Free Traffic Legal Advice

https://ibb.co/qFrkqFW5

I do not have pictures of the signage (I tried searching on google).

An accident occurred on the motorway as I was travelling to court, so I was in a rush to get there on time.

Yes, I meant my father was the driver.

Apologies for the confusion.

Is there anything more you'd advise? @ManxTom

Thank you for your response.

I have written the above post on behalf of my dad.

Is the process of going through court and doing a plea bargain with the prosecutor a simple one?
The reason I ask is because English is not my dads first language and he is not veru knowledgeable in what to do.
Of course I would have wanted to speak on behalf my dad in court but I know this is not allowed.

Do you think it is worth hiring a solicitor to deal with this case since my dad is a bit clueless when it comes to knowing what to do? Or will it be a simple process where I can hopefully talk to the prosecutor beforehand, show him evidence of the multiple emails sent and my dad just has to plead guilty or not guilty in court.

Again, I have never been to court so I am a bit clueless in regards to the process so any advice is appreciated. All in all, I just need to know whether it is worth getting a solcitior because I do not want to risk being charged with both offences and my dad to get 9 points on his licence.

I recently received a Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN), and I am really anxious because I’ve never been to court before and I cannot afford to end up with 6 points on my licence.

Here’s my situation:

-The original offence was a speeding ticket (38mph in a 30mph restricted road – automatic camera device).

-I then received a further charge for Failing to Give Information Relating to the Identification of the Driver / Rider of a Vehicle (Section 172, Road Traffic Act 1988).

The issue is:

-The NIP form I received was damaged and unusable, so I couldn’t complete it by post.
-I tried to use the online portal, but there was a technical fault on their end.
-West Midlands Police actually acknowledged the fault in their reply, but they never offered me guidance or an alternative way to respond.
-I first contacted them on 08/01/2025 and followed up several times, asking for a replacement form or another way to fulfil my duty. (The speeding penalty letter is dated 24/12/2024).
-Despite my repeated emails, I was never provided with help, instructions, or a replacement form.

So I’ve entered a Not Guilty plea in relation to both charges — the speeding offence (38mph in a 30mph zone) and the allegation of failing to provide driver information. I explained that:

-I made every reasonable effort to comply.
-The only reason I couldn’t was because of a faulty system, a damaged form, and lack of police guidance.
-I can provide the full email transcript history to prove my repeated attempts.
-I am also willing to name the driver now, but I wanted to first see the photographic evidence to make sure I gave the correct information to the best of my knowledge.
-I am willing to provide the name of the driver involved in the alleged offence, to the best of my knowledge, on the condition that the related charge of failing to provide driver details is withdrawn

My Concerns

I’m very worried about what happens next. I’ve never been through court before, and I’m nervous about the whole process.

Questions for the Community
-What steps should I expect next in the process?
-Will this definitely go to a hearing, or could it be dealt with before court?
-Is it possible that the “failure to provide driver information” charge could be dropped if I can prove I tried to comply?
-Should I seek legal representation at this stage, or is it something I can handle myself if I bring all the evidence?
-Has anyone been through something similar?

I really don’t want to end up with 6 points on my licence for something that wasn’t my fault. Any guidance, experiences, or advice would be hugely appreciated.

Thank you for your response.

'and a defence you will get help with', does this mean I would have to find a solicitor?

URGENT

My appeal to POPLA was unsuccessful. I genuinely believed it would be upheld based on the points I raised.

Here is a POPLA summary:

'''''''''
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to exceeding the free period without payment.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • The Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, the appellant has explained why they consider it is not compliant with several aspects of PoFA. • They have questioned the signage at the site, the signage is misleading and inconsistent, prominently displayed signs state: “Maximum Stay 5 Hours”, which would lead a reasonable person to assume that parking is free for five hours, in reality only three hours is free, which is mentioned only in much smaller text, which is not easily readable, especially for visitors in a hurry or under pressure. • Mitigating circumstances were not considered by the parking operator, the overstay was due to an unexpected vehicle breakdown, making is impossible for the driver to leave the car park within the time limit. • Despite this being explained to the parking operator within an initial appeal, the parking operator made no reference to this within their rejection, and failed to demonstrate it had been considered. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal, expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided photo of a parking sign from the site as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The signs make it clear that motorists using the car park can stay for an initial three hours free, after this time tariff apply, with a maximum stay of five hours, and if these terms and conditions are not met a charge of £100 will be issued. . The images of the vehicle captured upon entry and exit confirm the time the vehicle was on this land for three hours 42 minutes. The operator has evidenced from its system report that there was no payment registered for this vehicle to park on this land on the date of the event, they have also provided a copy of the appellant’s initial appeal, which I will refer to below. I will now consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. Any customer service matters related to the operator's response fall outside of POPLA's jurisdiction. POPLA's responsibility is solely to assess whether the PCN was issued correctly according to the advertised terms and conditions. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. The 28 day deadline mentioned by the appellant refers to the period the parking operator has before it can transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, and not the period the parking operator has to allow a motorist to pay the PCN. This sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. It is stipulated in the Code that the parking operator needs to comply with all elements relating to signage by 31 December 2026. Therefore, for any aspects of this case relating to signage, I will be referring to version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. This is applicable for parking events that occurred from 1 February 2024. The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet. Section 19.1 of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. Signs in general tend to have meaning, and signs within a car park are there to explain relevant terms to motorists wishing to park, in this case the terms mentioned above. The appellant has provided photo of a parking sign from the site, the parking operator has provided a series of photos of the site, along with a map with positions of signs highlighted. I can see from the evidence pack there is an entrance sign. Entrance signs are an important part of establishing a contract and would put the driver on notice that terms and conditions applied. Further, specific terms and conditions signage are placed around this site, detailing the terms of use. These signs are in contrasting colours, and I believe they would have been clear and conspicuous to drivers who wish to use the site. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and that the motorist had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions on arrival, and, if you agree with them, stay or if you did not agree with them leave the site. Whether the appellant read the terms and conditions is irrelevant, the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to read them. While I acknowledge the appellant’s comments regarding mitigating circumstances and a vehicle breakdown, these issues were not raised in their initial appeal to the parking operator. As such, it is unclear how the parking operator could have addressed matters they were not made aware of at that stage. While I appreciate the appellant sharing such information now, this information should have been disclosed to the parking operator. I appreciate the motorist did not intend to breach the terms and conditions, the signage at the site is clear that exceeding the free period without payment, regardless of the reason, would result in the issue of a PCN. By exceeding the free period without payment, the motorist has accepted the potential consequence of incurring a PCN. Despite the appellant's comments on the parking operator's evidence, I have not found any information that has a material impact on my assessment of the PCN. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist parked in excess of the free period without payment, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.
''''''''

