Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you for your input in this. How should the appeal be worded and do you have any opinion regarding the right-turn exemption?

The initial appeal was rejected. The rejection letter insists that the right turn exemption only applies when the vehicle is prevented from completing the right turn due to oncoming vehicles, which is not what the regulation says.

Any thoughts?

This is what I've got so far for the appeal; I appreciate the feedback @b789 and @jfollows

I am writing as the registered keeper of the above vehicle in relation to the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued at 36–39 South Ealing Road, W5 4QT on 16 July 2025. I formally dispute your claim for the following reasons.

1. Non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4)
Your Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet the mandatory conditions set out in Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), which are necessary to establish keeper liability.

- Failure to Specify a Period of Parking: Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires that the notice must “specify the period of parking to which the notice relates.” Your NTK does not do this. Instead, it refers only to “the period that immediately preceded the Incident Date and Time,” which is not sufficient. This does not represent a period because it is a moment in time. You have provided no evidence of how long the vehicle was present, and therefore, the NTK fails to comply with statutory requirements.

- Defective Warning under Paragraph 9(2)(f): The NTK also fails to contain the statutory warning informing the keeper that, if the parking charge remains unpaid and the operator does not know the name and address of the driver, the operator has the right to recover the charge from the keeper after 28 days. Your notice uses unclear and paraphrased wording that does not satisfy the statutory requirement.

For these reasons alone, keeper liability cannot be established, and your demand for payment is invalid.

2. Unclear, Inadequate, and Misleading Signage
There is no signage at the entrance to the forecourt that informs drivers that parking at the fuel pumps is prohibited unless fuel is purchased. Signage on-site is inconsistent and, as shown in photograph 4/7 of the evidence, the sign prohibiting parking at the pump is turned away from drivers approaching the pumps and instead faces the shop. The only image of a sign uploaded in evidence (photographs 6 and 7) is undated and does not show a clear relation to the pump where the vehicle stopped. The terms and conditions alleged to have been breached were therefore:
- Not clearly communicated at the entrance,
- Not adequately visible to the driver, and
- Not capable of forming a valid contract.

This is contrary to the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice, which requires all terms to be clearly displayed and legible to drivers.

3. Irrelevant and Potentially Unlawful Photographic Evidence
The photographic evidence uploaded by your company includes a photo of an entirely unrelated vehicle with a clearly visible and unredacted registration plate, taken the day before the alleged contravention as per the photograph timestamp, and parked elsewhere on the forecourt. This is wholly irrelevant to this case and may constitute a breach of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), as the image includes personally identifiable data of a third party that should not have been disclosed. I reserve the right to report this data handling failure to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

4. The Driver Was Visiting the On-Site Shop
The driver stopped at the forecourt and went into the Sainsbury's on the forecourt. The vehicle was parked briefly at the pump, and no signs upon entry stated that this was prohibited unless fuel was purchased. The shop is part of the same commercial site, and there was no indication that this would be treated as unauthorised parking. It is unreasonable to penalise customers for visiting the premises, particularly where no clear signage to the contrary exists. Additionally, no evidence has been provided to prove that the driver parked at the pump without the intention of purchasing fuel, or that fuel was not purchased during this visit.

5. Disproportionate and Unfair Charge
Even if a contract were formed, the term relied upon by the operator is unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It is neither fair, transparent, nor proportionate. The signage upon entry does not make clear that stopping at a pump without purchasing fuel is a contravention, and the penalty imposed is excessive in relation to any legitimate interest. As such, the term fails Sections 62 and 68 of the Act and cannot be binding on the consumer.

This charge must be cancelled immediately. Should you reject this appeal, I request that you issue a POPLA verification code so that I may escalate the matter to independent adjudication.

I reserve the right to submit a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office in relation to the publication of photographic evidence relating to an unrelated vehicle.

Thank you in advance.

