Free Traffic Legal Advice

Looking for some input on a question of contract validity from anyone with any legal training or experience. Whilst this is in relation to a private parking issue already under discussion elsewhere, I was hoping to see if there was any consensus on my argument points over the core issue of whether a valid contract cannot be formed by signage that does not comply with lawful requirements.

I am seeking judicial advice privately, but I thought I’d throw this question into the ring as I know there are a few forum members who are fairly well informed about contractual issues.

This refers to one specific company, but I know there are others with the same issue:

1. A contractual sign in a private car park should be treated as a business document (even if not explicitly listed in the Companies Act), as it sets financial terms and imposes liabilities, similar to an invoice or demand for payment.

2. Premier Park (the operator) is conducting business at the location, meaning they must comply with legal requirements to display their registered office address at the site—but they fail to do so, instead providing only a PO Box on all their signage, which is not legally sufficient.

I am trying to strengthen any argument with a two pronged approach:

1. The Car Park is a Place of Business – Legal Requirement to Display the Registered Office Address

The Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008, made under the Companies Act 2006, state that a company must display its registered name and address at any place where it carries on business.

The requirement is not limited to offices—it applies to any commercial location where the company operates. Premier Park conducts business at car parks by:


Since they are operating a commercial service at these locations, they are legally required to display their registered office address—but they fail to do so.

2. The Contractual Signage is Functionally a Business Document and Fails Disclosure Standards

While contractual signs are not explicitly listed as "business documents" under the Companies Act, they:


If a business letter or invoice must display a registered office address, then contractual signage that creates a financial obligation should meet the same standard.

By failing to disclose their registered office address and instead using only a PO Box, Premier Park's signage does not meet the legal standard of transparency required for contractual terms.

Conclusion: No Legally Enforceable Contract Can Be Formed

Since Premier Park does not display its registered office address anywhere on its signage, they are in breach of disclosure laws on two counts:


As a result, a valid contract cannot be formed with the driver, and any Parking Charge Notice (invoice) is unenforceable.

Thoughts?

For the record:

Another win for Jackson Yamba

"Yesterday, I had the privilege of representing my client, Mrs. Pauline Doyle, at the County Court in South Shields. This case wasn’t just about parking charges it was about standing up for fairness, accountability, and challenging a system that often feels stacked against the individual.

Mrs. Doyle’s vehicle was parked in a public area outside the boundaries of Melbourne House Overflow Car Park in Newcastle (NE12JQ). Despite this, she was slapped with 8 parking charges by Vehicle Control Services (VCS). The vehicle wasn’t even in their car park, yet the charges piled up. When Mrs. Doyle appealed, both the parking company and the so-called "independent" appeals service (IAS) rejected her case. This raised serious questions about the fairness and independence of the appeals process.

Refusing to back down, Mrs. Doyle decided to take the matter to court as the registered keeper. She defended her case by submitting a robust defence, two witness statements, and sought legal representation. At the first hearing, the claimant’s representative claimed they hadn’t received key documents, leading to an adjournment. But yesterday, we turned the tide.

During my submission, I demonstrated to the court that the vehicle was parked outside the car park boundaries , as clearly shown on the map provided. On this basis alone, the claim should have been dismissed. I also highlighted that the particulars of the claim were defective and contained inaccurate information. While the court didn’t rule on this point, the claimant’s representative conceded the first argument, and I urged the court to dismiss the claim.

The court agreed that VCS had acted unreasonably and ordered them to pay over £803 in costs. This wasn’t just a win for Mrs. Doyle it was a win for anyone who has ever felt powerless against unfair parking practices.

What’s Next?

This victory is just the beginning. Mrs. Doyle is now in the process of issuing further claims against Vehicle Control Services Ltd for:


This case is a powerful reminder that individuals have the right to challenge unjust systems and stand up for what’s right. It also raises critical questions about the independence of parking appeals services and the conduct of parking companies. If you’ve faced similar issues, don’t give up. With the right support and determination, justice can prevail."

Here is an essay I posted earlier today over on MSE in response to a query I made with POPLA as to their authority to adjudicate on supposed Penalty Notices issued under railway bylaws. Their response was to point out that they had queried this with the DfT back in 2018.

Interestingly, the copy of the DfT letter they provided highlights exactly why they do not have any authority to issue PNs at all. The highlights are mine. For those interested in the lawful context, read on:




I have highlighted the part that I believe is very relevant here. In short, the DfT has said that they have no issue with a PPC issuing a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as a "ticket/contractual charge" for a breach of Byelaws 14(1) to (3). However it makes a clear distinction to the effect that it does not expect any ability to prosecute as a criminal matter under the powers of Byelaw 24(1).

