Free Traffic Legal Advice

You could appeal on the basis that you were unable to leave due to traffic congestion - they will probably reject, but it puts them on notice.  Make sure you appeal as keeper only, and refer to the driver in the 3rd person.  The PCN is missing the invitation to pay or name the driver which is a point for POPLA or the small claims court if it goes that far.  The signage may be a point for POPLA as well - it looks like you parked in the small bay on the right of the entrance - if there are no signs as you enter, and turn into this area, then you could argue for inadequate signage as well - but this will not hold much water if you drove around the carpark 3 times first, past all the other signs, and then entered the store passing the sign at the door (there is one shown on Street View, but it refers to different terms)!

This appears to be an M&S owned car park, so, assuming you were a customer, you should also get on to them and ask them to get it cancelled.

The keeper did contact M&S to see if they could help cancelling the charge, but they advised that it is not their car park and is privately managed, so they were unable to help.
 Yet the signage says it is managed on behalf of M&S!

Quick update, the keeper went back to M&S and asked again about cancelling, but was told they can’t cancel as it’s managed separately. So looks like the only option now is to proceed with an appeal.
Draft appeal below, any obvious issues before submitting, please?

Also, one more thing that came up when speaking to the store staff, they mentioned that the land is actually owned by a church, not M&S, which is why they said they couldn’t get involved. However, the signage on site says it’s managed on behalf of M&S.
Would that kind of inconsistency be worth raising in terms of landowner authority, i.e. asking Euro Car Parks to prove they have the right to operate and issue charges there? Or is that unlikely to add much in this case?

***
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice.
The charge is disputed on the following grounds:

1. No evidence of the required “period of parking”
The Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a), as it fails to specify the period of parking.
The notice relies solely on ANPR images showing entry and exit times. These do not represent the period of parking, as they include time spent entering, locating a space, and exiting the car park.

2. Failure to account for time not spent parked (grace periods and congestion)
The recorded duration includes time spent:
- locating a parking space in a busy car park, and
- queuing to exit due to congestion and a one-way system with traffic lights
This is not parking time and must not be included in any calculation of a parking period.

3. Inadequate signage in the area where the vehicle was parked
The vehicle was parked in a small bay (approximately 6 spaces) near the exit where there was no visible signage at all.
Signage in other parts of the car park does not sufficiently bring the terms and conditions to the attention of drivers parking in this specific area.
As such, no clear contract could have been formed.

4. Non-compliance with Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012
The Notice to Keeper appears not to fully comply with the mandatory wording and requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, including the requirement to clearly and properly set out the conditions under which keeper liability may apply.
As such, the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper.

5. No evidence of landowner authority
The operator is put to strict proof that it has the necessary authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charges at this site.
There appears to be inconsistency regarding the land ownership and management arrangements. Signage suggests the site is managed on behalf of Marks & Spencer, while it has been indicated that the land may be owned by a third party.
The operator is required to demonstrate that it has a valid and current contract with the landowner (or authorised agent), including the authority to:
- issue parking charge notices, and
- pursue them to recovery

In the absence of such evidence, the charge is invalid.

***

Thank you very much once again.

Thank you @InterCity125, would it be ok to consider this draft for POPLA, I want to make sure that I raise relevant points from the outset. Thank you