05-15-2026, 01:43 PM
Hi, once again, @3Sh3roo. Your vehicles do seem to have a habit of collecting PCNs. Never mind. We can easily deal with this one.
The first point is that we need to see the actual signage at the site before forming a final view. The allegation on the NtK is simply “Permit Holders Only”, but the only evidence shown on the notice is ANPR-style entry and exit images. Those images only show the vehicle moving into and out of the site. They do not show where the vehicle was parked, whether it was parked at all, what signs were visible from the place where the vehicle stopped, whether any entrance sign was adequate, or whether any contractual terms were properly brought to the driver’s attention.
That is particularly important because “Permit Holders Only” wording can often be prohibitory rather than contractual. If the signs merely say that only permit holders may park, that may not amount to an offer of parking to a non-permit holder. In simple terms, a sign saying “permit holders only” may be saying “you are not allowed to park here” rather than offering a contract to park for £100. That distinction matters.
The NtK also has a PoFA problem. Although it gives “From” and “To” times, those appear to be ANPR entry and exit times. PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the notice to specify the “period of parking” to which the notice relates. Time on site is not the same thing as a period of parking. ANPR captures a vehicle passing cameras; it does not prove when, where, or for how long the vehicle was actually parked.
So the immediate position is that Civil Enforcement have alleged a permit-only contravention but have not shown any evidence of parking, any evidence of the alleged parked location, or any evidence of the signs and terms said to have created the alleged contract.
The initial appeal should not identify the driver. The keeper should require Civil Enforcement to prove the signage, the contractual terms, the location of the vehicle, and the alleged period of parking.
As an initial appeal is automatically rejected, it does not have to be detailed. Once rejected, you will receive a POPLA code which will allow for a more comprehensive appeal and require CE to provide more evidence. However, do not pin your hopes on POPLA as it will depend on whether you get a fully trained assessor or the janitor.
For now, just use the following as your initial appeal wording and come back when you receive the rejection:
The first point is that we need to see the actual signage at the site before forming a final view. The allegation on the NtK is simply “Permit Holders Only”, but the only evidence shown on the notice is ANPR-style entry and exit images. Those images only show the vehicle moving into and out of the site. They do not show where the vehicle was parked, whether it was parked at all, what signs were visible from the place where the vehicle stopped, whether any entrance sign was adequate, or whether any contractual terms were properly brought to the driver’s attention.
That is particularly important because “Permit Holders Only” wording can often be prohibitory rather than contractual. If the signs merely say that only permit holders may park, that may not amount to an offer of parking to a non-permit holder. In simple terms, a sign saying “permit holders only” may be saying “you are not allowed to park here” rather than offering a contract to park for £100. That distinction matters.
The NtK also has a PoFA problem. Although it gives “From” and “To” times, those appear to be ANPR entry and exit times. PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the notice to specify the “period of parking” to which the notice relates. Time on site is not the same thing as a period of parking. ANPR captures a vehicle passing cameras; it does not prove when, where, or for how long the vehicle was actually parked.
So the immediate position is that Civil Enforcement have alleged a permit-only contravention but have not shown any evidence of parking, any evidence of the alleged parked location, or any evidence of the signs and terms said to have created the alleged contract.
The initial appeal should not identify the driver. The keeper should require Civil Enforcement to prove the signage, the contractual terms, the location of the vehicle, and the alleged period of parking.
As an initial appeal is automatically rejected, it does not have to be detailed. Once rejected, you will receive a POPLA code which will allow for a more comprehensive appeal and require CE to provide more evidence. However, do not pin your hopes on POPLA as it will depend on whether you get a fully trained assessor or the janitor.
For now, just use the following as your initial appeal wording and come back when you receive the rejection:
Quote:I appeal as the registered keeper. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I will not be doing so.
Liability is denied.
The Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In particular, it fails to specify any “period of parking” as required by paragraph 9(2)(a). The notice merely gives “From” and “To” times which appear to be ANPR entry and exit timestamps. Time on site is not the same as a period of parking, and ANPR images of a vehicle entering and leaving do not prove when, where, or for how long the vehicle was parked.
The alleged contravention is stated as “Permit Holders Only”, yet the evidence supplied consists only of entry and exit images. This does not prove that the vehicle was parked in breach of any displayed term, nor does it show the location of any alleged parking, the signs in place, the terms relied upon, or that any contract was offered to and accepted by the driver.
Further, wording such as “Permit Holders Only” is, on its face, prohibitory. Civil Enforcement must prove that the signage at the material location was capable of creating a contractual offer to a non-permit holder, rather than merely forbidding parking by unauthorised vehicles.
For the avoidance of doubt, I require Civil Enforcement to cancel this Parking Charge Notice. If you reject this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code so that the matter can be referred to independent appeal.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
