Free Traffic Legal Advice

Regarding your questions, no initial appeal will be successful. There is a remote chance that a secondary appeal to POPLA may work but don't hold your breath. The most likely outcome would be a claim in the county court by Wing Security, if they decide to try and take it that far.

You are under no legal obligation to identify the driver. By refusing to answer, you force the parking operator to rely on PoFA 2012 to establish keeper liability. If they fail to comply with PoFA requirements (e.g., wording and timing of the Notice to Keeper [NtK]), they cannot hold you, as the keeper, liable.

When appealing, avoid answering the driver question if it forces self-incrimination. You can leave it blank or state, "I decline to answer." You will frame your appeal as the keeper of the vehicle, referring to "the driver" in third person.

The sign mentions "no parking in unauthorised areas," but it is not clear where authorised areas are. If the car park lacks marked bays or clear delineation of authorised parking spaces, it may be argued that the driver could not reasonably know where parking was prohibited.

The sign states, "By parking here you are entering into a contract for which the conditions are stated above." However, the specific conditions for "authorised" parking are not clearly defined. For instance, what constitutes an "authorised area" is not specified. The absence of marked bays or other visual cues means the terms are unclear and open to interpretation. Under contract law, terms must be clear and unambiguous for a contract to be valid.

A valid contract requires an offer and acceptance. The sign primarily states prohibitions ("no stopping on yellow lines," "no parking in unauthorised areas") but does not clearly offer parking or outline the conditions for authorised parking. Without a clear offer of services, there is no consideration (benefit) for the driver in exchange for complying with the terms.

While the £100 parking charge is mentioned, the circumstances under which it applies are vague. For example, it is not clear what constitutes a breach of terms, as the boundaries of authorised and unauthorised areas are not defined. According to the Single Code of Practice (SCoP), the parking charge and its terms must be prominently displayed and unambiguous.

The sign's readability is questionable. It uses small text and is crowded with information, making it difficult to read quickly. Critical terms (e.g., "no parking in unauthorised areas") are not emphasised in a way that would make them obvious to a driver parking in the area. Signs must be positioned and designed so that a driver can read and understand them before entering into a contract.

The clause "SORN is not recognised" has no legal bearing on private parking contracts. This could confuse a reasonable driver and is arguably irrelevant to the terms of parking.

Historically, private parking charges needed to reflect a "genuine pre-estimate of loss." While this requirement has been relaxed following the Beavis v ParkingEye case (2015), the charge must still be justifiable and not punitive. If the vehicle was not obstructing, and there was no clear harm caused by the parking, the £100 fee could be argued as excessive.

Key Legal Principles to Challenge the Contract

Unclear Terms:


So, for now, do nothing. You will submit an appeal, only as the Keeper, on day 26 or 27 from the date of the Notice to Driver (NtD). Do not try and appeal any earlier. Simply appeal with the following:

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. I am writing to contest the Parking Charge Notice on the following grounds:

Ambiguous Designation of Parking Areas:

The car park lacked clear signage or marked bays to indicate designated parking areas. The driver parked in good faith in a safe, non-obstructive location.

Unclear Signage:

The signage at the location does not clearly specify where parking is permitted. This fails to meet the requirements for clear and adequate communication as outlined in the Single Code of Practice.

Reasonableness of the Charge:

The vehicle was parked only briefly for loading/unloading purposes, causing no obstruction or hazard. The £100 charge is disproportionate to the circumstances.

As the keeper, I decline to name the driver. Therefore, you must rely on the strict requirements of POFA 2012 to pursue keeper liability. If you cannot demonstrate full compliance, the charge must be cancelled.

I look forward to your confirmation that the Parking Charge Notice has been cancelled. Should you reject this appeal, please provide a POPLA code so the matter may be escalated.

There reason for delaying the appeal is to tie the operator up in the appeals process. If they respond with a rejection and a POPLA code without having issued a Notice to Keeper (NtK), then they cannot rely on PoFA to hold the keeper liable. An appeal rejection is not an NtK.

WAIT!

Unless it's changed recently, Wing do not hold Approved Operator status with either the BPA or IPC, so in theory shouldn't be able to access the DVLA database to get your details, if you don't provide it to them.

(They also have form for continuing to use the BPA AoS Logo despite not being a member currently - the last time I pointed out an example of this to the BPA they were seemingly interested as the logo disappeared fairly quickly afterwards)

Thanks @DWMB2
Here is the PCN (I've removed my licence plate but not touched any other part).

Interesting. Wing Security Ltd are definitely not an Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) member of either of the two Approve Trade Associations (ATA), which means they cannot rely on the KADOE contract to obtain the Registered Keepers (RK) from the DVLA.

Wing Security Ltd, as a non-member of either ATA is unable to use the DVLA's Keeper At Date of Event (KAODE) system to access the registered keeper's (RK's) details. This significantly limits their ability to proceed.

In this case, ignore any previous advice to appeal at all. Wing Security are relying on the driver to contact them directly through the Notice to Driver (NtD), hoping that the driver voluntarily discloses the registered keeper’s details. They are entirely reliant on the cooperation of the driver and depend on the driver being unaware of their rights.

They might engage a debt collection agency to pursue the charge. However, without the RK's details, their ability to enforce the charge is limited. If they do somehow obtain RK details, they could use the agency to pursue payment. Not really an issue though, as debt collector is powerless to do anything.

Wing Security could, theoretically, attempt to apply to the DVLA using a V888 form for "reasonable cause". This is a manual process where they must demonstrate a legitimate and lawful reason to obtain the RK's details.

However, without ATA membership, their application is likely to be rejected unless they can clearly justify a compelling reason (e.g., an alleged breach of contract or potential legal action). The lack of ATA membership is a critical red flag, as the DVLA typically requires ATA membership as part of assessing "reasonable cause" for private parking companies.

Wing Security could attempt to file a legal claim against "the driver of the vehicle" and request the court compel disclosure of the RK’s details. This is extremely rare, highly impractical, and costly without guaranteed success. They might try to involve third parties, such as the vehicle’s insurer or the owner (if not the RK), but this is fraught with privacy and procedural issues. So, again, highly unlikely.

While illegal, some unscrupulous companies might seek RK information through unauthorised means, such as accessing data held by others or relying on surveillance. Such actions would breach data protection laws (e.g., GDPR in the UK) and could result in significant legal and financial penalties for Wing Security.

So, without ATA membership, access to the RK's data through official channels like KAODE is effectively barred. For Wing Security to hold the RK liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), they must issue a compliant NtK. Without the RK's details, they cannot do so. If the driver does not self-identify, they have no case.

For now, do nothing. If they do send you, the RK, anything through the post, even if it is only a useless debt collector letter, let us know immediately as they are likely to have acted unlawfully.

Just complain anyway. Anyone could have taken a photo of the sign.