Free Traffic Legal Advice

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) as the vehicle exceeded 14 hours maximum combined stay over any one week (Monday to Sunday) period.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided a detailed account of events. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that: 1. Failure to highlight a material change in terms. 2. Lack of adequate signage to notify regular users of new restrictions. 3. Unfair and impractical contract terms. 4. Lack of landholder authority. 5. Failure to comply with POFA 2012. The appellant reiterated their version of events in the motorist’s comments section. The appellant included photographic evidence of their lack of signage in the car park to prove the change in the terms and conditions were adequately communicated (times nine) in support of their appeal. I have considered this in my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I have allowed this appeal for the following reason: In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I will therefore be assessing the appellant’s liability as the keeper of the vehicle. By issuing the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. The burden of proof lies with the operator to provide POPLA with clear, sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued correctly. In this case, the operator has issued the PCN as the vehicle exceeded 14 hours maximum combined stay over any one week (Monday to Sunday) period. After very careful consideration of the appellant's grounds of appeal, photographic evidence and the operator's evidence pack I can see the signage in the car park only shows one sign telling motorists of the change to the terms and conditions in the car park. Section 3.4 of the Code says that when there is a material change to pre-existing terms of a car park, then additional temporary signs must be placed at the entrance to the car park for a period of no less than four months from the date of the change to make that clear. I can see from the evidence pack, the operator states that ‘multiple’ temporary new terms and conditions signs have gone up around the car park, however, only photographic evidence of one such sign was provided and no actual number of how many signs in the evidence pack to back up that claim. I would at least expect the parking operator to list the amount of new temporary signs that were erected around the car park entrances to advise of the change to the terms and conditions of the car park. However, proof of this would be preferred to adequately rebut the appellant's main ground of appeal. Especially as it is such a large site with around 12000 parking spaces and what would be a number of entrances to the car park for the many regular users of the site. It is within the operator's gift to ensure their evidence pack has sufficient information and photographic evidence to adequately rebut the appellant's grounds of appeal about the change in the terms and conditions, but in this case their rebuttal is not sufficient. Therefore, I do not feel the operator has issued the PCN correctly and must allow this appeal. In conclusion, I can see that the appellant has referenced other points within their appeal to POPLA, but I do not feel that these need to be reviewed based on the outcome reached.

Thanks all for some solid advice, I’ve taken this onboard and drafted up these revised comments, though I’m not sure if I’m including points missed in the original appeal (i.e. specifically differentiating between two drivers, I don’t think I mentioned that outright), I know POPLA state they won’t consider new evidence so I’m not sure if this counts as evidence or is simply a comment in response to Minster’s evidence pack. 

What an absolute minefield to have to navigate all for the crime of being a regular customer for the past ~20 years. Safe to say neither me nor the driver(s) will ever go back while these rules are in force, I used to personally spend ~£2-3k there every year as I do my weekly food shop, buy all toiletries, dine out, and visit a handful of high street & independent shops they have but if they want to swap all of that for a one off £100 instead, more fool them.

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am submitting my comments on Minster Baywatch’s evidence in relation to my appeal against the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). I maintain that the charge is unfair, unenforceable, and should be cancelled based on the following legal and procedural grounds:

⸻

1. The Terms of the Alleged Contract are Unreasonable, Ambiguous, and Impossible to Enforce

Minster Baywatch alleges that the vehicle exceeded a 14-hour total parking limit within a rolling 7-day period. However, this restriction is fundamentally flawed and unenforceable for the following reasons:
   •   A parking contract exists only between the driver and the parking operator at the time of parking. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) allows for liability to be transferred to the keeper, but it does not alter the fact that a contract can only be formed with the driver at the time of each visit.
   •   Minster Baywatch cannot prove that the same driver was responsible for each visit. This means they are attempting to enforce a contractual term against a driver who may not have been aware of prior visits.
   •   The signage does not specify whether the restriction applies to the driver or the vehicle. Under Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, if a contractual term can have multiple meanings, the interpretation most favorable to the consumer must apply. The most favorable interpretation here is that the restriction applies to a single continuous stay rather than cumulative visits.
   •   This restriction requires motorists to track all visits made by their vehicle over a rolling week and to know how long any previous driver has stayed. This is an unreasonable and impractical burden, making compliance impossible and the contract unenforceable.

It is entirely preposterous to suggest that a later driver of the vehicle is somehow responsible for cumulative time accrued by previous drivers. If POPLA upholds such an illogical enforcement mechanism, it risks undermining consumer protections and fair industry practices.

