Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you for the photos and the timeline. You now have until Tuesday 29th October to submit an appeal to POPLA. We will put something together for you in plenty of time.

POPLA Appeal Submission

POPLA reference: [POPLA Reference Number]
Parking Charge Reference: [PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Vehicle Registration]
Issuer: Premier Parking Solutions (PPS)

Dear POPLA Assessor,

I am formally appealing the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Premier Parking Solutions (PPS) at Bushey Medical Centre on the grounds that no parking terms were breached. This charge is unjustified, and I request its cancellation for the following reasons:

1. No Parking Terms Were Breached

The PCN issued claims that the vehicle was parked in a “No Parking area.” However, the signage at the location does not define or indicate any such "No Parking area".

• The signage visible from the bay: The sign near the disabled bay only mentions a charge for failing to display a blue badge. A blue badge was correctly displayed by the driver, fully complying with this requirement.

• No mention of "No Parking area": The signage does not list or define any area as a "No Parking area." There were no restrictions or prohibitions regarding the slight use of the adjacent cross-hatched space.

Therefore, no parking terms were breached. The alleged contravention is based on terms that do not exist and are not displayed at the location. The driver cannot be held liable for a contravention based on undefined or non-existent terms.

2. Inadequate Signage and Lack of Clear Restrictions

The signage around the disabled bay does not state that vehicles must be parked strictly within the bay lines or that using the cross-hatched area would lead to a charge. The only signage visible near the bay specifies a charge for failing to display a blue badge, which was fully complied with.

There is no signage that prohibits parking slightly over the cross-hatched lines to accommodate disabled occupants on both sides of the vehicle.

A motorist cannot be expected to comply with terms that are neither defined nor displayed. In this case, the signage failed to communicate any restriction that would warrant a parking charge.

3. Non-Standard Layout of the Disabled Bay

The disabled bay itself is non-standard, as it only provides extra space on one side, rather than both sides, which is normally expected for blue badge bays. The car was parked at a slight angle to ensure safe access for both disabled occupants, one of whom was my elderly father.

Both the driver and passenger hold blue badges, and both required additional space for safe entry and exit of the vehicle. The absence of extra space on both sides necessitated the slight use of the cross-hatched area. The signage did not prohibit this, and no breach of terms occurred.

This is the blue badge bay where the vehicle was parked. As can be seen, there is only added width on one side of the bay and the signage does not convey any restriction other than a requirement to display a blue badge:



4. Non-Compliance with BPA Code of Practice Section 16

Premier Parking Solutions is in breach of the BPA Code of Practice (v9 February 2024), Section 16 (Accessible Parking). This section outlines the obligations operators have under the Equality Act 2010, particularly in making reasonable adaptations for disabled people.

Section 16.1 states that operators must make reasonable adjustments to accommodate disabled motorists, including but not limited to providing additional space for wheelchair users or individuals with limited mobility. In this case, both the driver and passenger were blue badge holders, and both required additional space for safe access. The minor use of the cross-hatched area to provide this additional space was necessary and in line with the reasonable adjustments required under the Equality Act.

Section 16.2 requires that at least one sign containing ALL the terms and conditions for parking should be visible without the driver needing to leave the vehicle. In this case, the only signage visible from the blue badge bay stated that a valid blue badge must be displayed. There were no other visible terms, such as restrictions on parking in or near the cross-hatched area, nor was there any mention of "No Parking areas." As a result, PPS has failed to comply with the BPA CoP by not providing all relevant terms near the disabled bay, and the driver could not have reasonably understood or breached any undefined terms.

This is an image of the sign above the blue badge bay. The only restriction is that a blue badge be displayed:



5. The Operator Must Provide Strict Proof of a Valid Contract with the Landowner

Premier Parking Solutions must provide strict proof that it has a valid, current contract flowing from the landowner to issue PCNs in its own name. The mere existence of signage does not prove a valid contract exists. It is well known within this industry that these contracts often lapse or expire, and a signed statement from the operator claiming that a contract exists is not sufficient evidence.

I require Premier Parking Solutions to evidence a copy of the contract between themselves and the landowner or their authorised agent to prove that they have the authority to issue PCNs at this location. Without this, there is no legal standing to pursue this charge, and the PCN must be cancelled.

6. Lack of Obstruction and Minimal Duration

The vehicle was parked for less than five minutes, and no obstruction to other vehicles or pedestrians occurred. The use of the cross-hatched area was minimal and only necessary to provide safe access for both disabled occupants.

7. Overzealous Enforcement and Discrimination

The cross-hatched area is designed to provide additional space for access and manoeuvring, especially for disabled passengers. In this case, both sides of the vehicle required extra space. Penalising the driver for making a reasonable adjustment to accommodate disabled occupants is overzealous and discriminatory.

The operator has failed to consider reasonable adjustments, as required under the Equality Act 2010, and the issuance of this PCN is unjustified.

Conclusion

In summary, no parking terms were breached. The signage does not indicate any "No Parking areas" or restrictions on the use of the cross-hatched space, and both blue badges were displayed as required. Furthermore, Premier Parking Solutions has breached the BPA Code of Practice by failing to provide all necessary terms in the signage visible from the disabled bay, and they have not made reasonable adjustments to accommodate the needs of disabled individuals. Additionally, the operator must provide strict proof of a valid contract with the landowner to issue PCNs.

For these reasons, I request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]
Registered Keeper of Vehicle [Vehicle Registration]

Corrected.

Here is a link to a PDF version of there appeal ready for you to upload for your POPLA appeal:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/r5t8m2nkuwwi2b5uwa8il/POPLA-appeal-compressed-2.pdf?rlkey=pnvxfjo4128v53j3kxwv8gqdr&st=hzyo03es&dl=0

Don't forget to fill in the details at the top before you upload.