of a parking charge.



Additionally, consumer contract law demands clarity and transparency in the making of an offer.


In particular the BPA AOS Code of Practice version 7, section 18, lays down guidance for signage including the need for entrance signs at the entrance to the parking area and specific parking terms signage, which should be placed 'throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle' and which should be 'easy to see, read and understand'. These are reasonable standards to apply when making an assessment as appellant of the clarity, usefulness and visibility signage in place at the location.




In this case, there is no entrance signs as you enter onto Gavin Street, Found small signage is at such a position that it is unreadable when entering the road and from the car when parking, A clear breach of BPA AOS 18.3


The use of lines on the ground and other markings to give drivers instructions must also be considered signage and so, under the BPA AOS Code of Practice should also be " conspicuous". Photographic evidence attached shows this is not the case.


2.The signs in this road are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and are insufficient, and not effectively spaced.

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 Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012,


I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.


There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all.


It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and would not be entered into by any average person and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.


In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry.


The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only


http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN


In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.


Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI
/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg


This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.


Here, the signs are small in size, sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background.



It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.


It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print .


Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one as there is not one on the nearside on the same side of the road on this corner.


This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:


''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''


From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.


The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide
http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm


As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:


http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx


''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store.



1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''


...and the same chart is reproduced here:


http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html


''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.


''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''


So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park.



Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.


Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'.


A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast.




Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.


(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.


This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:


http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html


This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract.


The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.


So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective.


Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up.



I submit 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.


Where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established.


The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The area and the signs were not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.



The operator advises in the PCN that there is signage of the terms for where the driver parked in the car park ( note Gavan Street is not classed as a car park ) This is not true as there are no signs in the car park only that of Parking Eye.

3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper 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.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. 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 keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper 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 and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.




The burden of proof rests with the Operator 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 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 keeper 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 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.''