⸻

2. Failure to Provide Adequate Notice of Material Changes

Minster Baywatch claims that new parking restrictions were introduced, but they have not provided sufficient evidence that these changes were clearly communicated to motorists, particularly regular visitors. Under consumer protection laws and industry standards, material changes must be prominently displayed to ensure all users are aware of the updated terms.
   •   BPA Code of Practice Section 19.10 – This requires temporary signage to be used when significant changes occur. Minster Baywatch has not provided evidence of clear, prominent temporary notices.
   •   Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) – Section 62 states that contract terms (including parking restrictions) must be fair and transparent. A sudden change in parking terms without clear, advance notification to regular customers is likely unfair and unenforceable.
   •   Case Law: Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] – A motorist cannot be bound by unexpected terms unless they had a reasonable opportunity to be aware of them before parking. Minster Baywatch has not proven that regular motorists had such an opportunity.
   •   Dashcam footage provided in my original appeal shows that a motorist can enter several of Meadowhall’s large multi-storey car parks without encountering any clear warnings about new restrictions. This means a regular visitor, particularly one who may use different car parks, is not adequately informed.

Minster Baywatch also claims:

“If a driver does not agree with a term noted on signage, the driver is able to reject the terms by promptly leaving the site.”

This argument is invalid if drivers are not sufficiently informed of the new terms in the first place.

⸻

3. Landowner Authority – Lack of a Valid Contract at the Time of the Alleged Contravention

Minster Baywatch has provided a contract variation agreement dated April 2024 between themselves and British Land (Meadowhall GP Limited). However, this does not prove they had the authority to issue PCNs at the time of the alleged contravention in January 2025, for the following reasons:
   •   British Land sold its 50% stake in Meadowhall to Norges Bank Investment Management in July 2024. This means British Land was no longer a legal owner of the land at the time of the alleged contravention.
   •   The contract variation agreement provided by Minster Baywatch was signed before British Land exited its ownership role, and there is no evidence that the new owner (Norges Bank) agreed to continue this contract.
   •   BPA Code of Practice Section 7 requires that an operator must have a valid and current contract with the landowner at the time of issuing PCNs. Minster Baywatch has not provided a valid contract with Norges Bank, the rightful landowner in January 2025.

Unless Minster Baywatch can provide an unredacted contract proving that Norges Bank Investment Management explicitly authorised them to enforce parking at the time of the alleged contravention, then they had no legal standing to issue this PCN.

⸻

4. Non-Compliance with Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012

Minster Baywatch claims the PCN was POFA-compliant, but the Notice to Keeper (NTK) was not delivered in accordance with POFA timelines:
   •   The PCN was issued on 8th January 2025 but was not received until 22nd January 2025. POFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(5) states that for liability to transfer to the keeper, the NTK must be delivered within 14 days.
   •   Minster Baywatch admits they do not send letters tracked, making it impossible to verify compliance with POFA deadlines. The burden of proof is on the operator, and they have failed to demonstrate that the NTK was delivered on time.

Since POFA requirements have not been met, keeper liability cannot be established.

⸻

Conclusion

For the reasons above, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this Parking Charge Notice. The charge is unenforceable due to:
   1.   The unreasonable and impractical nature of the alleged contract, which requires an impossible burden on drivers.
   2.   Failure to provide proper notice of material changes, in violation of BPA Code of Practice and consumer law.
   3.   Unproven landowner authority, as British Land sold Meadowhall before the alleged contravention and Minster Baywatch has not provided proof of a contract with the new owners.
   4.   Non-compliance with POFA 2012, meaning keeper liability does not apply.

This charge is fundamentally flawed, unreasonable, and unenforceable. I trust that POPLA will uphold fair consumer practices and allow this appeal.

Yes it’s Minster Baywatch with their registered address which is a PO Box in York

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Me again; the amended document increasing the contract period is signed by British land who sold their last shares in Meadowhall last year if that’s any relevance

So I’ve had a reply to the POPLA appeal, it’s 80 pages so I’ll attach their response, plus some example photos they’ve included, and the documents they’ve attached. There’s a document signed from Broadgate estates and I’ve no idea who they are in relation to Meadowhall, I assume something to do with landowner authority. If other pages from the 80 page response are required please let me know, but if there’s any suggestion on what comments I can make I’d appreciate the help.

https://imgur.com/a/vbmndqT

I've been busy liquidating one business and trying to organise the other so I've only just had time to write the appeal. Here's what i've drafted so far:


Minster Baywatch have issued a Parking charge Notice to my vehicle for allegedly overstaying a maximum permitted combined stay of 14 hours over any one week period at a Meadowhall car park. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and am appealing the Parking Charge Notice issued by Minster Baywatch for the following reasons:

1. Failure to Highlight Material Changes

The operator has included the “14-hour maximum combined stay over a one-week period” rule among six rules displayed on signage at the site. However, this new rule is presented in the same small font size, colour, and style as the existing rules, with no indication that it is a recent addition.

