Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: irateartist on April 14, 2025, 04:50:25 pm

Title: Re: CPSM Parking Charge. Horse and Groom Pay and Display Car Park, Hereford
Post by: irateartist on September 03, 2025, 12:16:58 pm

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the driver parked on the site after the expiry of the paid time.
Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided the following grounds of appeal: • The operator has not proven that it has planning consent or landowner consent to issue PCNs on the site. • The signage is poor and inadequate and is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, digital markets, competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC Act). • The PCN is not compliant with The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. • The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. In the comments the appellant has reiterated that the signage is non-compliant as it is misleading and ambiguous. They say that they have taken legal advice and they maintain that the PCN is not PoFA compliant. They say that as the registered keeper they had already provided their name and email address in an appeal which the operator had acknowledged. Despite this the operator had contacted the DVLA and the KADOE contract prohibits operators from accessing keeper details where the details are already known. The operator had no legal cause to obtain their details and they have made a formal complaint to the DVLA. The appellant has provided a document with images of the signs as evidence.
Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. The operator has provided evidence of the vehicle parked on the site on the day in question. I am allowing this appeal and my reasons are shown below: The appellant has advised that the signage is poor and inadequate. In their appeal to the operator the appellant has explained that the signage does not advise motorists that payments made before 8am will be split into the evening and daytime tariffs. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators are required to comply with. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. I have reviewed the evidence of the signage on the site provided by the operator, and I am not satisfied that the issues the appellant has raised are fully rebutted. The tariffs on the signage do show that the evening tariff is applicable from 6pm to 8am however it is not clear on the signage that the daytime tariff should only be purchased from 8am and that any payments made before 8am will be allocated to the evening tariff. Due to this I am not satisfied that the terms of payment are clear and unambiguous. Further to this I am of the opinion that it would be unreasonable to expect a driver to return to the site to purchase a further ticket. I am aware that the operator has provided an image of the ticket displayed in the vehicle and this shows that the payment made by the motorist expired at 12 noon. It is important to note that the terms and conditions should be clearly relayed to the motorist on the signage which forms the parking contract. As I have explained previously after reviewing the signage I am not satisfied that this fully complies with Section 3.1.3 of The Code. Accordingly, I am allowing this appeal. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal and comments in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them.
 :)
Title: Re: CPSM Parking Charge. Horse and Groom Pay and Display Car Park, Hereford
Post by: jfollows on September 03, 2025, 12:08:28 pm
Yes, please post the adjudication.
Title: Re: CPSM Parking Charge. Horse and Groom Pay and Display Car Park, Hereford
Post by: irateartist on September 03, 2025, 11:55:31 am
Just to let you chaps know, my POPLA appeal was successful. This was because of the signage. If a copy of the appeal outcome would be useful, please let me know and I will post this. A big thank you, your input is very much appreciated! :)
Title: Re: CPSM Parking Charge. Horse and Groom Pay and Display Car Park, Hereford
Post by: irateartist on June 16, 2025, 08:13:25 pm
Thank you.
Title: Re: CPSM Parking Charge. Horse and Groom Pay and Display Car Park, Hereford
Post by: b789 on June 16, 2025, 07:29:25 pm
If the operator does not concede the appeal, they will submit their own evidence which you will then have 7 days in which to respond/rebut anything. This is normally sent to you as an email attachment or a link to it by email. Ideally, you should respond to this and point out any omissions by the operator to rebut your appeal points and you can also rebut any new points raised by the operator.

It would help if you can respond to that but even if you can't, and the appeal is not successful, the POPLA decision is not binding on you and you should nit just pay it. It is easily fought and usually won, if the advice we give is followed.
Title: Re: CPSM Parking Charge. Horse and Groom Pay and Display Car Park, Hereford
Post by: irateartist on June 16, 2025, 07:09:59 pm
Just to say I have submitted my POPLA appeal. I am having to go away and will not return before the deadline expires. It will be difficult to access the internet.
I note that you have quite a backlog so thought it best I let you know I had sent the appeal. Hopefully that will enable you to use your time to the best effect. Thank you for your input - very much appreciated.
Title: Re: CPSM Parking Charge. Horse and Groom Pay and Display Car Park, Hereford
Post by: irateartist on June 08, 2025, 03:02:20 pm
I have looked at some previous POPLA appeals and tried to do some research. I have now drafted a POPLA appeal and would be grateful for any comments. Many thanks.

