Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: JLA on January 28, 2026, 10:22:32 am
-
Which parts of PoFA are we suggesting they fail to comply with?
Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(f) requires that the notice state that the creditor will, if all applicable conditions under this Schedule are met, have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount that remains unpaid.
The section in bold appears to be missing from the operators NtK?
-
Which parts of PoFA are we suggesting they fail to comply with?
-
They don't appear to be relying on PoFA either.
Can we assume that the driver has never been revealed?
-
Expand on your original points, remembering that the assessor will have no prior knowledge of the car park. Show us a draft before sending anything.
I'd be minded once you've appealed to file a complaint on the specific issue of their failure to offer a 40% discount.
Have you done this?
Can I use the fact they've given incorrect timings in my appeal too?
It's not, on the face of it, a reason why the charge is not owed, but I'd put it in there to highlight further evidence of their incompetence.
If you haven't yet complained to BPM about the discount issue, I would also add in a point around them misrepresenting the time allowed to appeal.
-
They haven't addressed the very worn and contradictory markings.
So start writing an appeal to IAS.
It is highly unlikely that this will ever get to court but there will be hoops to jump through.
Make the appeal short and too the point - don't leave IAS with any room to waffle.
-
Have just checked IAS website which says I have 28 days from date of rejection from the operator (BPM state it's 14 days). Can I use the fact they've given incorrect timings in my appeal too?
-
Just received rejection letter dated 10/2/26 giving me 14 days to appeal or pay £70. As it has taken 10 days to arrive i now only have 4 days to get an appeal in to the IAS. They have the points raised in my appeal. Would appreciate any advice on how to do next appeal or do i just use same points? Thanks.
(https://i.ibb.co/WvDsjm20/20260220-113941.jpg) (https://ibb.co/chbxV4rw)
-
Submitted 2 photo's with appeal showing lack of signage at entrance. Also already have a video (not submitted) taken on 17th Jan showing approach to car park, entrance and entering.
-
In preparation for the next stage, getting some more photos showing the approach to the car park, and the the entrance taken by the driver, to really emphasise the point re. signage, would be wise.
-
Thanks, just submitted with photo's of entrance showing no signage. Will update with their response.
-
It's "worn", not "warn". Otherwise, that'll do for an initial appeal.
I'd be minded once you've appealed to file a complaint on the specific issue of their failure to offer a 40% discount.
-
Hi, need to submit appeal today, does it look ok or is there anything i should add or
omit? Thanks.
I am appealing this charge as the registered keeper on the following grounds:
1. Poorly maintained road markings.
The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice states:
Signs and surface markings are used to provide information to drivers to indicate that they are entering controlled land, to display such terms and conditions as apply to direct traffic movements and to delineate parking bays. Signs and surface markings must be designed, applied and maintained in such a way as to be visible, legible and unambiguous to drivers. Operators should take note of relevant best practice guidance and legislation.
The driver parked in what appeared to be a marked bay. The road markings were very poorly maintained and were at best conflicting, at worst so neglected as to be entirely unclear especially as it was a dark evening when they parked.
A very warn yellow hatching on top of warn bay markings are not 'unambiguous'. Neither are they 'maintained'.
2. Inadequate Signage.
The Code of Practice 3.1 Signs states:
An entrance sign must be displayed and maintained at the entrance to controlled land to inform drivers as appropriate whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions, including payment, or is prohibited.
There were no prominent, clear, legible signs at the entrance to the car park informing drivers of the terms and conditions. The driver was not properly notified therfore making the contract uneforceable.
3. Incorrect charge.
The Code of Practice 8.2 Parking charge levels states:
Parking charges must not exceed £100. A reduction of a minimum of 40% must be offered where payment is made within 14 days of the issue of the Notice to Driver where a notice is issued at the time of the parking event, or of the issue of the Notice to Keeper and/or Notice to Hirer where the first notice is sent through the post.
The NTK/Parking Charge states that a reduced amount of £70.00 is payable if paid within 14 days. This does not relate to a 40% reduction from £100.00. The actual reduced amount payable offered should have been £60.00.
I would ask that the parking charge be cancelled for the reasons stated.
-
None of the requirements of PoFA actually require the mention of the legislation itself.
Good point, I hadn't noticed that they were asking for £70. I'd throw that into the mix (clause 8.2 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice). OP draft something up and we can offer comment. I'll have time to have a proper look Sunday evening.
