Free Traffic Legal Advice

I write to formally contest the above Penalty Charge Notice on the grounds that there was no contravention of an order, or failure to comply with an indication on a sign.

The driver entered James Street from the correct end of the road. She then performed a U-turn and drove back out the way she came. In doing so, she passed the reverse side of the "one way" sign. There were no "no entry" signs present at the point of entry or anywhere visible to the driver.

The contravention alleged — 29J, failing to comply with a one-way restriction — requires evidence that the driver passed prescribed "one way" signage facing them, and then failed to comply with it. That situation did not occur here. The driver entered lawfully from the correct end, and when she exited, she saw only the back of the sign, which carries no legal instruction to a road user.
Furthermore, at the time of the alleged contravention, the one-way sign on the left-hand side of James Street was obscured by construction hoarding and was not visible to the driver upon entry. A motorist cannot be found to have failed to comply with a sign that was not visible to them.

I rely on two directly relevant tribunal decisions:

Case 2240458865 — Khatun v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (12 November 2024), which concerned an identical 29J contravention on James Street itself. Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne allowed the appeal on the basis that the CCTV footage did not show the vehicle passing any one-way signage facing the driver, that the left-hand sign was completely obscured by construction hoarding, and that a motorist cannot fail to comply with a sign that is not facing them.

Case 2230158559 — London Borough of Havering (15 April 2023), in which Adjudicator Jack Walsh allowed an appeal against an identical 29J contravention, holding that the contravention requires proof that the driver passed prescribed one-way signage face-on. Where a vehicle travels in the wrong direction, the driver sees only the backs of the signs, and the contravention is incapable of proof.
The CCTV footage in this case will show the vehicle entering from the correct end, making a U-turn, and exiting. It cannot show the driver passing a "one way" sign face-on and ignoring it, because that did not happen. The signage was in any event not fit for purpose due to the hoarding obstruction.

I respectfully request that this Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.

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.