Free Traffic Legal Advice

Quote from: TheParkingmeister on November 06, 2025, 11:42:12 pm

they'd say we can't pass on driver details because of GDPR (they throw that one around a lot)

They might want to re-read the UK GDPR, particularly the lawful basis for processing. 1(b) of Article 6 springs to mind...

That said, it often would not be beneficial to the driver for them to be named as the driver. More beneficial than simply having their wages garnished, though.

Tell me about it.

We got a letter from Trading Standards of a county council in October asking for details of a driver that supposedly drove through a 7.5t weight restriction two and half months earlier. I was reluctant to even respond because the dashcam footage is long gone and the drivers recollection is diminished. Driver only recalled the day because he had an undiagnosed broken wrist. Anywho, I explained that there was no legal obligation to give the details, and that we simply ignore it. Higher management sent emails to my manager telling him to call the council and say we can't because of GDPR    He spoke to me about it thankfully and we agreed to not do that and to ignore it (of course if the Police request it under Section 172 of RTA 1988 thats another matter). But that certainly would have been a good way to **** of the council 

But these are NOT “fines”. They are speculative invoices.

If you or anyone receives an “invoice” for an alleged breach of contract by me and you simply decide to pay it and then try and charge me for it, I would simply refer you to the answer given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).

If the management are recovering this unlawful payment by docking the drivers wages, they can be sued under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Wages Act 1986 (now Part II ERA 1996).

If an employer or fleet manager pays a speculative private parking invoice (it is not a statutory fine) and then deducts that sum from a worker’s pay, they are almost certainly making an unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 ERA 1996. The deduction is lawful only if:

Private parking invoices do not fall under any statutory category, and very few employment contracts authorise blanket deductions for such civil “debts”. Therefore docking pay to recover a speculative parking demand is unlawful. The worker can:

Where the payment was made by a manager or finance department “on behalf of” the driver, the legal relationship is between the parking company and the driver only. The employer has no authority to admit liability or to pay a civil invoice on another’s behalf unless specifically authorised. Any attempt to recover that payment later is a private matter between employer and employee and must comply with employment-law safeguards.

If such deductions are systematic across a workforce, Trading Standards, HMRC (NMW compliance) or ACAS can be notified. The union—if one exists—should also be informed immediately.

They haven't provided the contract that gives them authority to operate on the site.

They provide two "witness statements" that claim such an authority, and say "this authority was in effect was in effect during the time the PCN was issued", but both of these are dated in 2023, two years prior to this incident. One point to make is that they haven't provided their contract, and a "witness statement" is not a suitable alternative.

You could also make the point that even if a "witness statement" was sufficient, they have failed to provide a contemporaneous one. The fact that they were able to produce witness statements for a PCN issued in 2023, but have not been able to produce one now, creates significant doubt that the authority that existed then still exists now.

But the contract has not been evidenced. It says the contract is with CP Plus Ltd. Nowhere on the NtK does it state who the actual creditor is. The creditor must be identified.

You don’t know whether the creditor is the operator (CP Plus Ltd or GroupNexus Ltd), MOTO as the leaseholder or the landowner. That is a failure of PoFA 9(2)(h).

They state in their evidence that the date that the NtK was deemed to have been delivered is a fact unless “the contrary has been proven”. The “contrary” is “proven” if the presumption of delivery is rebutted. In other words, if you rebut that the NtK was given on the date they claim, the burden of proof shifts to them to prove that it was posted first class in time for it to have been delivered (served) in accordance with the Interpretation Act.

So, without a Proof of Posting certificate or equivalent evidence from a mail consolidator of the date it was entered into the postal system, “the contrary” is proven. Not that POPLA moron would understand that.

It’s only POPLA and this would never reach a hearing in court so I wouldn’t expend too much energy or time with the response. Just try and lead the assessor to the main facts that no PoFA Keeper liability, no evidence of standing, and that Beavis does not even apply to this case.

Let a proper judge decide on the facts. They won’t want this going near a courtroom.

