Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you.  I think this was thanks to the operator being arrogant and supplying a bog standard pack of evidence, which did not include photos of both car park entrances and contained lots of irrelevant evidence!  Thanks to everyone who has added info to this site, I was able to search through and find relevant paragraphs to compile a response for the Registered Keeper to submit.  Also reading other threads helped me understand how to actually compile an appeal and what the assessor would be looking for. 

Here is the POPLA outcome:

Decision Successful

Assessor Name Spencer Lawrence

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the parking session expired on was unpaid.

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 states that: • The signage is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 as the operator is not displaying a geographical address under The Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008. • The signage at the entrance is poorly displayed. • The signage was not clear. • There is no planning permission for the **** of cameras, poles and signage. The appellant has commented on the operator’s evidence reiterating the grounds made in their initial statement. Additionally, they state that: • The signage at the eastern entrance is not prominent, the operator has only provided evidence of the entrance signs from the western entrance. • Social media has shown several instances where drivers have received similar charges. The appellant has provided the following evidence to support their appeal: • Image of entrance. • Close up of sign. • Image of sign.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing the appeal for the reasons outlined below: When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. In this case the operator has issued the PCN to the driver as the parking session expired on was unpaid. In their grounds the appellant has disputed that there was clear and compliant signage alerting them to the terms and that the terms were not made clear on entry. Whilst I acknowledge that the appellant has raised other grounds of appeal and evidence, my report will focus solely on the signage as this supersedes all other aspects of the appeal. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that there must be an entrance sign displayed and maintained at the entrance to the site, to inform drivers whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions or prohibited. It is the duty of the operator to fully rebut the appellant’s grounds. As the appellant has queried the signage on site, the onus is on the operator to prove that there was an entrance sign on site that directed the appellant to the further terms and conditions prior to the parking event and is legible. Section 3.1.1 (a) & (b) states that there may be circumstances where an entrance sign is impractical, but I do not believe this site falls under these categories. The appellant has advised that there were two entrances to the site and that the entrance they used did not have an entrance sign – the operator’s site map confirms there are two entrances. The operator has provided evidence of entrance signage in situ however, this is for the western entrance and not the eastern entrance where the driver entered, as confirmed in the ANPR images. The operator has therefore provided no images of entrance signage in situ for this entrance. Though I note that from the ANPR images there is certainly a sign affixed to the same pole as the exit sign, I cannot see what this states and whether it complies with the requirements of entrance signage with all the necessary information. Based on the evidence provided to me, I am unable to determine whether the operator has complied with Section 3.1.1 to rebut the appellant’s grounds. I therefore cannot be sure that there was any clear and compliant entrance signage in situ on the day the driver parked at the entrance to the site they used. As such I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly, and I must allow the appeal.

Just to advise, the registered keeper has now sent an appeal using information provided on this thread and elsewhere on the site.

Where's the RK's appeal pl?

Was this done online and was it clear that the appeal was coming from the RK?

The appeal is still being written.

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

Apologies, baroudeur, I didn't realise there was another reply.

The third ticket was in Willington, near Station road.

Yes, I noticed the Police HQ, indeed ironic.

Thank you for your reply, and all the advice given. 

We will approach the police as you suggest but I don't hold out much hope!  He might be looking at clean licence to 9 points all in the space of half an hour 

Thanks again.

Thank you for your reply, and information given.

How would we go about asking the police informally please?  I have looked at the roads on street view (I'm not the driver and he was lost so cannot remember where he was) and they are the sort of roads I would expect to be 40 mph A road and three lanes wide etc.

Quote from: yorkshirepudding on April 15, 2025, 11:48:01 am

One ticket was received last week, 10 days after the offence, the other today and 15 days after the offence.

When was the second one dated?  (Regardless of any 'late' NIP* the s172 request to name the driver must still be complied with)

* If the letter is dated to arrive within 14 days then it is notoriously difficult to evidence the fact it didn't arrive in a timely fashion

Were the camera's on a continuous stretch of road, any change of limits, turns etc.?

The second letter, received today, was dated 7th April, the road looks to be a large multi lane traffic island incorporating a major A road, the driver assumed it was at least 40 but it looks like 30 from street view.  The speed cameras are incorporated into the traffic lights by the wording on the NIP.  The driver is unfamiliar with the area, and Bedfordshire as a whole, and was just navigating through to the airport to collect friends.