Free Traffic Legal Advice

I would mention the PoFA issue and expressly invite the operator to demonstrate that the wording is present by providing a copy of the NtK with the mandatory warning outlined in a colour of your choice.

How would the RK do this though, they have already appealed the operator decision (which was rejected). PP no longer provide a way to submit any further communication.  Their appeals page says the PCN has already been appealed and the only route forward is through POPLA.  This is quite odd since even their reply is worded in such a way to appear final only conditional to no further comeback from RK.

Can the PoFA issue be referred directly to POPLA in the independent appeal?

Could I kindly request a review ahead of an upcoming appeal to POPLA.

A NTK was sent for an ANPR-recorded 3h29 parking session where the driver had prepaid for 3h.  The RK sent the following note to appeal:

--

I am writing to you as the Registered Keeper of the above-mentioned vehicle to formally dispute the Parking Charge Notice xxx issued on xx. I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement to your company for the reasons given below.

1. Evidence of Payment & Performance of Contract

The driver of the vehicle acted in good faith and purchased 3 hours of parking. I have attached a bank transaction screenshot as evidence that a payment of £2 was successfully debited to Premier Park Ltd on the date of the event. While the ticket machine failed to produce a physical receipt confirming the VRM entry, the financial transaction proves that a contract was entered into and the consideration (payment) was fulfilled. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, a contract cannot be deemed breached simply due to a minor clerical error or a machine’s failure to issue a receipt, provided the core obligation (payment) was met.

2. Frustration of Contract: External Obstruction

The ANPR logs indicate a total duration of 3 hours and 29 minutes. However, the driver was physically prevented from exiting the site at the conclusion of the paid period. Upon attempting to leave, the vehicle was obstructed by a large passenger bus which blocked the exit thoroughfare for a significant duration. This constitutes Frustration of Contract—a well-established legal principle where an unforeseen external event prevents a party from performing their contractual obligations. The driver remained with the vehicle and exited at the first available opportunity once the obstruction cleared. As the delay was beyond the driver's control, no breach of terms occurred.

3.  Failure to apply the mandatory grace period (BPA Code of Practice breach – primary ground)
Premier Park Ltd is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and is bound by The private parking sector single Code of Practice (v1.1 including Annex B).
Section 5.1 (Consideration Period): Drivers must be allowed a minimum of 5 minutes to read signs and park.
Section 5.2 (Grace Period): A minimum 10-minute grace period must be applied after the expiry of paid parking.

The total "overstay" beyond the 3 hours paid is 29 minutes. When the mandatory 5-minute consideration period and 10-minute grace period are deducted, the "unaccounted" time is reduced to 14 minutes. This 14-minute window is entirely accounted for by the exit obstruction mentioned above.

4. ANPR Timestamps Accuracy vs "Period of Parking"

The ANPR cameras record the time of entry and exit at the boundary of the site, not the period of parking. Time spent driving through the car park, looking for a space, or waiting for a bus to clear the exit does not constitute "parking." As held in VCS v Ward [2024], the time between the camera capture and the actual act of parking is not chargeable time.

Proposed Resolution

Given that payment was made and the remaining minutes were the result of an exit obstruction rather than a voluntary overstay, I request that this charge be cancelled.

However, in the interest of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and to avoid unnecessary litigation, I am prepared to offer a nominal administrative fee of £10 to cover the costs of processing the payment without a receipt record. This offer is made strictly without prejudice and is intended to settle the matter proportionately, as the current charge of £100 is an unenforceable penalty under these specific circumstances.

If you choose to reject this appeal, please provide a POPLA verification code so that I may escalate this matter. Since your PCN is a vague template, I will require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. The data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made at the PDT machine - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it in detail. If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner. Please note that I will include the bank statement evidence and details of the exit obstruction in my submission to POPLA and any further legal proceedings, and I will be seeking a full dismissal of your charges.

--

Premier Park then responded with:

--

Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN). We have carefully considered your appeal, however on this occasion the appeal has been rejected for the following reason;

Whilst we note the comments and reason for appeal advising you made payment, we can confirm that insufficient evidence has been provided to substantiate your claims. Payment was not made for your full parking period. The photographic evidence indicates the length of time the vehicle remained on site; this information is then cross-referenced with the data from the payment services.

The vehicle remained on site for a total parking period of 3 hours and 29 minutes, meaning the whole period of parking was not paid for. By remaining on site, this means you are agreeing to the advertised terms and can comply with them. As your vehicle was not authorised to remain on site for the full duration of stay, we can confirm that this PCN has been issued correctly.

We have considered this PCN and found that it does not fall under the category of Annex F the Appeals Charter of the Single Code of Practice. Therefore, if no further evidence is provided, we will deem this to be our final decision.

--

Can the RK send the same appeal text to POPLA, or should it further be tweaked to call out some standard points (authorisation from landowner, frustration of contract leaving the car park, ANPR records vs grace period, the PC ignoring requests for landowner agreed grace period and PDT machine record of payment, etc.)?

Many thanks in advance!