Free Traffic Legal Advice

I thought so as much. I think at this point it might be a dead end to convince the landowners to cancel this, as they were unwilling to even try. The shops in the building will definitely lose my business for good irrespective of the outcome.

I will wait to hear back from CEL to see if they take this forward.

Thank you b789!

You're a legend 

I have sent this response to them by post and email.
I will wait to hear back from them and come back with an update.

I just had the POPLA appeal outcome. They rejected it.

Should I just wait to see if they take it to court, or should I be doing anything else in the meanwhile?
Is it worth raising a compliant with the BPA? Or should I just wait and see if I receive a LBC?

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When entering onto a private car park such as this one, a motorist might form a contract with the parking operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The contract on site is a pay for parking car park and permit holders can register their vehicle registration. The operator provided photographic evidence of the vehicle in question remaining in the car park for 29 minutes and didn’t register their vehicle registration. In relation to point 1: The appellant was present on site during hours when public parking is not permitted. It is the responsibility of the motorist to observe and comply with the clearly displayed signage. The operator is under no obligation to offer public parking between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM. The terms and conditions for parking on the site are set by the landowner, not the motorist. It is the motorist’s duty to ensure they are parking in accordance with these terms. Failure to do so may result in the issuance of a Parking Charge Notice. In relation to point 2: This sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code). 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. Section 3.1.2 of the Code contains the principles the entrance sign must display, including whether public parking is available and if a payment is required. Its design must also comply with the standard format as described in Annex A. The entrance sign must take into account the speed of vehicles approaching the car park. The operator's evidence proves clear entrance signage. 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. I am satisfied that the signage on site meets the single code of practice. Furthermore, the signage is clear that public parking is Monday to Friday 6pm – 7am. The signage does not mislead motorists as the font is large and clear when public parking is. The smaller writing tells motorists that public parking is only permitted 7am – 6pm, Monday to Friday. But is still clear for the motorists to see. The obligation lies with the motorist to read the full sign and ensure they are fully aware of the terms and conditions. Furthermore, the signage does not breach the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as it is clear, abundant. Additionally, that they app payment details are clear and there to advertise the payment method only. It does not mislead motorists into thinking the app payment is at all times. The responsibility lies with the motorist to read the signage carefully. In relation to point 3: The reason why the payment appellant showed zero, was because it was not possible to pay for parking during the time the driver was on site. The time they were parked the car park was for permit holders only which was clearly stated in the signage. In relation to point 4: In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I will therefore be assessing the appellant’s liability as the keeper of the vehicle. I can see from the Notice to Keeper (NTK) that it meets POFA and the keeper has rightly been pursued for the parking event. In relation to point 5: There is not requirement for the posting date as the parking event was 09/05/25 and the PCN was issued 7 days later. It is assumed that the PCN would be delivered 2 days after the postage date, which would take the PCN to 19 May as the delivery date, which is still only 10 days after the parking event and well within the POFA guidelines. In relation to point 6: 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 I can see from the operator's evidence pack that they have included an Enforcement Agreement to prove they have authority to issue the PCN. POPLA accepts Enforcement Agreements from operators to confirm they have landowner authority to operate at a site, and we do this because it is only a small part of confirming on the balance of probabilities that they have landowner authority. The fact that they have signs, camera, personnel, etc, at the site also supports that proof. While I note the appellant’s comments, from the information provided from the operator I am satisfied therefore, that the operator had sufficient authority on the date of the contravention. Furthermore, if authority had since been removed, it is likely that the landowner would remove the signage at the same time. Not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission. In relation to point 7: I note the appellant's comments, however, the operator's only responsibility is to ensure the third party payment provider’s details are correct on the signage. The operator has no authority over what information the third party payment provider presents on its app. Any complaints about the third party payment provider would need to be raised with them directly outside of this appeals service. I note the appellant's comments. As POPLA is an independent body we are unable to become involved with anything to do with the costs, collections, or payments of the PCN. Any questions regarding payment would need to be addressed with the operator directly. POFA does not state a requirements for payment time frames - it only states the time frames in which the keeper will become liable, which is the warning - and this warning has been correctly given. They can contact the operator for further payment issues or queries. I acknowledge the appellant states the charge is disproportionate and does not reflect the loss to the landowner. The appeal reasons raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. 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 itself. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the legibility of 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. Ultimately, the crux of this case is that the driver entered the car park during a time when the car park was a permit holders only car park and public paid parking was not permitted. The signage was clear and told motorists public paid parking is only available Monday to Friday 6pm – 7am. The appellant should have left the car park as soon as they read the signage, rather than trying to pay for parking when payment was not possible. it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. The car park had clear signage to advise the driver of the terms and conditions. Upon consideration of the evidence provided, the driver parked during a time when they were not permitted to park or should have registered their vehicle registration and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. This PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I have refused this appeal.

