Based on the information and evidence available, the position is as follows.
The entrance sign at Jasmine Way is compliant with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). It clearly identifies the land as private, states that parking on the roadway is not permitted, and informs drivers that terms and conditions apply within the controlled land. The signage meets the requirements for an entrance sign and validly establishes that the area is subject to parking control.
The terms signage within the land expressly prohibits parking on the roadway and pavements at any time and states that a parking charge applies for failure to comply with those terms. There is no dispute that the vehicle was parked partially on the pavement and on the roadway, and photographic evidence confirms this. The location and conduct are not in dispute.
On that basis, and taken strictly as a matter of contract formation and breach, the driver did breach a contractual term displayed on the signage. The wording used on the Notice to Keeper, “No Parking Permitted”, while imprecise, is substantively consistent with the prohibition conveyed by the signage at that location.
Accordingly, on the facts as they stand, with a PoFA compliant NtK, the Keeper is more or less bang to rights on the issue of breach of contract.
The only realistic avenue left to challenge liability on signage grounds would be if the you can demonstrate that the signage represents a material change to pre-existing terms and conditions and that it had not been in place for at least four months prior to the date of the alleged contravention. If the signs were installed, replaced, or materially altered within four months of the event, and no additional temporary entrance notices were displayed as required by the Code of Practice, that would undermine the operator’s reliance on the signage.
If the Keeper cannot establish that point, then on signage and contractual breach alone, there is no meaningful defence.
