Free Traffic Legal Advice

Based on the information and evidence available, the position is as follows.

The entrance sign at Jasmine Way is compliant with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). It clearly identifies the land as private, states that parking on the roadway is not permitted, and informs drivers that terms and conditions apply within the controlled land. The signage meets the requirements for an entrance sign and validly establishes that the area is subject to parking control.

The terms signage within the land expressly prohibits parking on the roadway and pavements at any time and states that a parking charge applies for failure to comply with those terms. There is no dispute that the vehicle was parked partially on the pavement and on the roadway, and photographic evidence confirms this. The location and conduct are not in dispute.

On that basis, and taken strictly as a matter of contract formation and breach, the driver did breach a contractual term displayed on the signage. The wording used on the Notice to Keeper, “No Parking Permitted”, while imprecise, is substantively consistent with the prohibition conveyed by the signage at that location.

Accordingly, on the facts as they stand, with a PoFA compliant NtK, the Keeper is more or less bang to rights on the issue of breach of contract.

The only realistic avenue left to challenge liability on signage grounds would be if the you can demonstrate that the signage represents a material change to pre-existing terms and conditions and that it had not been in place for at least four months prior to the date of the alleged contravention. If the signs were installed, replaced, or materially altered within four months of the event, and no additional temporary entrance notices were displayed as required by the Code of Practice, that would undermine the operator’s reliance on the signage.

If the Keeper cannot establish that point, then on signage and contractual breach alone, there is no meaningful defence.

You seem to be under the impression that if this were to progress to a county court claim that you would lose. As per the MSE forum (where I also advise), the vast majority of claims never reach a hearing as they are more likely to be struck out or discontinued.

NPM usually use the utterly incompetent Gladstones for their claims and I can guarantee you that any claim issued by Gladrags will be in breach of CPR 16.4(1)(a) which means it is highly likely to be struck out, because of their failure to specify a cause of action in the Particulars of Claim (PoC).

According to GSV, as of July this year, there was no compliant entrance sign to the private road which means that if any new parking enforcement regime was introduced within the last 4 months, NPM were required not only to have an entrance sign that complies with the requirements of the PPSCoP, but to also have additional signs that highlight that there has been a material change to any parking terms and conditions.

I'm assuming you parked on Jasmine way to visit the businesses on The Green and Main Street. Just because the street sign at Jasmine way says it is private land, does not form a contract with the driver and NPM. There must be a clear sign informing drivers that they are entering private land that is controlled nd to seek signs that contain the terms and conditions. Without that, there is no contract formation with the driver.

The double yellow lines are irrelevant to the Highway Code when parked on private land. Any terms and conditions signs must explain that parking is not permitted on DYL's and those terms signs must be prominent and easy to find.

Can you get any contemporaneous photos of an entrance sign and any terms and conditions sign near where the driver parked? (outside #1) Show us the other photos they claim they have on their website.

We need to see the back of the PCN - I may not be PoFA compliant.

Has the driver been revealed? You say that you had guidance - all guidance is not to reveal the driver.