Free Traffic Legal Advice

Yep, this also happened about 8-9 months ago, I had 6 identical GroupNexus PCN's 3 accepted, 3 rejected. It is a role of the dice, no logic or accurate application of the law and code of practice. It depends on the assessor you get and whether they got out of the wrong side of the bed that morning or whether they are quite simply a 🔔🔚

Unfortunately, the other one will be paid, my employer is not prepared to go to court over these, and so I am left with a near impossible task.

I had made a complaint to National Highways regarding their contract with MOTO and their disregard of DfT Circular 01/2022, including responsibilities  to provide a safe area for HGV drivers to take their mandatory drivers' hours breaks, as well as consumer law and contract law. As always, they just redirected me to Department of Transport and POPLA. So, I wrote to Department of Transport, so I'll see if anything comes of it. But a driver paying £33 for overnight parking and essentially being penalised due to MOTOs lack of capacity and bad management is a disgrace.

In this instance I will make sure the company pays and it's not passed onto the driver, as the driver was at 15:00 hours duty time, the legal maximum, so could not have lawfully driven anywhere else.

If you want to take them to London Tribunals to appeal the matter, then you have to wait for the Enforcement Notice, appeal that and be rejected, then you can register an appeal at LT.

I suggest you "mug-up" on the LLA Act 1996, in the parts relating to bus lanes and especially Schedule 1 which deals with Enforcement Notices.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1996/9/schedule/1/enacted

Read especially, the paragraph headed Admissibility of certain evidence in the section 7 (1) et seq,

Yeah, I spoke to the driver and he agreed to pay this one. He had no reason to be in the bus lane. It was really indefensible. I thought maybe the HGVs coming the opposite way (as seen in the video I cant share) were possibly encroaching on our vehicles side of the road as there is cars parked on the opposite side. But looking on GSV there is still plenty of room, and if our vehicle was giving them a wide birth, it was by all means, unnecessarily wide.

Whislt it's possible the video doesn't show the vehicle going past upright signage or some other failure in evidence of the contravention. But it was grasping at straws I think.

And I came to the conclusion the PCN itself was in check. I made the mistake of trusting the word of AI initially which sent me down a rabbit hole. Essentially the notice would not be compliant with the original 1996 order but is with the amended version. But damn AI is not just wrong, it is sooo convincingly wrong sometimes it's concerning. The ultimate propaganda machine.

Thanks! Got the job done!  Just thought I'd post the outcome here too so it is archived for anyone else who may have a similar issue in the future

I got a decision for one of the two today that I appealed to POPLA 85 days ago. It was unsuccessful. It is incredibly frustrating how they just skip over raised points or just side with the operator and frankly, just make **** up.

Turns out you can pay £33 for parking and still get shafted because they didnt provide the parking service paid for. Surely that £33 should be coming out of the charge. But nooo MOTO claim to have no relation to GroupNexus/CP Plus, as they operate entirely independently on their own car park according to MOTO.

The assessor can't even identify the **** creditor correctly.

Also says: "In this case, the driver has not parked in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on the signs. Therefore, the consideration period has ended." Sooo, are the signs meant to be read whilst driving then? Wtf?

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor Name: Gemma West

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 terms and conditions of the car park state a £100 PCN will be issued when causing an obstruction to the site, other vehicles and/or car park users. The appellant explains the driver paid the parking tariff, which was a payment of £33 for overnight parking. The receipt was provided within their appeal. The HGV area was full, and the contract was frustrated as no lawful parking services were available. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, and I do not dispute the driver has made a payment.
 
However, the terms and conditions are clear that vehicles must park within a marked bay and not cause an obstruction. I note these comments, I must state for there to be a frustration of contract, the contract had to be impossible to continue, or the contract be radically changed.
However, in this instance the requirement was for the motorist to park within a marked bay and not park causing an obstruction. Whilst I appreciate the appellant has advised there were no parking bays, the driver could have left the car park to avoid the issuance of the parking charge. As such, I do not consider there was a frustration of contract as the driver could have left the car park.
 
The appellant has told us in their response that they consider the charge is unfair contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations and the amount of the PCN is disproportionate . The appeal reasons raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The fairness of parking charges was considered more broadly by the Supreme Court in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis. The court found that the charge was not unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations because the charge was no higher than to achieve the operator's objective of effectively managing the car park. It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage. The Court made it clear that the same considerations that means it was not a penalty also mean it is not unfair. With that in mind, to conclude whether it is unfair according to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, I have to take into account the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable.

