Free Traffic Legal Advice

"The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

I am satisfied from the Landowner Authority documents provided that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them.

Images, including a site map have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site.

The terms and conditions of parking at this location are such that drivers must clearly display a valid permit in the front windscreen of their vehicle with all of the details clearly visible at all times. In the photographs provided to me it is clear that no such permit was displayed. The Appellant's contention that the permit was displayed and could have been seen had the parking attendant got closer to the vehicle is not accepted as the photographs clearly show that this is not the case. The Appellant's own image shows no permit on display with all details visible as required by the signage. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they clearly display a valid permit and otherwise conform with the terms and conditions of the Operator's signage displayed at this site. The Appellant claims to have rights under their tenancy agreement but provides no documentary evidence of any such rights. Even if a right to park exists without sight of the documents setting out such a right, I cannot be satisfied that they are not restricted by other provisions. Even if the Appellant does have an unrestricted right to park in their tenancy agreement, I am unable to allow the appeal on this basis. The Appellant is correct that a right in a lease would ordinarily have primacy, and the Operator could not unilaterally override this. however, by agreeing to display a permit (which the Appellant states he was doing at the time of the parking event), and take part in the car park management scheme, the Appellant has waived any rights they had to park without restriction. The Appellant cannot take advantage of the scheme when it benefits them and disregard it when it does not. As a genuine permit holder the Appellant has my sympathy, but the guidance to appeal is clear that I may only consider legal issues not mitigating or extenuating circumstances. The Appellant's argument that the NTK does not comply with PoFA is also not accepted. The time and date stamped photographs show different times on them and therefore show a period of parking and as the Operator states the Operator is only required to show that no permit was displayed not a period of parking such as where the PCN relates to a period of unpaid parking. As such, on the basis of the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in breach of the displayed terms and conditions and that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion.

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.
"

1. We note that parking operators are entitled to up to six months from the date of a parking event in order to lawfully request keeper details from the DVLA for the purposes of lawfully issuing a charge, and subsequently up to six years to pursue the outstanding sum of this charge. We have adhered to this timescale.

2. The supplied contravention photographs are time and date stamped and confirm that the appellant's vehicle was observed in situ for 11 minutes and 39 seconds before the PCN was issued. This was a fair and reasonable period.

1. The time and date contravention photographs clearly show that at the time observation by the PO no valid permit was displayed in the windscreen of the appellant's vehicle, as per the clearly advertised contractual terms and conditions of parking.

2. A person can enter into a contract either by expressly agreeing to do so or by acting in such a way that they can be said to have implied agreement to enter into a contract. Where notice is given to a motorist of the consequences of parking in a particular area, by implications a motorist enters into a contract with VCS and accepts the terms set out in the Notice by proceeding to park. The appellant's residency of an adjacent property did not nullify their only park in compliance of the terms and conditions.

3. The NTK complies with the POFA 2012. The PCN was issued for a parking period related contravention; it was issued for the contravention parking without displaying a valid permit.

Grounds of Appeal:

1. No Valid Contract – Pre-Existing Parking Rights Granted by Tenancy Agreement

The Appellant is the lawful residential tenant of the property associated with the parking space in question. An Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement (AST) grants the Appellant an express and exclusive right to use an allocated parking space. The AST does not contain any clause requiring the display of a permit, nor does it incorporate or acknowledge the signage, terms, or scheme operated by the parking company.

The Appellant's rights under the tenancy agreement override any alleged third-party terms displayed on signs. The operator is put to strict proof that their signage terms can override an existing contractual right of quiet enjoyment and exclusive use, and that any such signage forms part of the tenant's agreed obligations.

2. No Evidence of Contravention – Permit Displayed / Not Required

The operator has not shown that any contravention occurred. The vehicle was parked in the Appellant’s allocated space. A valid permit was present on the dashboard at the time, although the operator’s photograph is inconclusive. In any event, the AST grants an unqualified right to park, and the display of a permit has always been a courtesy, not a condition. There is no breach of any enforceable term.

3. No Standing to Enforce – No Evidence of a Valid Landowner Contract

The Appellant puts the operator to strict proof that they hold a valid, contemporaneous, and unredacted contract with the landowner, not a managing agent, which:

• Grants them authority to enter into contracts with drivers;
• Permits them to issue Parking Charge Notices (or Penalty Notices, as described on the NtK);
• Allows enforcement on residential tenant-controlled spaces.

A copy of the superior lease (if any) is not binding on the Appellant unless it has been incorporated into the AST and provided to the tenant, which it has not.

If the operator cannot produce such a contract, their authority to operate at this site is in serious doubt.

4. Failure to Establish Keeper Liability under PoFA 2012

The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a), because it does not specify the required “period of parking.” A single timestamp is not a period. This failure invalidates any attempt to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper. If the assessor is indeed a solicitor or a barrister they should be familiar with the persuasive appeal decision in Scott Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (2023) [H6DP632H].

Furthermore, the operator has not shown that the vehicle was parked for longer than the minimum consideration period required under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (Section 5.1). No contract could have been formed without first allowing the driver an opportunity to review and accept the terms.

Conclusion

The Appellant denies any contractual liability and invites the assessor to require the operator to either:

• Provide the unredacted landowner contract showing their lawful authority to issue charges at residential properties, including over spaces subject to tenancy rights;
• Acknowledge that the alleged breach is unsupported by evidence and withdraw the charge.

Should this appeal be dismissed, the Appellant will consider the matter closed and will not engage further outside of formal litigation. Any claim will be defended robustly and with full reliance on tenancy rights, evidential deficiencies, and operator misconduct.