Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: iiAdaaamV1 on December 31, 2025, 11:17:13 am
-
Do not worry about the second PCN until it arrives - based on what you have suggested, it is likely to be out of time for keeper liability as they are only likely to have returned to work today.
I would suggest appealing to IAS as it costs you nothing and you can use it as an evidence gathering exercise at the same time.
Make sure your appeal includes the strict requirement that the parking operator provides evidence of the date that they started operations AND that the signage in place from the start also included the extra signage required under the code of conduct when parking restrictions either change or come into force.
-
You are probably in a much stronger position than you realise.
The change of parking rules (with the need for 4 months of temporary signs) is a very strong defence and you should definitely appeal on that basis.
You are quite entitled to ask the parking operator to state and demonstrate that their signage was compliant during the initial 4 month period - given the dates provided I looks to me that it was highly unlikely that the correct signage was present - the dates are just too tight.
Remember, that during the appeals processes it is for the operator to show compliance rather than for you to disprove it.
Appeal at court (if it gets there) or through IAS? I already appealed with them directly which was rejected, of course. I still haven’t had the second NtK through yet.
-
You are probably in a much stronger position than you realise.
The change of parking rules (with the need for 4 months of temporary signs) is a very strong defence and you should definitely appeal on that basis.
You are quite entitled to ask the parking operator to state and demonstrate that their signage was compliant during the initial 4 month period - given the dates provided I looks to me that it was highly unlikely that the correct signage was present - the dates are just too tight.
Remember, that during the appeals processes it is for the operator to show compliance rather than for you to disprove it.
-
If "the last time you parked there" was less than four months before the first PCN then you have a very good defence if you want to fight it.
You are not paying a "fine". You are paying a speculative invoice from an unregulated private parking firm, if that is what you decide.
-
Based on the information and evidence available, the position is as follows.
The entrance sign at Jasmine Way is compliant with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). It clearly identifies the land as private, states that parking on the roadway is not permitted, and informs drivers that terms and conditions apply within the controlled land. The signage meets the requirements for an entrance sign and validly establishes that the area is subject to parking control.
The terms signage within the land expressly prohibits parking on the roadway and pavements at any time and states that a parking charge applies for failure to comply with those terms. There is no dispute that the vehicle was parked partially on the pavement and on the roadway, and photographic evidence confirms this. The location and conduct are not in dispute.
On that basis, and taken strictly as a matter of contract formation and breach, the driver did breach a contractual term displayed on the signage. The wording used on the Notice to Keeper, “No Parking Permitted”, while imprecise, is substantively consistent with the prohibition conveyed by the signage at that location.
Accordingly, on the facts as they stand, with a PoFA compliant NtK, the Keeper is more or less bang to rights on the issue of breach of contract.
The only realistic avenue left to challenge liability on signage grounds would be if the you can demonstrate that the signage represents a material change to pre-existing terms and conditions and that it had not been in place for at least four months prior to the date of the alleged contravention. If the signs were installed, replaced, or materially altered within four months of the event, and no additional temporary entrance notices were displayed as required by the Code of Practice, that would undermine the operator’s reliance on the signage.
If the Keeper cannot establish that point, then on signage and contractual breach alone, there is no meaningful defence.
Apart from just giving anecdotal reasoning that the signs weren’t there last time the car was parked with no hard evidence whatsoever, looks like I’m paying the fine/s.
I really appreciate your time and analysis on this. Thanks.
-
Based on the information and evidence available, the position is as follows.
The entrance sign at Jasmine Way is compliant with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). It clearly identifies the land as private, states that parking on the roadway is not permitted, and informs drivers that terms and conditions apply within the controlled land. The signage meets the requirements for an entrance sign and validly establishes that the area is subject to parking control.
The terms signage within the land expressly prohibits parking on the roadway and pavements at any time and states that a parking charge applies for failure to comply with those terms. There is no dispute that the vehicle was parked partially on the pavement and on the roadway, and photographic evidence confirms this. The location and conduct are not in dispute.
On that basis, and taken strictly as a matter of contract formation and breach, the driver did breach a contractual term displayed on the signage. The wording used on the Notice to Keeper, “No Parking Permitted”, while imprecise, is substantively consistent with the prohibition conveyed by the signage at that location.
Accordingly, on the facts as they stand, with a PoFA compliant NtK, the Keeper is more or less bang to rights on the issue of breach of contract.
The only realistic avenue left to challenge liability on signage grounds would be if the you can demonstrate that the signage represents a material change to pre-existing terms and conditions and that it had not been in place for at least four months prior to the date of the alleged contravention. If the signs were installed, replaced, or materially altered within four months of the event, and no additional temporary entrance notices were displayed as required by the Code of Practice, that would undermine the operator’s reliance on the signage.
