Free Traffic Legal Advice

I only have 2 days left to respond. Is there anything worthwhile I can say?

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 23/04/2026 15:03:37.

The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
The Notice to Keeper (Non-ANPR) was sent on 10/03/2026.
The ticket was issued on 10/03/2026.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...
1. Unit 1, Topps Tiles is a private Car Park which motorists are allowed to enter for the purpose of access and to park their vehicle as long as they abide by any Terms and Conditions displayed.

2. The signage where the appellant parked their vehicle onsite states: ‘Topps Tiles Customer Parking Only Whilst on the Premises Park Wholly Within the Lines of a Single Marked Bay'. The signage makes it clear that any motorist parking in contravention of the terms and conditions will be liable for a PCN.

3. Site Photographs supplied show that the signage is appropriately within the car park. The adjudicator will note that the VCS signage onsite, including its wording and positioning has been audited by the IPC, has passed audit, complies with the Code of Practice and is deemed fit for purpose.

4. Enforcement for parking contraventions at this car site is undertaken by patrol officers who use a Hand Held Terminal (HHT) to record details of any vehicle and its registration number, which may be parked in contravention of the advertised Terms & Conditions. Those images and other relevant information are uploaded in real time to a secure portal, where the information is reviewed. No formal Parking Charge Notice is affixed to the vehicle; instead, a Notice to Keeper is subsequently issued by post, this practice falls in line with the process and procedures as per site management using ANPR technology.

5. As registered keeper, we are holding the appellant liable for the Charge Notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, details of which were explained in the formal Notice sent on 05/03/2026. We note that the appellant has also declined to name the driver of their vehicle at the time of the incident in question. It is important that we make the adjudicator aware that we will rely on the keeper liability provisions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and as such, do not require those details.

6. The NTK is PoFA compliant.

7. The design, wording and layout of the NTK comply with our industry's Single Code of Practice.

8. A series of images were taken showing the location of the vehicle in relation to the signs on site, they are time and date stamped and show the appellant's vehicle parked adjacent to at least one of the warning signs.

9. The Patrol Officer (PO) observed the appellant's vehicle in situ. When digitally recording the contravention the PO noted, ‘Contra 81. parked in topps tiles parking and went to the mosque.'

10. Contravention photographs supplied, which are time and date stamped, show the appellant's vehicle parked in situ for over a minute, in close proximity to VCS contractual signage.

11. As the driver was observed leaving the site, they ceased to be a customer on the premises. The appellant's vehicle was therefore parked contrary to the Terms and Conditions of parking during this time. No evidence has been presented that contests the PO's statement.

12. A grace period would normally be allowed on a car park in respect of vehicles which are permitted to park; however in this case, as the driver was observed to leave the premises, the vehicle was not permitted to park where it did and no grace period was applicable.

13. The contract between the appellant and VCS was formed when the motorist entered the site. When entering this private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions advertised in return for permission to enter. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they abide by any clearly displayed terms and conditions; otherwise the motorist would face liability for a Charge Notice.

14. The appellant had no cause to believe that they could park onsite when they were not a Topps Tiles' customer.

15. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they are familiar with the Terms and Conditions displayed on the signage in private land on which they park. We maintain that our signs are clearly visible and meet the requirements set by the International Parking Community guidelines. As established members of the International Parking Community, we adhere to their Code of Practice. This Code of Practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the car park. The signs within the car park fully comply with the recommendations outlined in the Code of Practice and are therefore deemed reasonable. At the time of the contravention the vehicle would have been using headlights. Headlights would have illuminated our signage, which is reflective for this purpose. Once the presence of the signs is revealed, it is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they have read the signs and are familiar with the Terms and Conditions before leaving their vehicle parked in situ.

16. A helpline telephone number (open 24 hours per day) is clearly displayed on all VCS signage for any motorist experiencing difficulty or who has any questions or concerns. This was not utilised by the motorist. If the terms and conditions were in any way unclear to the motorist, or they were unsure if they applied to them, they had the option of contacting us for advice.

17. We maintain that the terms and conditions were sufficiently brought to the appellant's attention at the time of the parking event.

18. By parking in an area for customers of Topps Tiles only whilst not a customer, the appellant became liable for this charge as per the displayed Terms and Conditions.

Draft to IAS (feedback requested)

I appeal to you on the grounds that the notice to keeper sent violates PoFA schedule 4, 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(f) by omitting the period of parking and failing to specify: "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)".

I would also hasten to add that the contravention is alleged to have occurred outside of store opening hours thus there is no possibility of any detriment having been caused to the landowner.

For these reasons I kindly request that you overrule the charge. Thank you

Brilliant!
Great to have eagle eyed pro's like you on our side
Cheers

Hi everyone,

My cousin thought it was safe to use the Topps Tiles car park after store closing hours . The store have said they can't cancel it as  it was outside of their operating times.

The PCN was only passed on to me today and 16 days have passed. What's the best route to appeal?
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/156va0NhCWbrev19DeBrmoaYNnJCw2zrW
PCN here:

Letter from ETA received today. Apparently we need to substantiate our witness statement and produce the original representation! 🤦🏻‍♂️
https://drive.google.com/file/d/108VGBY4aFDBPcW1Trd6P5cwTArUIux1q/view?usp=drivesdk

Are the OFR/TEC-statement amongst the dossier of documents listed here?

If not, then should I expect them prior to the adjudication?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-sXSEqHsAbGHdAtJp-ZFKqjSYsaSzN2C/view?usp=drivesdk

FYI, these order for recovery came through. How can I send the PE3 by email? To what email address?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N0MRZJXFKj6aAbOizukWAWdx3dXseh25/view?usp=drivesdk