Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear Sir or Madam,

All photos referred to are in the attached word document and labelled with a heading.

I wish to challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice.

I am not local to this area and am unfamiliar with the parking restrictions that may apply. I, therefore, have to rely on the signage in place to be informed of any restrictions.

The alleged contravention did not occur because the restriction was not clearly signed in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD).

The route I took into Paget Road was from Ilford Lane → Jersey Road → Lowbrook Road → Paget Road. At no point along this route were the restriction signs visible or legible:

•   The entry signs to Jersey Road were defaced (photo 1)
•   All signs along Jersey Road were defaced (photos 2 - 5).
•   On Paget Road, the sign adjacent to where the vehicle was parked was facing the wrong way and defaced (photos 6–7).
•   On Lowbrook Road, the only other visible sign from this location was also defaced (photo .
•   On Lowbrook Road, the next nearest sign within walking distance was also defaced (photo 9).

I note that your Civil Enforcement Officer’s evidence has photographed a sign roughly 100 metres from where the vehicle was parked (photo 10 which the CEO produced as evidence). I have attached photo 13 which shows the location of the 5 closest signs, circled in green, to the parking space - all of which were defaced. The CEO had to walk 100m (photo 14 showing the distance to this sign) to the sign marked "number 4" in order to produce a photo for evidence. This is further confirmed by the timestamp on the photo which is 3 minutes after the photo of the vehicle was taken, showing they needed to walk some considerable distance.

I also note that the CEO seems to have intentionally not photographed the defaced sign right next to the parked vehicle. The angle of the photo they have taken conveniently leaves this sign out of shot (photo 11). You can refer to my own photo 15 and photo 16 showing the defaced sign next to the vehicle. This demonstrates that the signage within the vicinity of the vehicle was inadequate.

The TSRGD and associated case law and adjudicator decisions confirm that restrictions must be signed so they are clear, either upon entering a zone, or at the point of parking. Motorists cannot be expected to walk several minutes to discover a restriction, particularly when the nearest signs are obscured. As this is a zone where restrictions apply, the entry into the zone can be relied on to enforce those restrictions. However, as my evidence shows, this sign was also defaced.

In light of the above, I respectfully request that this Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled, as the contravention did not occur due to inadequate signage.

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning 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. From the evidence provided in the operator’s case file, it is clear that the registered keeper of the vehicle is ARVAL UK LTD, which provided the operator with the name of the person which had hired or leased the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. This company/person is xxxxx to which the operator then issued a Notice to Hirer. The appellant has confirmed in their appeal to the operator that the person xxxxx, is the hirer of the vehicle. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, paragraph 4 (1) states “the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. Section 13 (2) goes on to state that “the creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given – (a) A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement. (b) A copy of the hire agreement; and (c) A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.” As such, Section 14(2)(a) requires the documents referred to above to be sent together with the Notice to Hirer. The operator has failed to provide a copy of these documents in its evidence to POPLA. As a result, I am not satisfied that the operator has met the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012. I therefore conclude that the operator issued the PCN incorrectly. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.