Free Traffic Legal Advice

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the parking operator to evidence that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued correctly. The parking operator has issued the PCN to the appellant because the P&D/permit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking. The appellant quotes the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (The Code) Section 5.1(a) and says the Consideration Period was inadequate for the circumstances. They say in this case, a parent and child space was desired and when a family was seen returning to their car to depart, the driver waited to park in this space as there was a baby in the car. They say due to the busyness of the car park, and parking in a space appropriate to needs, the driver parked the car just before 12:20, and a ticket was immediately purchased from the machine. They say at this point, the Consideration Period ended and the parking period began. The also point out that the purchased ticket stated clearly in a large bold font that it was valid until "15:20." The appeal reasons have led me to consider The Code which sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 5.1 states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. In this case, Annex B provides a consideration period of 5 minutes. Whilst I acknowledge that Section 5.1 says the operator should take into account the time required for a driver to identify and access a parking bay appropriate to their needs and the impact of the volume of traffic within the controlled land. I wish to point out that the parking period is defined in Section 2.24 of the Code as the length of time that a vehicle remains on controlled land, which includes the consideration period. Additionally, Annex B makes it clear that the Consideration period is not a free period of parking. However, the appellant has explained that they believed the parking period commenced at the time of payment and whilst the signage refers to Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras it does not explain that the parking period is calculated from the time they enter and exit the site. Therefore, I consider that it is reasonable that the appellant believed that their parking time began at 12:20, at the time they paid for their parking and that the period prior to this was a consideration period. Section 5.2 of the Single Code of Practice requires a parking operator to allow a grace period in addition to the parking period. The Code advises that grace periods do not apply other than where a driver has parked in compliance with the terms and conditions of the area. In accordance with Annex B the grace period at this site is 10 minutes. The appellant has exited the site at 15:28 which was 3 hours 8 minutes after paying for their stay, therefore I consider the appellant left the site within the grace period and complied with the parking contract they entered. As I have determined the first 14-minutes of the time spent on site was a consideration period, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly when factoring this in to my decision. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.

• Point 1. Add in:
  PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) is not met, as the NtK does not "invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges".
  Is this correct?? I see that my original attachments have been removed so here are links to the NtK letter: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17-MazM7AoMjaRwkKfFHKvDCn9ZLN0u7G/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/178hNPsspKnGtBs7ziw563Ocv63gG6H2V/view?usp=sharing
• Point 2. In final sentence it should read "busyness" not "business".

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) 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. ECP 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 NtK can only hold the driver liable. ECP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a waste of time and cancel the PCN.

• As per PCN, Car park entry is stated as 12:06.
• However, the small car park was full and so the driver did not manage to park in a space and turn off engine or get out of car for over 10 mins -- other cars were also manoeuvring and departing so it was clear a space would become available.
• A 3hr ticket was purchased from the machine at 12:20. This would have been within a couple of minutes of parking (i.e. very short walk to machine, wait turn, walk back to car to check reg plate(!), back to machine to key in and pay). The printed ticket stated explicitly an expiry time of 15:20.
• The driver returned to the car at approximately 15:20. A baby was strapped in and a pram put in the boot (the car was parked in a baby/pram space which the driver had waited for).
• As per PCN, car park exit is state at 15:28.

• The car parking ticket has possibly now been discarded (the driver is looking) but the card sales receipt from the machine has been found showing the 12:20 payment time.
• PCN attached to post.
• Car park: https://www.google.com/maps/place/51%C2%B016'31.8%22N+0%C2%B031'27.0%22E/@51.275538,0.5241092,75m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d51.275491!4d0.524168?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDcyOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Would you like me to represent you at the tribunal?

I challenge liability for PCN HR51148352 due to a lack of zone repeater signs. At first I had no idea why I received a PCN, but having looked into matters I now understand I was parked within the Harrow on the Hill Permit Parking Area.

I entered the zone via Grove Hill junction with Peterborough Road, which is quite a busy junction with a zebra crossing 20 metres ahead. While I now understand there are Permit Parking Area signs at this junction on Peterborough Road, the visibility of these signs is poor. The near-side sign not visible due to the junction angle, and the off-side sign part obscured at the junction, and then visible for only a very short distance whilst approaching a zebra crossing. See attached image.

The PPA itself is large, and I did not pass any repeater signs within the zone. By the time I came to a stop I had driven down the High Street and turned into West Road; I had travelled a quarter of a kilometre from the entrance of the zone and was on a much smaller road with considerably less traffic. I observed my surroundings and did not see any indication of any parking restrictions (either at the start of West Road, or along the road side, or in the form of yellow lines). I have photos demonstrating that there is no signage within sight of my parked car.

A Permit Parking Area is different to a Controlled Parking Zone because, unlike a CPZ, the layout of a PPA does not include any bays or markings to alert a motorist to the restrictions. While previous tribunal decisions are not binding they can be persuasive and I note the significant parallels with Shetal Patel vs London Borough of Harrow (PCN HR51100560, Case 2220650316, 27 Oct 2022) and also Stephanie Martin v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (KI00006-1905, 21 June 2019), where in both cases the adjudicator found that in a large PPA covering several streets, the zone entrance signs alone are not adequate to support the restriction.


I therefore contest that the alleged contravention did not occur.