Hello,

Thank you for your help!

I have made a draft as below

1. No Contract Was Formed – Signage Does Not Offer Parking to the Public Between 7am–6pm Weekdays
The signage at the site (Urban Student Life, 1 Devon Street, Liverpool) fails to make any clear offer of parking to the general public during weekday hours of 7am to 6pm. The sign states, in small print, that the area is for “permit holders only” during these times. There is no price listed for public use during these hours, nor is there any invitation to park or pay.

This means no offer was made, and thus no valid contract could be formed for a non-permit holder. A contract cannot be enforced if no clear offer is made to the driver at the time of parking. This PCN was issued during this exact restricted time window (09 May 2025, 12:10 to 12:39), when public parking was not available or offered by the operator.

2. Signage is Misleading and Fails Consumer Protection Standards
The core restriction—permit holders only from 7am to 6pm—is buried in small print and not clearly brought to the attention of drivers. According to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA):

Section 68 requires that any contract term must be “transparent and prominent.”

Section 62 states that unfair terms are not binding on the consumer.

Schedule 2 flags terms as potentially unfair where they impose a disproportionate financial burden.

In this case, a driver entering the site could reasonably believe they can pay to park using the app, as per the larger, more visible information. But the restriction in the small print contradicts this, and a £100 charge is excessive when the driver had no fair opportunity to understand they were in breach.

3. App Confirms That No Payment Option Was Offered
I attempted to pay using the official app (evidence attached – screenshot taken at the same location), and the app showed a £0.00 charge, with no option to pay. This supports the position that no contract was offered or accepted.

If the system doesn’t allow a user to pay during those hours, this further confirms that no public parking is available, and no enforceable contract exists for the public. This strengthens the argument that the driver was set up to fail and unfairly penalised.

4. The Operator Has Not Identified the Driver
This Notice to Keeper has been issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), but no evidence has been supplied that the operator has identified the driver. I am the registered keeper and do not admit to being the driver. Liability under PoFA must therefore be established strictly according to the requirements of the Act, which have not been demonstrated.

5. Strict Proof of Date of Posting Required
The NtK was received several days after its issue date (16 May 2025). I require the operator to provide strict proof of posting date, including evidence of postage and a certificate of posting, in accordance with Schedule 4 of PoFA. Without this, the operator cannot demonstrate compliance with the requirement to serve the notice within the prescribed time limits.

6. Lack of Evidence of Landowner Authority
The operator is put to strict proof that they have a valid contract with the landowner which allows them to issue parking charges and enforce them in their own name. The BPA Code of Practice (Section 7) requires operators to have written authorisation from the landowner to manage and enforce parking.

This must include:

The identity of the landowner(s)

A site boundary plan

The terms and conditions being enforced

Duration of agreement

Details of how and where charges can be issued

A generic statement will not suffice. The contract must be specific to this site and cover the date in question. If the operator fails to provide this documentation, the charge must be cancelled.



Is this enough for the appeal or would you recommend adding anything else?

Thanks!