Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello,

I have received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for exceeding the 3-hour free parking limit at Gallagher Retail Park in Coventry. The driver was delayed due to an unexpected vehicle breakdown, which left them unable to leave the car park until the issue was resolved.

Upon reviewing the signage, I noticed that it states "Maximum Stay 5 Hours", which is misleading, as it implies that parking is free for 5 hours, when in reality, only 3 hours are free. This could be especially confusing for individuals who are in a rush.

I wanted to ask if there is a way to appeal this, given that the overstay was due to circumstances beyond the driver’s control and the signage itself could be considered unclear.

Has anyone had success in appealing a similar case, particularly on the basis of a breakdown and misleading signage? Any advice would be greatly appreciated, as I am getting frustrated with these parking companies taking advantage of drivers.

I know this is an amazing community and any help is greatly appreciated.




Sign at entrance


sign within parking




https://maps.app.goo.gl/Nujg1uWUSQwfJVAW9

Any initial appeal will be rejected no matter what is pleaded. The arguments about signage can be used in a subsequent POPLA appeal. They would certainly be very valid defence points should GN try to recover the alleged debt through litigation.

There are other useful pints you should be aware of. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA and at least two stand out. The notice requires the driver to pay. PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) requires the NtK to invite the Keeper to pay the charge or give the "creditor" (I'll come back to this) the drivers details. However, there is no legal obligation on the Keeper to reveal the drivers identity.

This NtK only says that the driver is required to pay the charge or for the Keeper to tell them who was driving. As there is no legal obligation on the latter and the former is based on the driver always being liable, where is the invitation for the Keeper to pay the charge? They cannot rely on implied obligation just because the NtK is addressed to the Keeper.

The second PoFA failure is 9(2)(h) because the "creditor" is not identified anywhere on the NtK. The notice MUST identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.

So, based solely on those two PoFA failures, they cannot hold the Keeper liable, only the driver. They have no idea who the driver is unless the Keeper blabs it to them, inadvertently or otherwise.

Another point is that the PCN is not compliant with the PPSCoP. The second paragraph of the NtK states that the charge amount is required to be paid within 28 days of the date of the charge whereas section 8.1.2(e) of the PPSCoP states that the recipient has 28 days from the date of receipt to appeal. In this case, the deadline before they say they can initiate debt recovery is shortened by two days.

So, for now, simply appeal with the following and then when the appeal is rejected, you can concentrate on a POPLA appeal covering all the technical and signage points. As long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. GroupNexus has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. GroupNexus have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

UPDATE: Appeal rejected as told. This is what they responded to my appeal:

'Dear Sir/Madam,


Thank you for your correspondence relating to your Parking Charge.


The Charge was issued and the signage is displayed in compliance with The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice and all relevant laws and regulations.


Clear signs at the entrance of this site and throughout inform drivers that the maximum stay at this site is 3 hours, and it is not possible to access any part of the premises without passing multiple signs. Please note that payment for parking is required after that. Your representations are not considered a mitigating circumstance for appeal.


We confirm the Charge was issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As no driver details have been provided, we are holding the registered keeper of the vehicle liable.


In light of this, on this occasion, your representations have been carefully considered and rejected.


We can confirm that we will hold the Charge at the current rate of £60 for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence. If no payment is received within this period, and no further appeal to POPLA is made, the Charge will escalate and further costs may be added.


Please find below the payment options:


Online: www.groupnexus.co.uk/pcn

By Telephone: Credit/Debit cards via our automated payment line: 0844 371 8784

By Post: Cheques or Postal Orders to: PO Box 1750, Northampton, NN1 9PN

----------

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. This correspondence represents our final stance on the matter and we will therefore not enter into any further correspondence.


CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOLLOWING THE REJECTION OF AN APPEAL WILL NOT CHANGE THE OUTCOME OR EXTEND THE DATE IN WHICH PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE.


Although we have now rejected your appeal, you may still have recourse to appeal to Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA), an independent appeals service. An appeal to POPLA must be made within 28 days of the date of this correspondence.  POPLA will only consider cases on the grounds that the Parking Charge exceeded the appropriate amount, that the vehicle was not improperly parked or had been stolen, or that you were otherwise not liable for the Parking Charge.  To appeal to POPLA, please go to their website http://www.popla.co.uk and follow the instructions. If you would rather deal with this matter by post, please contact our Appeals Office and we will send you the necessary paperwork.


