Free Traffic Legal Advice

Grandaughters car got a ticket on this recently infested car park by CE.  The access to the car park is from a side street and not from the address shown on the PCN.  The PCN also shows a charge to be added should it go to Debt Collection Agents.  Links to the PCN below.  Photos of car park will be added later.

https://1drv.ms/i/s!AsPjQGVPpU0yxjUvAMr9PphFQR_s?e=J92rF9

https://1drv.ms/i/s!AsPjQGVPpU0yxjZtP9W03xIOn3ZC?e=tUOyFy

Thanks for looking.

Heres a link to the pics of the site.  As you enter from one side the entrance signs are not fully visible and the signs within the site are minute print.

https://1drv.ms/f/s!AsPjQGVPpU0yxjgiYyBMW8cmpGb2?e=u2tCkx

Can you tell us a little more about the parking event (i.e. why the vehicle was parked there, if they had, or attempted to get, the 'permit' that the PCN says was required etc.) to see if that offers any meritorious defence?

The driver has parked there many times before CE were contracted and was unaware there had been any change until the RK received the PCN.

I have established that the land is owned by a small investment Company and not the business on the notice.  It doesnt show any lease on Land Registry, only the title of the Investment Co.

The driver has parked there many times before CE were contracted and was unaware there had been any change until the RK received the PCN.

There might be a bit of mileage in this (when coupled with the poor signage at the entrance used by the driver). As a member of the BPA, the operator is obliged to comply with the BPA AOS Code of Practice, section 19.10 of which reads as follows:-

19.10 Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones.

Can the driver argue that the landowner previously permitted unrestricted parking and insufficient notice was given for the change?  Just a thought...

Land Registry Doc attached for the land

Companies House for the business:

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14257192/officers

Somewhere along the line a contract must flow from the land owner.  Nothing on Land Reg doc indicates any lease.

As per the previous signs on street view an estate agent appeared to share the car park.  The estate agent is still there but their sign have been removed from the car park.

I may give it a run and put them to strict proof that a contract flows from the landowner.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Just for the sake of clarity, if the notice is addressed to your granddaughter, then any appeal should be in her name, Civil Enforcement won't entertain one in your name.

Yes I am aware of that, she is the RK.

Will do a simple appeal on signage and the lack of notice of changes then throw the landowner in at POPLA

The driver has parked there many times before CE were contracted and was unaware there had been any change until the RK received the PCN. [and apparently disregarded the private parking signs which have been in situ for some time]

The entrance to the car park is not what you've shown as coming off the main road, this is Greenwood Vale, the car park entrance is immediately off to the right of Greenwood.

It's a tight turn and I suppose it's possible to miss the 3-foot high sign Private Parking which has been on the entrance fence for some time but not the  equally large Turkis Private Parking sign immediately facing the driver as they enter. The one at the entrance also has an associated 'new parking rules' sign.

Your photos omit the large sign facing drivers as they enter, perhaps this has now gone, albeit that GSV shows this and similar going back years.

IMO, with what an assessor could see by looking at GSV and what we know is there now combined with what appears to be a long-time habit of the driver disregarding these signs I would not put any money on 'inadequate signage' being a winner.

I'm a grandparent myself and might also consider it somewhat heroic, almost a duty, to help my grandchildren when the time comes(hitherto restricted just to children) and if you're underwriting the £40 discount what's there for her to lose? But I cannot see any prospect of success based upon what appear to be the facts:
Car park has carried private parking signs for years, albeit with no teeth;
There are now teeth in the form of a private operator;
There is a large sign on the actual entrance which in daylight could not be missed by a reasonably attentive driver driving slowly as one would have to in order to negotiate the turn;
As observed by others, there is a host of signs around the car park setting out Ts and Cs.

IMO, at present she doesn't hold a winning hand, only a wish that in some way there would be a contractual issue which would help her. But you have no evidence in support, just a hope.

Isn't that, basically, a company alleging that someone owes them money but not providing any proof that they actually do?

To an extent. They're not providing no evidence - they are offering evidence that the vehicle was on the site at the times alleged. What they aren't providing at this stage, is evidence they have a contract with the landholder to operate on the land, quite simply because there's nothing compelling them to do so at this stage.

If the alleged debtor disputes that the money is owed, then it's incumbent on the parking company to prove it is, first to POPLA (in this case), then potentially to a court. If they can prove it to a court on the balance of probabilities, then the money is owed, if they cannot, then it is not.