I got a decision for one of the two today that I appealed to POPLA 85 days ago. It was unsuccessful. It is incredibly frustrating how they just skip over raised points or just side with the operator and frankly, just make **** up.

Turns out you can pay £33 for parking and still get shafted because they didnt provide the parking service paid for. Surely that £33 should be coming out of the charge. But nooo MOTO claim to have no relation to GroupNexus/CP Plus, as they operate entirely independently on their own car park according to MOTO.

The assessor can't even identify the **** creditor correctly.

Also says: "In this case, the driver has not parked in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on the signs. Therefore, the consideration period has ended." Sooo, are the signs meant to be read whilst driving then? Wtf?

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor Name: Gemma West

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 terms and conditions of the car park state a £100 PCN will be issued when causing an obstruction to the site, other vehicles and/or car park users. The appellant explains the driver paid the parking tariff, which was a payment of £33 for overnight parking. The receipt was provided within their appeal. The HGV area was full, and the contract was frustrated as no lawful parking services were available. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, and I do not dispute the driver has made a payment.
 
However, the terms and conditions are clear that vehicles must park within a marked bay and not cause an obstruction. I note these comments, I must state for there to be a frustration of contract, the contract had to be impossible to continue, or the contract be radically changed.
However, in this instance the requirement was for the motorist to park within a marked bay and not park causing an obstruction. Whilst I appreciate the appellant has advised there were no parking bays, the driver could have left the car park to avoid the issuance of the parking charge. As such, I do not consider there was a frustration of contract as the driver could have left the car park.
 
The appellant has told us in their response that they consider the charge is unfair contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations and the amount of the PCN is disproportionate . The appeal reasons raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The fairness of parking charges was considered more broadly by the Supreme Court in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis. The court found that the charge was not unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations because the charge was no higher than to achieve the operator's objective of effectively managing the car park. It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage. The Court made it clear that the same considerations that means it was not a penalty also mean it is not unfair. With that in mind, to conclude whether it is unfair according to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, I have to take into account the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable.

The appellant states the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements of PoFA 2012. The company *********** has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the ***********’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. For an operator to transfer liability of unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. Having viewed the notice to keeper issued to the appellant I am satisfied that the operator has complied with Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of PoFA 2012, and that liability of the parking charge was successfully transferred to the keeper at the time of the event. I note the appellant’s comments regarding the identification of the creditor. The operator has provided a copy of its contract with CP Plus of which Group Nexus is a trading name of. In this case, the signs and the PCN identify Group Nexus as the creditor and as they are a trading name of CP Plus, I consider they are a single legal entity. Therefore, I am satisfied the creditor is clear on the signs and the PCN.

The appellant states the allegation of obstruction is prohibitive, not contractual. No evidence of obstruction or reasonable mitigation. In this case, the parking operator has provided images of the signs, which outline the contractual terms and conditions. The signs advise vehicles must be parked within a designated bay but also not parked causing an obstruction. I am satisfied the terms and conditions are a contractual agreement. As the vehicle was observed parked causing an obstruction the terms and conditions were not met. I acknowledge the appellant has provided images to show there were no road markings or signage advising no parking. However, when parking on private land it is the responsibility of the motorist to comply with the terms and conditions. I am satisfied the signs are clear to drivers not to park causing an obstruction. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. Within the parking operator’s evidence pack, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site, along with a site map demonstrating the distribution of the signs throughout. Having reviewed this, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the site’s terms and conditions to the attention of motorists and consider that the appellant was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review them before deciding whether to park. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this case, the parking operator has provided copies of its witness statements.
Upon review of the statements, I am satisfied it demonstrates the operator has the authority to issue parking charges on the land. The appellant states manual taken photographs do not prove the breach. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. In this case, the driver has not parked in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on the signs. Therefore, the consideration period has ended.

The parking operator has provided date and time-stamped images of the vehicle parked which clearly show the vehicle parked causing an obstruction. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver parked causing an obstruction 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.