POPLA Appeal

Re: Parking Charge reference number xxxxxx
Vehicle registration: xxxxxx

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and received the above demand from Corporate Services Parking Management (CSPM) on the 14/04/2025

I appealed to CSPM on the 09/05/2025 via e mailand my appeal was subsequently rejected via e mail on the 21/05/2025. CSPM provided POPLA code xxxxxx

As the registered keeper of the above vehicle I contest that I am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal on the following grounds. I would ask that all of these are considered.

    1. Neither the parking company or their client have proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.
    2. Poor and inadequate signage non compliant with BPA Code of Practice and the Digital Markets, competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC Act).
    3. Non compliance with keeper lability under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.
    4. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

1. Neither the parking company or their client have proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention: CSPM have not demonstrated that they have clear authorisation from the landowner to issue tickets on their land. Signage merely states that they manage the car park on behalf of the landowner. The landowner has not been identified. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner. I require CSPM to provide a full copy of this contract. It will not be sufficient for CSPM merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent.
(Photographs of signage taken on day of alleged breach presented as evidence)

2. Poor and inadequate signage non compliant with BPA Code of Practice and the Digital Markets, competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC Act): Signage at the car park entrance and at the pay machine is misleading and unfair. It is not only non‐compliant with the BPA Code of Practice but also with the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC Act) which replaced The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 on the 5th April 2025.
The tariff on the sign at the car park entrance clearly displays “£4.00 All Day”. It gives no indication of what actually constitutes all day parking. The sign at the pay machine states the charge for all day parking is £4.00 and that this expires at 6:00 pm.
The Parking Charge Notice was issued on the basis of “Parked after expiry of paid time.” The driver paid £4.00 at the machine, which according to the signage is the tariff for “all day” parking. The sign states this expires at 6:00pm. There is no indication that “all day” parking only applies from 8:00am, nor any explanation that £4.00 would be broken up into separate night and day charges. Yet the ticket issued by the machine expired at 12:00 noon, because it had apportioned £1.50 to an 'overnight' charge (prior to 8:00am) and only £2.50 to a four-hour daytime session. This allocation is not disclosed anywhere on the signage. The driver acted in reliance on the clearly advertised £4.00 “all day” rate and had no reason to expect that they were only paying for parking up to noon.
This is misleading and unfair. CSPM signage is not only non-compliant with the BPA Code of Practice but also with the The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (2024) clearly states that “Signs and surface markings must be designed, applied and maintained in such a way as to be visible, legible and unambiguous to drivers.” Signage was not clear and unambiguous regarding the £4.00 all day tariff. Under The DMCC Act “Traders should not provide misleading information relating to a product, a trader or any other matter relevant to a transactional decision. This includes information which, although true, is presented in a misleading way and, is likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision.” The driver made the decision to park based on an all day tariff of £4.00. This decision was based on misleading information.
(Photographs of signage taken on day of alleged breach presented as evidence)

3. Non compliance with keeper lability under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4: The Notice to Driver fails to meet the mandatory requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 (PoFA). It does not specify the period of parking, nor does it identify the creditor. These omissions prevent any keeper liability from arising.
CSPM have not met the requirements for keeper liability under PoFA. As they have not fully complied with PoFA, they cannot hold the registered keeper liable for the alleged parking charge. Their Notice to Driver can only hold the driver liable. Since they have failed to establish the driver’s identity and have not provided sufficient evidence to meet PoFA requirements, the liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper.

4. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss: The British Parking Association Code of Practice states “If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.” The Terms and Conditions on the car park signage state that the Parking Charge of £100 is incurred by a breach of contract. Therefore this must reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I require CSPM to provide proof that there has a demonstrable loss.
(Photographs of Terms and Conditions on signage taken on day of alleged breach presented as evidence)


Title: Re: CPSM Parking Charge. Horse and Groom Pay and Display Car Park, Hereford
Post by: irateartist on May 24, 2025, 07:44:33 pm
thank you. I shall do that. :)
Title: Re: CPSM Parking Charge. Horse and Groom Pay and Display Car Park, Hereford
Post by: b789 on May 24, 2025, 05:58:28 pm
When you appealed, did you do so only as the Keeper. Did you provide your name and address?

If they had your details as the Keeper and have since applied to the DVLA for your Keeper data, they have done so unlawfully. This warrants a formal complaint to the DVLA.

Don't worry about that Notice to Keeper (NtK). You already have an appeal rejection with a POPLA code.