-
Am I missing something but there is mention of POFA requirements so they can not transfer liability to registered keeper. Also as far as I am aware I cannot recall a PCN requesting £70 and not the usual £60 I thought the discount was 60%.
-
Code of Practice document;
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/Sector%20Code%20Templates/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1.1130225.pdf
Scroll down to Section 3 - Signs and surface marking
COMMENTARY ON CLAUSE 3
Signs and surface markings are used to provide information to drivers to indicate that they
are entering controlled land, to display such terms and conditions as apply to direct traffic
movements and to delineate parking bays. Signs and surface markings must be designed,
applied and maintained in such a way as to be visible, legible and unambiguous to drivers.
Operators should take note of relevant best practice guidance and legislation.
A very warn yellow hatching on top of warn bay markings are not 'unambiguous'. Neither are they 'maintained'.
The above should be point one of your appeal.
-
1st image was taken on 17th Jan when the driver went back to check entry signs & bay markings, the only sign relating to parking was the small blue sign on the post on the right before they entered. 2nd image shows sign wording clearly. No other signs showing any T&C's before entry.
(https://i.ibb.co/pBqbCjfg/Screenshot-20260128-173125-Gallery.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mVpbQ59m)
(https://i.ibb.co/hxZKmGx0/Screenshot-20260130-144526-Maps.jpg) (https://ibb.co/j9WLrC9t)
-
I'd just stick to the 'poor markings' basis to start with.
GSV appears to show an entrance sign.
The pictures appear to show a scenario where the bay markings are stronger than the hatch markings.
This is a possible fly-trap site - the car parked next to you appears to be in a similar situation.
GSV shows the car park WITHOUT the yellow hatching so I suspect that the yellow hatching was added using a very low quality materials which have worn very quickly given that the GSV view (with no hatching) was taken Sept 2024.
-
There should be a prominent entrance sign, yes. If there isn't, get some photos to show this.
GSV suggests there was one in 2024, but that's a fair while ago - https://maps.app.goo.gl/zamYaSPCiRHbkVic7 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/zamYaSPCiRHbkVic7)
-
Apologies and thanks for your reply, i'll submit appeal today. One other point i wasn't sure about was, is there supposed to be a sign as you enter the car park stating the T&C's like the ones in the car park?
-
Please don't bump your thread if you haven't received a reply within 24 hours. This is a busy forum run entirely by volunteers. If everyone did that, it would be unmanageable.
I'd be minded to draft a simple appeal (as the keeper), on the basis that the driver was parked in what appeared to be a marked bay, and that the road markings were at best conflicting, at worst so neglected as to be entirely unclear.
-
Anyone got anything please?
-
Hi All, the driver got this notice issued 11th Jan, letter dated 13th Jan received on 17th Jan. When they parked in this car park it was dark and they parked in what they thought was a bay as there were some white lines markings over the hatched markings so they thought it was ok to park there. Some images on their website show this too. As the markings are faded and overlap it's quite confusing. The car parked in the adjacent bay (not the hatched one) has a white line which makes the bay the driver parked in look like a normal bay too, especially when it's dark. Do you think there is any way to appeal this? Also, the wording on the notice seems to be a bit confusing in parts re: the dates and timings for appeals/payments or have the driver just got that wrong? Added links to NTK and their images. Would appreciate any help. Thanks.
(https://i.ibb.co/jP2fC4gH/20260118-121329-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/FLM3Q7gn)
(https://i.ibb.co/YBTJcqbW/20260118-121335.jpg) (https://ibb.co/m5Fd9MSB)
(https://i.ibb.co/LDxcnPxx/20260118-121341-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mr926B99)
(https://i.ibb.co/qMvVbmR6/Screenshot-20260126-101001-Samsung-Internet.jpg) (https://ibb.co/d0RxnkQZ)
(https://i.ibb.co/CKHnxvKx/Screenshot-20260126-100930-Samsung-Internet.jpg) (https://ibb.co/QvK6snvs)
(https://i.ibb.co/GvWMdHpk/Screenshot-20260126-100956-Samsung-Internet.jpg) (https://ibb.co/3ypFTRdW)
(https://i.ibb.co/jPK9zJzR/Screenshot-20260126-101007-Samsung-Internet.jpg) (https://ibb.co/NdhgrTrS)