Free Traffic Legal Advice

Firstly, I note that the appellant has raised multiple appeals with POPLA. I must advise that POPLA assess all appeals on an impartial case by case basis and as such each PCN must be appealed by the motorist separately. In this instance I am only assessing the appeal for POPLA code: 6061785462 which was issued to PCN number 238538/566743.

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut the appellant’s claims and prove that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly.

This PCN has been issued for not gaining at the appropriate permit/authorisation. When parking on private land, the parking contract is between the motorist and the operator through the terms on its signs.

The signage at this site states parking is for patrons only and they must enter their vehicle registration into the terminal at reception on arrival to obtain a permit for the duration of their stay.

The parking operator has provided details from its system to show the appellants vehicle was on site for 23 hours and 4 minutes and their vehicle registration was not listed as having registered to obtain a permit.

The appellant has said in their appeal that the entrance sign was not visible as the driver entered the site. They have said this is inadequate and incorrectly positioned facing a dead-end road not oncoming traffic. The appellant has said that since the sign is not visible to incoming drivers, no terms were communicated, and therefore no contract could have been formed, breaching the BPA Code of Practice.

The appellant has acknowledged that the terms are displayed deeper inside the car park, but said no opportunity was given to consider or reject the contract before it was deemed to have begun. After viewing the parking operator’s case file, the appellant has said Parking Eye have not addressed or rebutted this as their photo of the entrance sign is misleading, as it is a close-up image that does not show whether the sign is visible from a vehicle on approach.

The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.2 states parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land, and Section 19.3 says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms within the site. Within their case file the parking operator has provided a site map and images of the signage situated throughout the site, including the site entrance. The site map shows the entrance sign is positioned on the left side of the entrance as you approach it.

The appellant has provided a photo from dashcam footage taken on 28/04/2025 and they say this shows that no signage was visible at the point of entry and a photo of the same sign taken on 07/05/25, saying this shows it is facing away from oncoming traffic. The appellants images show the sign at the entrance, which I am satisfied would be seen by a driver if approaching the site from the right, as it is facing that direction. However, if a motorist is approaching the site from the left, the appellants evidence shows they would see the back of the sign and if they were then to turn into the site, and the driver’s seat is on the right, they may not see this sign. Therefore, from the evidence provided, it appears entirely possible that a motorist could enter the site from this direction and not see the entrance sign. They then would not be aware they were entering private land or that parking restrictions applied and therefore would not be expected to look for terms and conditions signage within the site.

The image of the entrance sign the operator has provided has been taken in close proximity and therefore does not show how this appears to drivers when entering the site. Therefore in this instance, I acknowledge the reason the PCN was issued, however I am not satisfied that the operator has adequately rebutted the appellant’s grounds for appeal.

I can only conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration. Accordingly, I allow this appeal.