You should send a formal complaint to the DVLA. Here’s how to make a DVLA complaint:

• Go to: https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/complaints
• Select: “Making a complaint or compliment about the Vehicles service you have received”
• Enter your personal details, contact details, and vehicle details
• Use the text box to summarise your complaint or insert a covering note
• You will then be able to upload a file (up to 19.5 MB) — this can be your full complaint or supporting evidence
That’s it.

The DVLA is required to record, investigate and respond to every complaint about a private parking company. If everyone who encounters a breach took the time to submit a complaint, we might finally see the DVLA take meaningful action—whether that means curtailing or removing KADOE access altogether.

For the text part of the complaint the webform could use the following:

Quote
I am submitting a formal complaint against Corporate Services Parking Management (CSPM), a BPA AOS member with DVLA KADOE access, for unlawfully obtaining my personal data when they had no legal basis to do so.

I, the Keeper, had already provided my full name and address in an appeal submitted directly to CSPM on 9 May 2025. They responded to that appeal on 21 May 2025, confirming receipt of my details. Despite this, CSPM went on to make a KADOE request to the DVLA and issued a Notice to Keeper thereafter.

The KADOE contract explicitly prohibits operators from accessing DVLA keeper data where the Keeper’s identity is already known. This was not a data misuse after lawful acquisition — this was an unlawful and unnecessary request for personal data that CSPM had no reasonable cause to make.

I have attached a full supporting statement and request a full investigation. Please confirm receipt and provide a reference number for this complaint.

Then you could upload the following as a PDF file for the formal complaint itself:

Quote
SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Complaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and PPSCoP

Operator name: Corporate Services Parking Management (CSPM)
Date of PCN issue: [Insert date of PCN]
Vehicle registration: [Insert VRM]

I am submitting a formal complaint to report a misuse of DVLA data by CSPM, who unlawfully obtained my personal data under the KADOE (Keeper at Date of Event) contract, despite already holding it.

On 9 May 2025, I submitted a formal appeal to CSPM as the Keeper of the vehicle. This appeal included my full name and postal address. CSPM responded to this appeal on 21 May 2025, thereby confirming that they were in receipt of my Keeper data.

Despite this, CSPM subsequently made a KADOE request to the DVLA to obtain the same Keeper data again — and used it to issue a Notice to Keeper.

This action is a clear breach of the DVLA's KADOE contract, which prohibits access to DVLA data where the operator already holds the Keeper’s details. The UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and Data Protection Act 2018, as the data was obtained without lawful basis.

This is not a case of data misuse after lawful acquisition. The request itself was unlawful. CSPM had no reasonable cause to request my data from the DVLA, and no lawful basis to process it again under the terms of the KADOE contract.

I am asking the DVLA to:

• Confirm that a KADOE breach has occurred
• Take enforcement action against CSPM for unlawful data access
• Review whether CSPM’s access to DVLA data should be suspended or revoked

Supporting documents are attached, including:

• My original appeal (9 May 2025)
• CSPM’s response (21 May 2025)
• The subsequently issued NtK

Please acknowledge this complaint and confirm the case reference number. I am happy to assist further if required.

Name: [INSERT YOUR NAME]
Date: [INSERT DATE]
Title: Re: CPSM Parking Charge. Horse and Groom Pay and Display Car Park, Hereford
Post by: irateartist on May 24, 2025, 02:32:11 pm
I made an appeal against this PCN clearly stating I was the Registered Keeper. The appeal was turned down (see above) I am currently working on my POPLA appeal. However, I recieved this letter in the post today (attached). This is beginning to feel like harassment! Should I reply stating that I have already appealed as the registered keeper and that they should check their records. Thanks (feeling stressed by all this, but perhaps that was the intent!) >:(
I have attempted to find out who the landowner is, but without success. The Horse and Groom Pub appears to be empty and there is no-one answering letters or phone calls.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: CPSM Parking Charge. Horse and Groom Pay and Display Car Park, Hereford
Post by: irateartist on May 22, 2025, 10:10:09 am
Thank you for your quick reply, it is very much appreciated.I have been given a POPLA verification code and told I have 28 days to appeal.
I will also look at POPLA appeals and draft one for comments.
I had also made a complaint to Trading Standards, but did not feel there was much motivation for this to be investigated. However, I will chase it up.
Thanks again :)
Title: Re: CPSM Parking Charge. Horse and Groom Pay and Display Car Park, Hereford
Post by: b789 on May 22, 2025, 05:06:17 am
Did they include a POPLA code with that appeal rejection? The POPLA code is valid for 33 days from the appeal rejection date. So, you have until 23rd June to submit it.