Your POPLA reference number is: XXXXXXXXX


Please note that if your appeal does not relate to the above criteria or is rejected by POPLA for any reason, you will no longer qualify for payment at the reduced rate. POPLA will not consider any cases where payment has been made. You must pay the charge or appeal to POPLA, you cannot do both.


By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal.  However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service.  As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.


Yours faithfully,


CP Plus Ltd.'

Please do advise me on the next steps to take. As always, any advice is appreciated.

Here is the appeal I have written. Please do give any feedback.

'
To Whom It May Concern,

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced above and am writing to formally appeal the issuance of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the following grounds:

1. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.

a. Failure to Invite the Keeper to Pay (PoFA 9(2)(e)(i))

The NtK issued by GroupNexus fails to comply with PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). The notice states that the driver is required to pay the charge or the Keeper must identify the driver. However, PoFA requires the NtK to clearly invite the Keeper to either pay the charge or provide the name and address of the driver. There is no legal obligation for the Keeper to name the driver, and the notice omits the essential statutory invitation to the Keeper to pay the charge, which is a clear procedural failure.
Because this requirement is unmet, GroupNexus cannot pursue the Keeper for the charge under PoFA and must instead pursue the unknown driver, whose identity has not been and will not be disclosed.

b. Failure to Identify the Creditor (PoFA 9(2)(h))
The NtK also fails to comply with PoFA 9(2)(h), which states that the notice must identify the “creditor” — the party legally entitled to recover unpaid parking charges. Nowhere in the NtK is the creditor clearly identified. The absence of this key piece of information makes the notice invalid under PoFA, and again, no Keeper liability can be transferred.
As the NtK is materially non-compliant with PoFA, liability cannot be transferred to the Keeper, and the PCN must therefore be cancelled.
________________________________________
2. Misleading and Unclear Signage — Contravention of BPA Code of Practice (Section 19)

The signage at Gallagher Retail Park is inconsistent and misleading. Prominently displayed signs state “Maximum Stay 5 Hours”, which would lead a reasonable person to assume that parking is free for five hours. In reality, only 3 hours are free, and this is mentioned only in much smaller text, which is not easily readable — especially for visitors in a hurry or under pressure.
This discrepancy misleads motorists into believing they have more time than actually permitted, which is a clear breach of the BPA Code of Practice Section 19.3, which states that signage must be “clear, intelligible and unambiguous” and must not mislead. It also violates 19.4, which requires that terms must be in “sufficiently large text” and be visible to drivers upon entering and parking.
Therefore, the signage is insufficient to form a legally binding contract and fails to convey the terms clearly to motorists.
________________________________________
3. PCN Breach of Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP) – Incorrect Timeframe for Payment and Appeal
The NtK issued by GroupNexus incorrectly states that the charge must be paid within 28 days of the charge date, rather than 28 days from receipt of the notice as required under the Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP), Section 8.1.2(e). This is a procedural failure that shortens the appeal period unjustly and demonstrates non-compliance with the applicable standards.
________________________________________
4. Mitigating Circumstances
It is important to record that the alleged overstay occurred solely due to an unexpected vehicle breakdown, which left the vehicle temporarily immobile and unable to exit the car park within the time limit. This was an unforeseen and uncontrollable situation and should never result in a punitive charge — especially where the signage was misleading to begin with.
________________________________________

Conclusion:
•   The NtK is not PoFA compliant, so liability cannot be transferred to the registered Keeper.
•   The signage is misleading and unclear, breaching BPA requirements and invalidating the contract.
•   The PCN does not comply with PPSCoP timelines, which shortens the appeal window improperly.
•   The identity of the driver has not been disclosed, and no assumptions can legally be made.
On all these grounds, I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct GroupNexus to cancel this PCN.
'


Thank you in advance. As always, any advice is appreciated.

Here is the summary of the case presented by the parking charge company in their response to POPLA

Please do inform me on how I should respond.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

URGENT

My appeal to POPLA was unsuccessful. I genuinely believed it would be upheld based on the points I raised.