At 08:27 on 16/07/2025, the vehicle was driven onto the Esso/Sainsbury's petrol station forecourt on South Ealing Road W5. The driver recalls a sign on entry stating the existence of parking restriction enforcement, but there was no mention on the entry sign that parking at the pump is prohibited unless fuel is purchased. The vehicle was stopped at pump number 1 for approximately 3-5 minutes while the driver purchased a bottle of water from Sainsbury's.

The date of the PCN is 18/07/2025 but it was not received in the post until 26/07/2025. This leaves 6 days from the date of receiving the notice to the end of the 14 day discounted fine.

The evidence provided can only be accessed online, and when viewed, there is a photograph of a different, unrelated vehicle parked somewhere else on the forecourt, as well as photographs of the vehicle to which the PCN was issued. There are photographs of signage displaying the prohibited parking at the pump, however, the sign is not clearly affixed to pump number 1 (see street view image, it appears that sign is affixed to the pump nearest to the exit), and the other sign which is visible in the photograph of the vehicle is turned facing the Sainsbury's so it is not visible to the driver of the vehicle prior to parking. The zoomed image from the PCN evidence shows the entry signage, but does not clearly state that parking at the pump is prohibited.












Google Streetview

Thanks for your responses; it seems the general opinion is that the right turn exemption may apply so it's worth appealing on this basis.

I have done some more reading of adjudicator decisions regarding yellow boxes and it seems there may also be a de minimis argument to be made on the basis that the vehicle was stationary within the box junction for just short of 7 seconds. I am aware that there is no minimum time, but it seems certain adjudicators have considered 7-8 seconds to be de minimis.

Is it worth including both arguments in the informal appeal?

Did you read the legislation in the earlier link? If not, here it is again:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/regulation/5/made

A penalty may not be imposed .....where—

(a)the vehicle is stationary in a designated parking place and is left beyond the permitted parking period, and

(b)the period for which it is left beyond the permitted parking period does not exceed 10 minutes.

It's the law.

Yes, there wasn't any ambiguity.

The informal appeal was worded as follows:
'As can be seen, the CEO first observed my car at 10.58 although I parked much earlier at approx. 09:30.  I was aware that restrictions came into effect at 11am but I was delayed in returning. I estimate that I returned at approx. 11.05.

As the authority will see from the above, the PCN has been issued in error because I was parked in a designated parking place and therefore regulation 5(2) of the General Regs applies i.e. the authority were prohibited from demanding a penalty prior to 11.11, that is to say a period of 10 minutes has expired since the vehicle was first in contravention:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/regulation/5/made

If the authority disagree that 5(2) applies, then they must show that the marked area was not and could not be regarded as a designated parking place prior to 11am and as a minimum production of the applicable Traffic Management Order would be required.'

This was the suggested response. The Council clearly didn't get the message.

Should anything else be included in the formal appeal in addition to 5(2) of the general regs?

The CEO's observation period commenced at 10.58 therefore it is common ground that your car was parked before the restriction commenced at 11am. This is a key plank of your defence.

As can be seen, the CEO first observed my car at 10.58 although I parked much earlier at approx. ******  I was aware that restrictions came into effect at 11am but I was delayed in returning. I estimate that I returned at approx. 11.05.

As the authority will see from the above, the PCN has been issued in error because I was parked in a designated parking place and therefore regulation 5(2) of the General Regs applies i.e. the authority were prohibited from demanding a penalty prior to 11.11, that is to say a period of 10 minutes has expired since the vehicle was first in contravention:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/regulation/5/made

If the authority disagree that 5(2) applies, then they must show that the marked area was not and could not be regarded as a designated parking place prior to 11am and as a minimum production of the applicable Traffic Management Order would be required.

There is no need to write out the name of the regs in full, IMO it loses momentum.

But these are minor differences.

Should the formal appeal contain the same argument?

How should the formal appeal be worded?

Does anyone have any further advice regarding this?