Have a search of the forums to see other POPLA appeals and how they have been constructed and presented. Try and put something together yourself along those lines and post it here for review before you actually send anything so that we can advise on any edits or additions you may need,
Title: Re: CPSM Parking Charge. Horse and Groom Pay and Display Car Park, Hereford
Post by: irateartist on May 21, 2025, 09:15:36 pm
I have made an appeal using against the PCN as advised. I recieved a reply today (attached) turning down my appeal - no suprises there. I guess my next move is a POPLA appeal. I would appreciate your advice.
Thanks again. :(

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: CPSM Parking Charge. Horse and Groom Pay and Display Car Park, Hereford
Post by: irateartist on April 18, 2025, 07:49:28 am
Thank you again for your advice. It is very much appreciated. My plan of action is as follows:

1. Contact the owner/manager/landlord of the Horse and Groom asking that they get the parking charge cancelled.

2. Post reviews for Horse and Groom advising caution in using car park.

3. Complain to trading standards. I know they will not be able to help in cancelling the parking charge, but I would hope that they could take some action to prevent other people being conned into paying out money that they may be unable to afford. Times are hard!

4. In the (probable)event of the owner/manager/landlord of the Horse and Groom either ignoring or refusing to act, appeal the PCN notice on the 9th May as advised, using the version suggested in reply #8.

5. In the event of the appeal failing, get back to yourselves.

Thanks again.
Title: Re: CPSM Parking Charge. Horse and Groom Pay and Display Car Park, Hereford
Post by: b789 on April 15, 2025, 02:27:18 pm
Agreed — that’s a critical clarification. The core argument shifts slightly.

This is no longer a case of an operative making an error, but rather a failure of the signage and payment system to transparently explain how £4 is allocated. That brings Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 into play — i.e. misleading or deceptive practices.

The CPTURs 2008 are squarely engaged because the advertised tariff of £4 for "All day" parking is contradicted by the machine's allocation, and this is not clearly disclosed. That is a classic misleading omission under Regulation 6 and Schedule 1 of the CPUTRs.

Here is a revised version of your earlier suggested keeper appeal:

Quote
Subject: Appeal against PCN [Insert PCN Number] – Vehicle Registration [Insert VRM]

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

The Parking Charge Notice was issued on the basis of “Parked after expiry of paid time.” The driver paid £4.00 at the machine, which — according to your own signage — is the tariff for “all day” parking. The sign states this expires at 6:00pm. There is no indication that “all day” parking only applies from 8:00am, nor any explanation that £4.00 would be broken up into separate night and day charges.

Yet the ticket issued by your machine expired at 12:00 noon, because it had apportioned £1.50 to an 'overnight' charge (prior to 8:00am) and only £2.50 to a four-hour daytime session. This allocation is not disclosed anywhere on your signage. The driver acted in reliance on the clearly advertised £4.00 “all day” rate and had no reason to expect that they were only paying for parking up to noon.

This is misleading and unfair. Your signage is not only non-compliant with the BPA Code of Practice but also with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. A consumer cannot be bound by a term they were not made aware of, and your machine's silent reallocation of a known tariff renders any alleged breach both unforeseeable and unenforceable.

Additionally, your Notice to Driver fails to meet the mandatory requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. It does not specify the period of parking, nor does it identify the creditor. These omissions prevent any keeper liability from arising.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtD can only hold the driver liable. CSPM have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Title: Re: CPSM Parking Charge. Horse and Groom Pay and Display Car Park, Hereford
Post by: RichardW on April 15, 2025, 02:08:56 pm
It looks like the signage is at best poor, at worst deliberately misleading. 'All day' seems to refer to 8am - 6pm only - but the sign says only 'expires at 6pm'. Their ticket machine has taken the £4 and applied £1.50 to the 'overnight' rate before 8am and then £2.50 for a 4 hour session from 8 - 12 noon, hence the expiry time of 12.00. The attendant is correct that ticket has expired, but the signage is duff. Some update of the appeal may be required?

Title: Re: CPSM Parking Charge. Horse and Groom Pay and Display Car Park, Hereford
Post by: b789 on April 15, 2025, 02:01:04 pm
The inclusion of "Horse & Groom" in the car park name strongly implies that the landowner is either the Horse & Groom pub itself or that it is the named tenant of the premises and car park.