Here is a POPLA summary:

'''''''''
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to exceeding the free period without payment.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • The Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, the appellant has explained why they consider it is not compliant with several aspects of PoFA. • They have questioned the signage at the site, the signage is misleading and inconsistent, prominently displayed signs state: “Maximum Stay 5 Hours”, which would lead a reasonable person to assume that parking is free for five hours, in reality only three hours is free, which is mentioned only in much smaller text, which is not easily readable, especially for visitors in a hurry or under pressure. • Mitigating circumstances were not considered by the parking operator, the overstay was due to an unexpected vehicle breakdown, making is impossible for the driver to leave the car park within the time limit. • Despite this being explained to the parking operator within an initial appeal, the parking operator made no reference to this within their rejection, and failed to demonstrate it had been considered. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal, expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided photo of a parking sign from the site as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The signs make it clear that motorists using the car park can stay for an initial three hours free, after this time tariff apply, with a maximum stay of five hours, and if these terms and conditions are not met a charge of £100 will be issued. . The images of the vehicle captured upon entry and exit confirm the time the vehicle was on this land for three hours 42 minutes. The operator has evidenced from its system report that there was no payment registered for this vehicle to park on this land on the date of the event, they have also provided a copy of the appellant’s initial appeal, which I will refer to below. I will now consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. Any customer service matters related to the operator's response fall outside of POPLA's jurisdiction. POPLA's responsibility is solely to assess whether the PCN was issued correctly according to the advertised terms and conditions. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. The 28 day deadline mentioned by the appellant refers to the period the parking operator has before it can transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, and not the period the parking operator has to allow a motorist to pay the PCN. This sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. It is stipulated in the Code that the parking operator needs to comply with all elements relating to signage by 31 December 2026. Therefore, for any aspects of this case relating to signage, I will be referring to version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. This is applicable for parking events that occurred from 1 February 2024. The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet. Section 19.1 of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. Signs in general tend to have meaning, and signs within a car park are there to explain relevant terms to motorists wishing to park, in this case the terms mentioned above. The appellant has provided photo of a parking sign from the site, the parking operator has provided a series of photos of the site, along with a map with positions of signs highlighted. I can see from the evidence pack there is an entrance sign. Entrance signs are an important part of establishing a contract and would put the driver on notice that terms and conditions applied. Further, specific terms and conditions signage are placed around this site, detailing the terms of use. These signs are in contrasting colours, and I believe they would have been clear and conspicuous to drivers who wish to use the site. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and that the motorist had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions on arrival, and, if you agree with them, stay or if you did not agree with them leave the site. Whether the appellant read the terms and conditions is irrelevant, the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to read them. While I acknowledge the appellant’s comments regarding mitigating circumstances and a vehicle breakdown, these issues were not raised in their initial appeal to the parking operator. As such, it is unclear how the parking operator could have addressed matters they were not made aware of at that stage. While I appreciate the appellant sharing such information now, this information should have been disclosed to the parking operator. I appreciate the motorist did not intend to breach the terms and conditions, the signage at the site is clear that exceeding the free period without payment, regardless of the reason, would result in the issue of a PCN. By exceeding the free period without payment, the motorist has accepted the potential consequence of incurring a PCN. Despite the appellant's comments on the parking operator's evidence, I have not found any information that has a material impact on my assessment of the PCN. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist parked in excess of the free period without payment, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.
''''''''

I’d really appreciate any advice on what steps to take next, especially as I genuinely believe I raised some legitmate points.

Just to counter your surprise and play devil's advocate for a a moment.

1. Thats a highly technical argument and may have no merit, its the interpretation of some posters on here, until it actually gets upheld in court it's not going to win any appeals.
2. Again a techical argument beyond the ability of most POPLA assessors abilities or remit to adjudicate on.
3. It's fairly clear from the pictures posted of the signage what the rules are.
4. Don't know about that one.
5. It could be argued the breakdown this case was not a frustration of contract, you could have paid for the extra time. If you'd been in the car park for ore than 5 hours then it would have come into play.

It's not quite as black and white as some posters here would like you to believe.

Next steps, pay it and it will go away or do nothing. You will probably get bombarded with debt collection letters that you can ignore. If you receive a letter of claim don't ignore it, come back here for advice on how to answer it.

There's a small chance it will go to court most don't, they get discontinued before the hearing. Worst case if it does and you lose you'll be somewhere in the region of £250 out of pocket. You have zero chance of getting a CCJ is you then pay what the court orders in the time allowed.

Thank you for your responses — they are greatly appreciated. It's genuinely interesting to see the different perspectives shared by the respondents.

From what’s been said, the advice still stands: don’t pay unless you're prepared to challenge it all the way.

Could you briefly outline what the process of fighting this case would involve?

I’m asking because if it turns out to be too difficult of a process with a likelihood of losing, I may decide it’s simpler to just pay it.