Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi b789, no typo - I copied & pasted the assessors comments.
Could you please advise how this could have let me down? From the way I read it I was saying that although the NTK appeared to comply with PoFA, I could not be held liable due to no contract due to insufficient signage etc.
It was actually you who gave me that appeal in reply #1 so not sure what is wrong?

Hi all, just coming back to let you know my POPLA appeal was succesful! 

Please see reasoning below:

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • There is insufficient signage within the car park, the car park has very few signs displaying the terms and conditions of parking, signs are difficult to read, and locate. • They attached a video, which shows the route the driver walked to a local business, there are no signs along the route. • The visible signs are not illuminated. • There is no entrance sign. • They have mentioned a court case. • The Notice to Keeper (NTK) appears to comply with The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. They are appealing as the registered keeper, the notice does not establish who was driving the vehicle at the time, they are under no obligation to identify the driver. • As keeper, they cannot be held liable unless strict compliance with PoFA is demonstrated, and the signage forms a valid contract, due to the lack of adequate signage, no such contract could have been formed. • They have questioned the parking operator’s authority to manage the site. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal, and expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided a video, photos of the bay where they parked, various photos of the car park taken at night as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. However, in this instance the operator has failed to provide any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As such, the operator has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question and has failed to meet the requirements set out in Section 14.1 of the BPA Code of Practice. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them. 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.

Many thanks to everyone who helped with this.

Well as expected my appeal was rejected.
Please see below.



My appeal was as follows, mainly with thanks to b789's suggestion with small additions.

I am writing as the registered keeper of the vehicle in relation to this Parking Charge Notice (PCN). This appeal is made without prejudice to the identity of the driver. I contest the charge on the following grounds:

1. Insufficient Signage in the Car Park

The signage within the car park does not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Single Code of Practice requirements.

Minimal Presence of Signs: The car park has very few signs displaying the terms and conditions of parking. The signs that are present are difficult to locate and read. Section 19.3 of the BPA Code of Practice requires that signs are positioned so that they are easy to see, read, and understand.

No Illumination: Any visible signs are not illuminated or made visible in poor lighting conditions, as required under Section 19.9 of the BPA Code of Practice.

As can clearly be proven in the attached images, there are NO signs upon entry to the car park if you are turning left into the car park from Mumbles Road. I have also taken photos front on to the entrance which again shows no clear or obvious signage that a driver turning left to enter would reasonably expect to see whilst driving. This breaches Section 19.2 and Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice.

Please note the attached images were taken in the light of day on 06/12/24 (I have the metadata to prove the timestamp of these photos if you choose to challenge this). If the signage is not clear in the light of day I do not understand how you could reasonably expect the driver to see any signs on the dark winters evening that the alleged contravention occured.

The lack of adequate signage means that no contract could have been properly formed between the driver and Eternity Fire & Security Ltd.

2. Keeper Liability and Lack of Evidence of Driver

While the Notice to Keeper (NTK) appears to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, I am appealing solely as the registered keeper. Your notice does not establish who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged breach, and I am under no obligation to identify the driver.

As the keeper, I cannot be held liable unless strict compliance with PoFA is demonstrated, and the signage forms a valid contract that is capable of being accepted. Due to the lack of adequate signage in the car park, no such contract could have been formed.

3. Requested Evidence

To support your standard template rejection of this appeal, I require the following evidence to be provided:

• Photographic evidence of all signage in the car park, showing their locations and demonstrating compliance with BPA Code of Practice standards.
• A site map showing the placement of signage and its visibility from all parts of the car park.
• A copy of your contract with the landowner granting you authority to issue and enforce Parking Charge Notices.

Conclusion and Requested Action

Based on the points raised, I request that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled. If you choose to reject this appeal, I will not hesitate to escalate this matter to the independent appeals service (POPLA), where I am confident my appeal will succeed.

I look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled.

Any suggestions on whether I should send the same appeal to POPLA or modify it in any way would be very much appreciated. Thanks!

Hello
NTK received through post, no windscreen ticket.
Driver of vehicle parked slightly outside of bay & onto a white hatched marking area.
Valid pay & display ticket was on dashboard & money spent in local business adjacent to car park.
Driver parked this way to allow elderly passenger more room to safely get out, and also to avoid potential damage to & from the car who is parked close in the next bay.
No obstruction was made to any users of the car park or road traffic and as such de minimis.
NTK appears to be PoFA compliant.
There are no signs at the entry of the car park from the direction the driver turned in left to the car park.
There is a sign if you were coming the opposite way turning right into the car park. I believe this a breach of BPA CoP 19.2 & Appendix B.
The signage in the car park is very minimal. They are not illuminated at night and as such I believe this a breach of BPA CoP 19.3 and 19.9.
I look forward to your thoughts and advice. Thanks!
NTK_Front

NTK_Back

Entrance from road (turning left)

Entrance looking into car park

View inside car park

Parking spot location 1 (white fiat)

Parking spot location 2 (white fiat)

Sign in car park