Therefore, CSPM would be acting as agent for the pub or landholder under a contractual agreement. This means a complaint about CSPM's conduct, signage, or unfair PCNs can legitimately be directed to the Horse & Groom pub (or its management company/landlord).
Title: Re: CPSM Parking Charge. Horse and Groom Pay and Display Car Park, Hereford
Post by: jfollows on April 15, 2025, 12:52:19 pm
Why would you not ask?
They can only say no if they don’t!
Title: Re: CPSM Parking Charge. Horse and Groom Pay and Display Car Park, Hereford
Post by: irateartist on April 15, 2025, 12:50:21 pm
In reply to b789. Thank you for your advice. I am not sure if the Horse and Groom pub owns the pay and display car park. Would it be wise to contact them and ask? The machine does not ask for the VRM.
Title: Re: CPSM Parking Charge. Horse and Groom Pay and Display Car Park, Hereford
Post by: b789 on April 15, 2025, 11:02:55 am
Was the driver required to enter their full VRM into the machine when making payment? Have you redacted the VRM on the permit you've shown?

What have you done for Plan A? Have you approached the landowner? The manager of the Horse & Groom should be able to get this cancelled and if they don't or try to fob you off, you make sure you go on to websites that allow you to make reviews of the business and tell everyone about how they don't care whether their customers receive an invoice for £100 from an ex-clamper third party.

If Plan A does not work, DO NOT appeal that Parking Charge Notice (PCN) until Friday 9th May. Put that date in your diary and don't miss it. You appeal only as the Keeper of the vehicle. They have no idea who the driver is and you, the Keeper, are under no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company.

You appeal with the following by email to appeals@cspmparking.co.uk and you CC in yourself:

Quote
Subject: Appeal against PCN [Insert PCN Number] – Vehicle Registration [Insert VRM]

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued with the allegation of “Parked after expiry of paid time.” This is not only false but obviously mendacious. A payment of £4.00 was made and a permit issued, which your own tariff board states is the fee for all day parking, valid until 6:00pm. The PCN was issued at 12:11 — clearly within the paid period. No breach occurred. Your operative has made a clear and unjustified error.

Further, your Notice to Driver (NtD) fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It does not specify the period of parking, nor does it identify the creditor. These are statutory requirements. Partial or substantial compliance is not sufficient. The Notice is non-compliant and incapable of creating any liability for the keeper.

As your Notice to Driver (NtD) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. CSPM has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtD can only hold the driver liable. CSPM have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Title: Re: CPSM Parking Charge. Horse and Groom Pay and Display Car Park, Hereford
Post by: jfollows on April 14, 2025, 05:24:03 pm
Please read https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
Title: Re: CPSM Parking Charge. Horse and Groom Pay and Display Car Park, Hereford
Post by: RichardW on April 14, 2025, 05:23:37 pm
You will need to post the info you have listed.  It should tell you on the ticket how to appeal - but hold off till you have posted the info, and others have looked at it.
Title: CPSM Parking Charge. Horse and Groom Pay and Display Car Park, Hereford
Post by: irateartist on April 14, 2025, 04:50:25 pm
Today the driver of the vehicle issued the Parking Charge Notice used this car park for the first time.At the entrance of the car park it is clearly displayed that the parking charge all day is £4:00. This is is also displayed at the machine where you pay for parking. Photos of the tariff and terms and conditions at both the car park entrance and at the machines have been taken.
The vehicle was parked at 07:25 and the driver returned at just after 14:30 to find a Parking Charge Notice under the windscreen wiper. The driver was somewhat upset as they had paid to park all day. The Parking Charge Notice states that the contravention is: Parked after expiry of paid time.In breach of the terms and conditions as shown on the signage in the parking area. On examining the ticket the driver purchased closely it does say valid until 12:00, fee paid £4:00. The driver however, did not examine the ticket closely assuming that they had paid for all day parking and not just for a mornings parking.
I wish to appeal on the grounds that the signs stated that all day parking was £4:00 and that the tariff states that this expires at 6:00 pm. The driver therefore was not in breach of the terms and conditions displayed in the parking area. I plan to send a politely worded e mail. Is the best way to address this? Any advice would be gratefully received. If necessary I will post photos of signage, ticket purchased by driver and/or Parking Charge Notice. Thank you
I have added link to images of signage, ticket purchased and PCN.
https://imgur.com/a/0Wdm38j