The appellant states the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements of PoFA 2012. The company *********** has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the ***********’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. For an operator to transfer liability of unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. Having viewed the notice to keeper issued to the appellant I am satisfied that the operator has complied with Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of PoFA 2012, and that liability of the parking charge was successfully transferred to the keeper at the time of the event. I note the appellant’s comments regarding the identification of the creditor. The operator has provided a copy of its contract with CP Plus of which Group Nexus is a trading name of. In this case, the signs and the PCN identify Group Nexus as the creditor and as they are a trading name of CP Plus, I consider they are a single legal entity. Therefore, I am satisfied the creditor is clear on the signs and the PCN.

The appellant states the allegation of obstruction is prohibitive, not contractual. No evidence of obstruction or reasonable mitigation. In this case, the parking operator has provided images of the signs, which outline the contractual terms and conditions. The signs advise vehicles must be parked within a designated bay but also not parked causing an obstruction. I am satisfied the terms and conditions are a contractual agreement. As the vehicle was observed parked causing an obstruction the terms and conditions were not met. I acknowledge the appellant has provided images to show there were no road markings or signage advising no parking. However, when parking on private land it is the responsibility of the motorist to comply with the terms and conditions. I am satisfied the signs are clear to drivers not to park causing an obstruction. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. Within the parking operator’s evidence pack, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site, along with a site map demonstrating the distribution of the signs throughout. Having reviewed this, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the site’s terms and conditions to the attention of motorists and consider that the appellant was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review them before deciding whether to park. 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. In this case, the parking operator has provided copies of its witness statements.
Upon review of the statements, I am satisfied it demonstrates the operator has the authority to issue parking charges on the land. The appellant states manual taken photographs do not prove the breach. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. In this case, the driver has not parked in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on the signs. Therefore, the consideration period has ended.

The parking operator has provided date and time-stamped images of the vehicle parked which clearly show the vehicle parked causing an obstruction. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver parked causing an obstruction 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.

Quote from: TheParkingmeister on January 14, 2026, 08:13:40 am

Because our head offices only sent me the NoR yesterday, the charge is already at £160. So, there is actually nothing to lose by appealing to London Tribunal.

Don't appeal by post, send the completed forms by email to queries@londontribunals.org.uk

If you'd like me to represent you don't send any forms anywhere and please contact me directly.

I will have to email it, but our head office lost the sodding forms 
If the NoR is issued/posted on Thursday 18th December, it would not be deemed to be served until the second working day after, right? So, it is deemed to have been served Monday the 22nd.

The Tribunal appeal has to be delivered within 28 days. So, I would be pushing my luck sending it by post.

Also, I called TfL yesterday, they told me I can send in my appeal to London Tribunal without the forms. They didn't fill me with confidence but don't have much choice.

Thanks for the offer to represent, but I am an employee of a company so it's not upto me.

Lastly, what would the adjudicators test be for this contravention and appeal? As in, is the test whether a reasonable driver seeing the right turn arrow could miss or understand the upright signs on the traffic lights? That is what happened. But I can't deny that the driver should have seen and understood the upright signs on the lights, but evidently the road marking diverted his attention to safely making the manoeuvre and complying with the yellow box junction whilst waiting for a gap in the oncoming traffic in order to safely make the right turn and also clear the box junction

Please post a GSV link to the location.

Is it not in my post, it should be. https://maps.app.goo.gl/d5z3qWk9GXry8xPo6?g_st=ac

I got the Tribunal decision this morning, unfortunately it just has the standard spiel about 'the EA informing the Tribunal that it will not contest the appeal and the adjudicator allows the appeal without considering the evidnece etc' - In hindsight perhaps if I hadn't requested a full written decision regardless of whether the EA decide to DNC, on Monday, then the EA wouldn't have been notified and wouldn't have uploaded the DNC on Tuesday. And the hearing would have taken place today and my evidence would have been looked at, I could have said my piece, and I would have got the reasoned written decision.

But, if as you say, the hearing would have been cancelled as the EA submitted no evidence anyway, would they still have considered my evidence and written a reasoned decision or would it be the same as a DNC?

Sorry for the questions, just like to better understand.

PM sent.

Ahh I see, thanks! I will keep that in mind in future.

The council submitted a DNC to the Tribunal portal yesterday.