Premier Parking Solutions Limited lost their second appeal on period of Parking

Schedule 4 paragraph 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) provides private landholders with additional powers to pursue the  keeper of a vehicle for unpaid parking charges providing certain conditions are met.

A keeper of a vehicle can only be found liable for unpaid parking charges when certain requirements are met. These requirements  are clearly set out inter alia in  Schedule 4 paragraph 5 and 6 of POFA. 

Under Schedule 4 paragraph 6, there is mandatory requirement to serve a notice to driver (affixed to the vehicle or given to the driver) in accordance with Schedule 4 paragraph 7, followed by a Notice to Keeper in accordance with Schedule 4 paraph 8 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Under Schedule 4 para 7(2)(a) and 8(2)(a) of POFA, there is mandatory requirement to specify the period of parking to which the notice relates.

In a nutshell,  Premier Parking Solutions Ltd issued proceedings against our client as the keeper of the vehicle and succeed in their claim before the County Court Torquay and Newton Abbot despite the fact that the notices to driver and keeper did not specify the period of parking of parking.

After reviewed the first decision,  we recommended our client to appeal against the decision by using our solicitor partner.  Permission to appeal was sought and granted on papers on three grounds, namely,  the notice to driver did not specify the period of parking, notice to keeper did not also specify the period of parking and did not warm the keeper as required under Schedule 4 para 7(2)(a), 8(2)(a) and 8(2)(f) of POFA. 

At the appeal hearing,  BW Legal representing the Respondent argued that “the period of parking” is not defined within the act.  Therefore, the importance of referring to a period of parking should depend on circumstances of each case.  In response to that argument, Mr Jackson Yamba argued that the Court should not depart from the literal interpretation of the Act because it is mandatory requirement within the act to specify the period of parking to which to notices relates. 

The Court was taken to different part of the Act  which makes reference to “a beginning of a period of parking” and “ an end of a parking of parking”. Mr Jackson Yamba also directed the Court to a previous persuasive law which deals with a  period of parking.  

The Appeal Court was persuaded by the argument put forward on behalf of the Appellant and agreed with Mr Jackson Yamba that the lower Court erred in law. The lower court decision was overturned and costs of the appeal were awarded to our client.

The Appeal Court was persuaded by the argument put forward by Mr Jackson Yamba, advocate at Lawrence and Associates Solicitors  and overturned the lower court’s decision and ordered costs of the appeal incurred by our client.

The decision is a clear signal that parking companies are reminded to comply with procedure of POFA in order to recover from the keeper of the vehicle.