Free Traffic Legal Advice

For example: wife parks the car (Person B) and feels bad about the fine - even though it was the machine that was faulty.

All paperwork arrives in husband Keeper's name (Person A).

Person B is dealing with the admin as it's her "fault" but doesn't want to start potential court proceedings/threatening letters in the name of Person A, meaningless though they may turn out to be; it's stressful.

But I fear I have strayed from the point - your advice has been excellent, and now I need to decide if I have the bottle!

Thank you. And if the court does decide against us (appreciate from what you've said it's unlikely), will it be £xxx compared with the fine of £100 at the moment?

This was their reply.

My appeal was based around the fact that the machine wasn't working properly (genuinely wasn't!) and was sending people round in loops. It didn't recognise the numberplate when it was entered, and any attempt to pay honestly kicked the user out of the machine again to start all over again. Also a different driver parked the car to the one who picked it up later. This was their response (sorry for block text).

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • As there were two separate drivers, who would be liable. • They are the registered keeper, they are under not legal obligation to name the driver, they will not be doing so. • If the parking operator intend to pursue the PCN, they must provide a clear and substantiated explanation of whom they believe is liable. • The Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not comply with multiple sections of Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. • Driver two in good faith tried to pay for parking several times, the machine was faulty, there was a long queue of people waiting to pay, as person after person tried to pay and failed to pay, if the PCN is to process, they would like to see everyone one else within the timestamped period was successful at paying. • The machine told driver two they could exit the car park without the need to pay, they reasonable assume this meant the registration number was cleared to leave. • The machine failed to recognise the vehicle registration, other people had the same issues, confirming it was not an isolated incident. • The machine eventually prompted driver two to select a parking duration, as they were unsure of the exact time the vehicle had been parked, they selected <2 hours based on the machine’s guidance, they were then told there was nothing to pay. • The equipment failed to function correctly. • No breach occurred, the driver attempted to pay but was prevented due to machine malfunction, the PCN is unfair and unenforceable due to the failure of the parking system. • The vehicle was parked by driver one within the two hours free parking limit, a driver two, a different person later returned to the car, unware of the exact time the vehicle was first parked. • The have requested the parking operator provided specific evidence. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal, and expands on their grounds of appeal.

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 two hours free, after this time tariff apply, 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 two hours 54 minutes, which is 54 minutes longer than the free period 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 shown the payment systems at the car park to be working on the day, with an extensive list of payments made by other motorists. I will now consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. Within their appeal the appellant had requested the parking operator provided certain information, however, it is not the role of POPLA to collect evidence or contact witnesses. In assessing this appeal I will look at the evidence that is provided to me from both parties and decide based on this alone. Each party is invited to submit evidence that they believe will strengthen their case. The parking operator is not obligated to provide anything requested by the appellant. 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 parking operator is not required to provide evidence of who was driving the vehicle. It is the responsibility of the registered keeper to supply the parking operator with the full name and a valid address for service of the driver. Since the appellant did not provide the driver’s details, and therefore did not give the operator the opportunity to reissue the NTK to the driver, liability for the PCN remains with the appellant as the registered keeper. As above, the site in question allows the initial two hours free, any parking time over this needs to be purchased. When parking on private land, it is the responsibility of all motorists to be aware of how long their vehicle has remained at the site and to make the appropriate payment for parking to cover the full duration of their stay. The appellant has stated the driver, and others has issues with the payment option on the day, while I accept this is entirely possible, the appellant has not provided any evidence of this within their appeal for consideration. While as above the parking operator has provided evidence which demonstrates ticket machines at the site were working normally on the day within many payments made during the parking period, due to this, I am satisfied the motorist had sufficient opportunity to select the correct time and purchase the relevant amount of parking to cover the duration of their stay. 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. The signage at the site is clear that failure to pay for parking, regardless of the reason, would result in the issue of a PCN. By leaving the site without a valid payment, the motorist has accepted the potential consequence of incurring a PCN. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist exceeded the free parking time 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.

So, as expected, they have rejected the appeal with the following information.

What's the best way to proceed? The same appeal letter that you kindly advised me on first time round?





Thank you for your correspondence relating to your Parking Charge.


The Charge was issued and the signage is displayed in compliance with The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice and all relevant laws and regulations.


Clear signs throughout this site advise drivers how to pay the parking fee via the Trust Parking app if you were unable to pay at the machines on site.


Clear signs at the entrance of this site and throughout inform drivers of the 2 hours maximum stay with the option to extend with payment and it is not possible to access any part of the premises without passing multiple signs. Your representations are not considered a mitigating circumstance for appeal.


We confirm the Charge was issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As no driver details have been provided, we are holding the registered keeper of the vehicle liable.


In light of this, on this occasion, your representations have been carefully considered and rejected.


We can confirm that we will hold the Charge at the current rate of £60 for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence. If no payment is received within this period, and no further appeal to POPLA is made, the Charge will escalate and further costs may be added.


Please find below the payment options:

Wow, this is amazing, thank you. What do you think my chances of success are?