This contravenes Section 3.4 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which requires operators to take proactive steps to notify users of material changes. The code explicitly states that operators must:
   •   Clearly signal that a change has been made at the entrance and throughout the site.
   •   Ensure the nature of the change is clearly displayed using temporary notices or other prominent means, such as bold text, bright colours, or highlighted sections, for a reasonable period (at least four months).

By failing to differentiate the new rule from the existing ones, the operator has not met the required standards of clarity and transparency. Regular users, such as the driver in this case, would not reasonably be aware of this new rule, particularly when it has been buried within existing terms without any effort to highlight its significance.

Furthermore, this failure violates the Consumer Rights Act 2015, as it imposes an unfair and opaque obligation on motorists who are not given adequate notice of the new condition. The lack of clear and prominent notification renders the enforcement of this new rule unreasonable and unenforceable.

2. Inadequate Notification of Material Changes

The new “14-hour maximum combined stay over a one-week period” rule has likely been very recently introduced, no clarification as to when exactly this rule was brought in has been made but it is assumed to be at some point in December 2024, yet there is a distinct lack of signage within the premises to highlight this significant change, nor any warning that new terms are imposed from any effective date.  Section 3.4 of the PPSCoP states that for material changes to parking terms:

   “Operators must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the change to ensure regular visitors do not inadvertently incur parking charges.”


Meadowhall has several multi-storey car parks with approximately 12,000 spaces, the sheer scale alone suggests that a singular temporary notice at site entrances would be woefully  inadequate.  Upon visiting the site myself, I was able to enter a car park without being notified that there are updated terms, Dashcam footage from my vehicle confirms this, showing no signage at the car park entrances to alert users of changes. The absence of these required notices demonstrates non-compliance with the PPSCoP and further supports my argument that the alleged breach is unenforceable. Included are dated and time stamped screenshots from two visits to the location on two separate occasions which clearly shows customers are able to enter a car park without being alerted to any material changes. The full video footage is also provided. 

3. Unfair and Impractical Contractual Terms

The requirement to track a “14-hour maximum combined stay over a one-week period” is unfair, impractical, and unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA). This term places an unreasonable burden on motorists to:
   •   Track and calculate their combined parking durations across multiple visits over a week.
   •   Share and coordinate this information with any additional named drivers using the vehicle.

No tools or systems are provided to facilitate this tracking, nor does the operator make any effort to provide a transparent mechanism for verifying or disputing parking durations. This creates a significant imbalance in favour of the operator, rendering the term unfair and unenforceable under the CRA. How exactly is a Meadowhall customer supposed to track their precise duration each week at a site which offers a Cinema, Bowling, Mini-golf, other leisure activities, dining and shopping facilities open 11 hours per day?  Especially when the vehicle has shared use; are customers now expected to formally liaise with their friends and family regarding their vehicle use and time spent at Meadowhall? If so, this is completely unreasonable. Additionally, it is unreasonable to expect customers to track cumulative parking durations over multiple years as in this case, with one visit captured in 2024 and one in 2025.

4. Reference to ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67

Minster Baywatch’s rejection of my appeal references ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, a case that ruled a parking charge was enforceable due to clear signage and fair terms. However, the circumstances in this case differ significantly:
   •   The signage in the Beavis case was clear, prominent, and unambiguous. In this case, the terms are not only new, but buried in small print and lack prominence.
   •   The Beavis charge was a deterrent for overstaying a fixed time limit that is easy for a customer to monitor, not a convoluted weekly limit that is impractical to track.

The Beavis ruling emphasised the importance of transparency and fairness, which the operator has failed to demonstrate here. Had the driver been made aware of the “14-hour maximum combined stay over a one-week period” rule, they would not have parked at the site at all or would have made every effort to ensure they complied with the terms. However, the rule was not clearly highlighted or distinguished from the existing conditions, and as such, the driver had no reasonable way of knowing about this specific time limit and so the argument that it is a satisfactory deterrent is invalid.

The failure to highlight this rule, particularly with an easily understandable format or prominent notices, meant that the driver inadvertently breached a term that they were not adequately notified of. This lack of clarity and transparency leads to an unjust charge, as the driver acted in good faith, unaware of any new restrictions.

5. Non-Compliance with POFA 2012

The operator has failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to transfer liability to the registered keeper. Specifically:
   •   The Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued on 8th January but not delivered until 22nd January, beyond the statutory 14-day limit required for keeper liability under POFA.
   •   The NtK was sent using untracked postage, meaning the presumed delivery timeline is not guaranteed.

As such, liability for the parking charge cannot be transferred to the registered keeper.

Conclusion

The operator has failed to demonstrate that the parking charge is lawful, enforceable, and compliant with the relevant standards. The lack of adequate signage, failure to highlight material changes, and the unfair and impractical terms make this charge unenforceable.

For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that POPLA upholds this appeal and instructs Minster Baywatch to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

As expected, appeal rejected. Will re write it for Popla I suppose.