If the Keeper cannot establish that point, then on signage and contractual breach alone, there is no meaningful defence.
-
When was the last time you parked there when you can be certain that there were no parking restrictions?
Probably late summer… I can’t remember the exact time.
-
When was the last time you parked there when you can be certain that there were no parking restrictions?
-
You seem to be under the impression that if this were to progress to a county court claim that you would lose. As per the MSE forum (where I also advise), the vast majority of claims never reach a hearing as they are more likely to be struck out or discontinued.
NPM usually use the utterly incompetent Gladstones for their claims and I can guarantee you that any claim issued by Gladrags will be in breach of CPR 16.4(1)(a) which means it is highly likely to be struck out, because of their failure to specify a cause of action in the Particulars of Claim (PoC).
According to GSV, as of July this year, there was no compliant entrance sign to the private road which means that if any new parking enforcement regime was introduced within the last 4 months, NPM were required not only to have an entrance sign that complies with the requirements of the PPSCoP, but to also have additional signs that highlight that there has been a material change to any parking terms and conditions.
I'm assuming you parked on Jasmine way to visit the businesses on The Green and Main Street. Just because the street sign at Jasmine way says it is private land, does not form a contract with the driver and NPM. There must be a clear sign informing drivers that they are entering private land that is controlled nd to seek signs that contain the terms and conditions. Without that, there is no contract formation with the driver.
The double yellow lines are irrelevant to the Highway Code when parked on private land. Any terms and conditions signs must explain that parking is not permitted on DYL's and those terms signs must be prominent and easy to find.
Can you get any contemporaneous photos of an entrance sign and any terms and conditions sign near where the driver parked? (outside #1) Show us the other photos they claim they have on their website.
Just popped over and took some pictures of the area and signs:
https://ibb.co/hR22yYKx
https://ibb.co/3YPC6ckx
https://ibb.co/N2nFsM8D
https://ibb.co/bMXbpksx
https://ibb.co/byRfhgy
https://ibb.co/wZxDMh19
https://ibb.co/9mBkFYkw
https://ibb.co/RTD0JPgK
https://ibb.co/sXMWk2D
-
Ignore
-
PPSCoP section 3.4 (my emphasis):
3.4. Material changes – notices
Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has been open for public parking, the parking operator must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the change making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges.
That would a be a solid core item for ny defence if it were to ever get that far.
-
You seem to be under the impression that if this were to progress to a county court claim that you would lose. As per the MSE forum (where I also advise), the vast majority of claims never reach a hearing as they are more likely to be struck out or discontinued.
NPM usually use the utterly incompetent Gladstones for their claims and I can guarantee you that any claim issued by Gladrags will be in breach of CPR 16.4(1)(a) which means it is highly likely to be struck out, because of their failure to specify a cause of action in the Particulars of Claim (PoC).
According to GSV, as of July this year, there was no compliant entrance sign to the private road which means that if any new parking enforcement regime was introduced within the last 4 months, NPM were required not only to have an entrance sign that complies with the requirements of the PPSCoP, but to also have additional signs that highlight that there has been a material change to any parking terms and conditions.
I'm assuming you parked on Jasmine way to visit the businesses on The Green and Main Street. Just because the street sign at Jasmine way says it is private land, does not form a contract with the driver and NPM. There must be a clear sign informing drivers that they are entering private land that is controlled nd to seek signs that contain the terms and conditions. Without that, there is no contract formation with the driver.
The double yellow lines are irrelevant to the Highway Code when parked on private land. Any terms and conditions signs must explain that parking is not permitted on DYL's and those terms signs must be prominent and easy to find.
Can you get any contemporaneous photos of an entrance sign and any terms and conditions sign near where the driver parked? (outside #1) Show us the other photos they claim they have on their website.
Thanks for the info - I’ll head out tomorrow and get some pics of the area. I did manage to contact the estate agents who represent the landowners (they wouldn’t give me the landowner details), and they said the signs were installed “over a month ago”.
Correct, both times were visits to the Post Office on Main Street.
I can no longer get access to the other photos that they had of the car and the driver, of which there were multiple. There was one picture of one of the signs from their camera, but it’s much too blurry in that photo to see the nitty gritty T&Cs.
-
We need to see the back of the PCN - I may not be PoFA compliant.
Has the driver been revealed? You say that you had guidance - all guidance is not to reveal the driver.
Here’s a pic of the back
https://ibb.co/xtQDXGJn
-
You seem to be under the impression that if this were to progress to a county court claim that you would lose. As per the MSE forum (where I also advise), the vast majority of claims never reach a hearing as they are more likely to be struck out or discontinued.
