Free Traffic Legal Advice

@b789 @DWMB2
Any thoughts folks?

Copied the text from the case notes below.

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Gayle Stanton

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on the site and the driver failed to pay for the full duration of stay.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • There was no adequate notice of the terms and conditions of the car park and the operator cannot prove that the driver say and understood the terms. • The PCN does not comply with - PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 5 and keeper liability cannot exist. • No proof of valid authority from landowner In the comments the appellant has reiterated and expanded on their grounds of appeal. They state that the operator has not provided sufficient evidence that it has authority to issue PCNs on the land. They add that the PCN was not delivered in time. The appellant has provided four images of the signage as evidence to support their appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators are required to comply with. Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice explains that an entrance sign is not mandatory in areas where drivers would not reasonably assume parking was permissible or where it’s not practicable, such as small shop forecourts or where planning restrictions prohibit signs. The images of the entrance signs advise that terms and conditions apply and that there are signs in the car park. 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. The operator and the appellant have provided evidence of the signage on the site and this advises that payment is required and that failing to pay will result in a PCN being issued. Due to the above I am satisfied that the signage on the site complies Section 3.1.1., 3.1.3 of The Code. I note that the appellant states that they were unaware of the terms and conditions, however, it is important to note that the driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. Reviewing the photographic evidence of the signage on display at the site and the site map, I am satisfied that the driver would have walked or driven past at least one of the operator’s signs and as such, was afforded this opportunity. The appellant has stated that they question whether the operator has authority to issue PCNs on the site. The operator has advised in the case file that it has authorisation from the landowner to operate the land. I have also taken into consideration the fact there are signs in situ and if authority had since been removed, it is likely that the landowner would remove the signage at the same time. I am therefore satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. 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. The appellant states that the PCN is not PoFA compliant. 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. At POPLA, we accept all evidence from both parties in good faith, and unless proven otherwise, we assume it to be correct. While I do not refute the appellant’s version of events, it is entirely possible that the Notice to Keeper did not arrive due to a third- party issue concerning the appellant’s postal the delivery service. It is outside of POPLA’s remit to assess any aspect of a third- party issue. As such, I will work on the basis that the operator issued the Notice to Keeper and posted this to the appellant’s address. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and therefore if no payment can be located for the correct vehicle registration, a PCN is issued. After considering the evidence from both parties the vehicle was parked on the site and the driver did not pay for parking and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly therefore, I must refuse the appeal. This means the appellant is required to pay the full parking charge to the operator.

For the record, i did get an email back from the council earlier this afternoon. They want "written authorisation from the Registered Keeper" to allow me to speak on their behalf (my wife is the registered keeper). At this point, I'll hold fire and won't respond.

Noted. Thanks for pointing this out.

I've just sent the email to Redbridge council and will keep you folks posted.

Quote from: Hippocrates on December 05, 2025, 05:42:14 pm

Yes just read it. They have removed all the plates now which is a strong point.

  Not round the corner from me they haven't.  And on some of these signs, the blue matching tape/film which was used to cover up "term-time only" has mysteriously disappeared, exposing and displaying the phrase once again.


I've just skimmed the Evidence Pack and (unless I've missed it), whilst LBR rely upon and refer to it explicitly in the 1st paragraph on pg6, the TMO itself makes no reference to the term "Term-Time only" or its related sign.  Why the sign then? As it only leads to confusion as term-time is not 24/7, 365 days of the year, which the TMO implies.

The TMO also makes numerous reference to Column 5 of the Schedule.....which doesn't exist??

Is this more missing evidence? What is the best approach in getting hold of any missing/referenced evidence?

Thanks.

OP, I cannot find the following in the evidence:

Support for the statements in para.1 of page 3 of the Council's Summary e.g. DfT guidance etc.

The part of the TMO which refers to 'traffic signs'.

For others, I cannot find the cited ETA decisions in para. 2, have they been referenced correctly?

For what it's worth, as regards the contravention IMO the issues for the adjudicator are:

1.What does the Traffic Management Order provide;
2.Is this conveyed adequately by traffic signs to meet the legal test i.e. as a minimum LATOR?

1. An all-year round restriction as set out in col. 4 of item 1 of the Schedule to the TMO. There is NO legal authority for 'term-time' only within the order.

2. The signs comprise an unspecified advance warning sign and at the entrance to the restricted area a prescribed traffic sign together with 'colourful on-street information signs that are designed to catch the eye of ... drivers.'

The 'colourful signs' are therefore considered by the council to form part of the regulatory signage at this point. However, the signs in combination do not convey the legal position which is, according to the TMO, a 365-day restriction.
Self-evidently, the council has failed to meet the LATOR test.

The council appears to want matters both ways: to have a TMO which is made by a formal process of corporate council decision-making and consultation which is then varied at a whim by departmental officers who ignore its provisions by failing to enforce as required.

If 'procedural impropriety' was a ground of appeal, I'd include it.

@H C Andersen
I've just gone through the evidence pack (hard copy) again, and there are only 13 pages (26 sides) - are you saying some of the evidence is missing?