I believe that there is cross use of the word "penalty" by the person who authored the letter. The DfT’s use of "penalty" in relation to Byelaw 14(4)(i) creates confusion by implying a statutory enforcement power that does not exist in this context. The correct interpretation is that Byelaw 14(4)(i) authorises civil charges, not criminal penalties, which are solely the remit of Byelaw 24(1) and require prosecution in the Magistrates' Court.

The last sentence in the third paragraph highlights a crucial distinction between two types of enforcement actions under the Railway Byelaws:


The DfT letter, specifically in the third paragraph, does not grant any private parking operator the authority to issue Penalty Notices under railway byelaws with the weight of criminal prosecution. The "penalty" referenced in Byelaw 14(4)(i) is purely civil and contractual, and it lacks the statutory weight of criminal enforcement as outlined in Byelaw 24(1). Without explicit statutory delegation for criminal prosecution, operators cannot claim authority to issue Penalty Notices as criminal penalties. Any such attempt to imply such authority in their notices is misleading and unlawful.

In summary, the DfT’s use of "penalty" in relation to Byelaw 14(4)(i) creates confusion by implying a statutory enforcement power that does not exist in this context. The correct interpretation is that Byelaw 14(4)(i) authorises civil charges, not criminal penalties, which are solely the remit of Byelaw 24(1) and require prosecution in the Magistrates' Court.

Here is POPLAs interpretation, which as expected is weighted towards the operator, not the motorist. However, there are a couple of points that are worth noting:

They require that a PN, if issued as a windscreen ticket, can only be followed up with a Notice to Owner (NtO) under the same rules as PoFA. The operator must wait 28 days before issuing the NtO and it cannot be issued after 56 days.

The same applies to a postal PN. It must be "given" within 14 days of the alleged "offence".

Anyway, as I have already pointed out, APCOA and SABA are not authorised to issue Penalty Notices under threat of criminal prosecution. They are only "offered contracts" fraudulently dressed up as PNs.

A Consultancy firm working for the Department for Levelling up Housing & Communities (DLUHC) has asked to share this, to help inform the final work of bringing in Statutory regulation of the parking industry.

The Department for Levelling up Housing & Communities (DLUHC) is working with Zaizi, an independent consulting company, who are conducting research about people’s experiences of receiving a parking charge notice (PCN) and appealing it.

We are looking for UK-based participants who have had to appeal a parking charge notice (PCN). Zaizi is working with People for Research, the UK's leading user recruitment agency for market research and usability testing to run some research with the general public and help to improve services for all.

We are looking to understand the experience of people who received a parking charge notice from a private parking operator. Participants will need to be motorists and either the person who was driving at the time of the parking in dispute, or the registered keeper of the car.

If you are available and interested in taking part in paid research, please complete the short questionnaire below. If you are suitable, People for Research will be in touch with you in the next few days to confirm your session. The session will involve a video call with a researcher.

Date of sessions: Monday 20th May to Wednesday 5th June

Type of research session: 1-2-1 online discussion

Incentive: £60 bank transfer/voucher

We are interested in speaking to anyone who has received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a private parking operator, more specifically this can be anyone:

Who was driving at the time of the parking incident in dispute
The registered keeper of the car who received the PCN but was not present at the time the car was parked
Anyone who was successful in their appeal
Anyone who was unsuccessful in their appeal
Anyone who did not challenge/appeal but felt they had a strong case to appeal against  the PCN
Anyone who went through the first stage/challenge but did not proceed to the second stage appeal
To ensure we have a diverse group of users to speak to, the team are particularly interested in speaking to people from the following:

A mix of genders
English as a second language
Low digital literacy
A range of accessibility needs (e.g. neurodiversity, visual impairments etc), ages, socio economic backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, locations where people live (in England, Scotland and Wales)

The initial part of the survey to respond and confirm your interest is here:

https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/ParkingChargeNoticeSurvey/

Please read Zaizi's privacy notice here.

Please read People for Research's privacy notice here.

I normally deal with private PCNs over on MSE but I'm handling this penalty notice for a family member. He was stopped at the location, Swinley Lane, Wigan, completely unaware that there were any restrictions. There were no obvious or prominent signs and, as can be seen in the photos he took at the time, there are no signs or road marks to indicate any restrictions.

The wardens photos include a photo of a sign but there is no indication where this sign is in relation to the car. At the time, the sign that was photographed by the warden was noticed on a lamppost 20m behind where the car was stopped.

On the day, the road was covered in snow and no road markings were obvious or observed.

Advice from the forum would be appreciated.

A GSV view of the location is here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/zTtUtUTapwT7qjHy6