NPM usually use the utterly incompetent Gladstones for their claims and I can guarantee you that any claim issued by Gladrags will be in breach of CPR 16.4(1)(a) which means it is highly likely to be struck out, because of their failure to specify a cause of action in the Particulars of Claim (PoC).
According to GSV, as of July this year, there was no compliant entrance sign to the private road which means that if any new parking enforcement regime was introduced within the last 4 months, NPM were required not only to have an entrance sign that complies with the requirements of the PPSCoP, but to also have additional signs that highlight that there has been a material change to any parking terms and conditions.
I'm assuming you parked on Jasmine way to visit the businesses on The Green and Main Street. Just because the street sign at Jasmine way says it is private land, does not form a contract with the driver and NPM. There must be a clear sign informing drivers that they are entering private land that is controlled nd to seek signs that contain the terms and conditions. Without that, there is no contract formation with the driver.
The double yellow lines are irrelevant to the Highway Code when parked on private land. Any terms and conditions signs must explain that parking is not permitted on DYL's and those terms signs must be prominent and easy to find.
Can you get any contemporaneous photos of an entrance sign and any terms and conditions sign near where the driver parked? (outside #1) Show us the other photos they claim they have on their website.
-
Yebbut it's got nothing to do with the 'opimistic' defences the OP is interested in running. ::)
I mean, there’s no need for the sarcasm… I’m just seeking advice and the comments so far confirmed my thoughts. MSE forum posts weren’t so straight forward as they claimed to be.
-
True. :)
-
Yebbut it's got nothing to do with the 'opimistic' defences the OP is interested in running. ::)
-
With respect, you may be missing the point here.
The back of the PCN may show compliance or otherwise with PoFA 2012 in which the registered keeper may or may not be liable for the infraction of the unknown driver. Without seeing it we can’t know.
-
I have not revealed the driver.
I can show the back when I return home, however it’s the standard “go to this website to pay or appeal” and that’s about it.
-
We need to see the back of the PCN - I may not be PoFA compliant.
Has the driver been revealed? You say that you had guidance - all guidance is not to reveal the driver.
-
Devil’s advocate:
- Recent changes are only important if not communicated, so if there are clear and unambiguous signs defining the new terms, what used to be the case is not important.
- The Supreme Court ruled that charges do not need to reflect a loss, in the Beavis case.
- So what if there’s nowhere else to park easily?
-
Hello
Seeking further advice after reading forum posts here and on MSE.
I received a PCN for parking on Jasmine Way in Bilton, Rugby which I am NOW aware is private land. This road only has residential homes.
I say "now aware" because I have parked up on this road many times in the past, to visit the Post Office around the corner, never staying any longer than 5 minutes. The road name signs do say Private Land. For this first one, the car was also parked on double yellows.
There are NEW signs warning drivers not to park for any amount of time or they will be fined. There is no information about the landowner, only NPM details.
I am going to receive a second PCN, as the driver of the vehicle subsequently parked there a week later to again attend the post office. It wasn't until leaving the second time that the driver noticed the new no parking signs. The second PCN has not come through yet, likely due to seasonal postage delays, but as there is no grace period allowed for the parking, it is almost certainly due to arrive at any moment. The second time, the car was NOT parked on double yellows.
The first stay is clocked in at about 22 minutes, this was due to hold ups at the post office. This is an abnormal stay time for the driver. The second stay will be a little over 10 minutes, again due to longer queues at the post office.
The PCN is for £100 or £60 if paid early, so combining with the second PCN due to arrive, there is a total cost of £120 or £200 if not paid within the "discount" period. All for a total of about 30 minutes parking.
https://ibb.co/3YVM5MjW (https://ibb.co/3YVM5MjW)
I've already appealed the first PCN, following the guidance from MSE forums; naturally, this was rejected by NPM.
I'm now stuck with how to proceed. Despite the MSE forums claims that c99% of claims are thrown out, I have doubts I would be successful at county court.
My argument would be that it is unfair (again referencing one of the "reasons" that MSE posts say PCNs can be fought with);
1. Very recent changes that the driver genuinely was unaware of, as they had parked there many times in the past
2. Extortionate charges for the amount of time the car was parked, as well as not blocking any residents or other cars, vans etc
3. The area is notorious for having no areas to park. There is a little Tesco further up the road which at the time its car park was completely full. There are parking bays across the road from Jasmine Way in front of a pharmacy, which are also full almost all of the time. There is a Co-Op further down the road which is busy too, though it was not checked on these occasions whether there were spaces. The driver would have had no other option to park in other areas that were within an appropriate distance.
Do I have any leg to stand on? I simply cannot afford to pay one, let alone both of these PCNs, hence why I'm fighting this, but I don't see the court going in my favour given the few signs that are now in place and the driver just did not notice.
~A