I’d really appreciate any advice on what steps to take next, especially as I genuinely believe I raised some legitmate points.

Here is the appeal I have written. Please do give any feedback.

'
To Whom It May Concern,

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced above and am writing to formally appeal the issuance of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the following grounds:

1. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.

a. Failure to Invite the Keeper to Pay (PoFA 9(2)(e)(i))

The NtK issued by GroupNexus fails to comply with PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). The notice states that the driver is required to pay the charge or the Keeper must identify the driver. However, PoFA requires the NtK to clearly invite the Keeper to either pay the charge or provide the name and address of the driver. There is no legal obligation for the Keeper to name the driver, and the notice omits the essential statutory invitation to the Keeper to pay the charge, which is a clear procedural failure.
Because this requirement is unmet, GroupNexus cannot pursue the Keeper for the charge under PoFA and must instead pursue the unknown driver, whose identity has not been and will not be disclosed.

b. Failure to Identify the Creditor (PoFA 9(2)(h))
The NtK also fails to comply with PoFA 9(2)(h), which states that the notice must identify the “creditor” — the party legally entitled to recover unpaid parking charges. Nowhere in the NtK is the creditor clearly identified. The absence of this key piece of information makes the notice invalid under PoFA, and again, no Keeper liability can be transferred.
As the NtK is materially non-compliant with PoFA, liability cannot be transferred to the Keeper, and the PCN must therefore be cancelled.
________________________________________
2. Misleading and Unclear Signage — Contravention of BPA Code of Practice (Section 19)

The signage at Gallagher Retail Park is inconsistent and misleading. Prominently displayed signs state “Maximum Stay 5 Hours”, which would lead a reasonable person to assume that parking is free for five hours. In reality, only 3 hours are free, and this is mentioned only in much smaller text, which is not easily readable — especially for visitors in a hurry or under pressure.
This discrepancy misleads motorists into believing they have more time than actually permitted, which is a clear breach of the BPA Code of Practice Section 19.3, which states that signage must be “clear, intelligible and unambiguous” and must not mislead. It also violates 19.4, which requires that terms must be in “sufficiently large text” and be visible to drivers upon entering and parking.
Therefore, the signage is insufficient to form a legally binding contract and fails to convey the terms clearly to motorists.
________________________________________
3. PCN Breach of Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP) – Incorrect Timeframe for Payment and Appeal
The NtK issued by GroupNexus incorrectly states that the charge must be paid within 28 days of the charge date, rather than 28 days from receipt of the notice as required under the Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP), Section 8.1.2(e). This is a procedural failure that shortens the appeal period unjustly and demonstrates non-compliance with the applicable standards.
________________________________________
4. Mitigating Circumstances
It is important to record that the alleged overstay occurred solely due to an unexpected vehicle breakdown, which left the vehicle temporarily immobile and unable to exit the car park within the time limit. This was an unforeseen and uncontrollable situation and should never result in a punitive charge — especially where the signage was misleading to begin with.
________________________________________

Conclusion:
•   The NtK is not PoFA compliant, so liability cannot be transferred to the registered Keeper.
•   The signage is misleading and unclear, breaching BPA requirements and invalidating the contract.
•   The PCN does not comply with PPSCoP timelines, which shortens the appeal window improperly.
•   The identity of the driver has not been disclosed, and no assumptions can legally be made.
On all these grounds, I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct GroupNexus to cancel this PCN.
'


Thank you in advance. As always, any advice is appreciated.

Thank you for your response.

I have appealed exactly as you advised.

Will keep you updated.

Thank you once again.