Free Traffic Legal Advice

Please post all notices and correspondence, instructions can be found in https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/

https://ibb.co/F4H29JJD
https://ibb.co/1fRYstW2
https://ibb.co/6RvjCT0N
https://ibb.co/xqXFJVdq
https://ibb.co/JRGmj6mh
https://ibb.co/V0Z44K8G
https://ibb.co/99PhGB8Q

these are all the things they uploaded as evidence, alongside pictures showing the times i entered and left but they are just the same pictures, all in all they agreed that i had only stayed for 8 minutes. they also posted pictures of the signs they designed but no actual pictures of signs on walls or anything

yeah so i did not think that i didnt have to admit that i parked there, there are photos of me getting in and out of the car so i thought they could identify me that way, but my appeal to them was this:

I want to respond to the operator’s evidence, particularly their reliance on Vine v Waltham Forest and their statements about the consideration period.

The operator repeatedly cites Vine v Waltham Forest, but the principle from that case actually supports my position. Vine makes it clear that a driver cannot be bound by contractual terms they did not see and could not reasonably be expected to see. At the material time it was dark, the signage was unlit, and none of the signs were visible from the bay I reversed into. The operator has provided photographs of signs and their locations, but crucially they have not provided any evidence showing what the signage looked like from my parking position at night. Their images do not demonstrate visibility from the driver’s viewpoint. Under Vine, simply showing that signage exists somewhere in the car park is not enough; the signs must be positioned and illuminated so a driver would reasonably see and understand them before a contract can be formed. In this case, that was not possible.

The BPA Code of Practice strengthens this point. Section 19 states that signs must be “conspicuous and legible” so that drivers can easily read and understand them. Appendix B further states that signage must be visible and understandable in the lighting conditions in which enforcement takes place. Since the operator’s own timestamps show this incident occurred in darkness, they were required to show signage was illuminated or otherwise visible in those conditions. They have not done so. The unlit, poorly positioned signs meant I could not reasonably see or read any terms, so no contract could be formed.

The operator also claims that the consideration period does not apply because I left the vehicle, but this contradicts the BPA Code of Practice. Section 13.1 states:
“The driver must be allowed a minimum of 10 minutes to read the signs and decide whether they accept the contract.”

Section 13.2 adds:
“You must allow the driver a reasonable consideration period to decide if they accept the terms.”

Nothing in the BPA Code requires the motorist to stay inside the car or remain stationary. The consideration period applies to all drivers. The operator’s own timestamped photos, submitted in evidence, show that my total time on site was approximately 8 minutes, which is comfortably within the mandatory minimum 10-minute consideration period. A parking charge cannot be issued until a driver has been given that time to read and consider the terms. Regardless of what I was doing during those 8 minutes, the BPA rules prevent any contract from being formed within that period.

In summary, the signage was not visible at night from my parking position, meaning Vine v Waltham Forest prevents the formation of any contract. The operator has not shown that the signs were illuminated or legible in the actual conditions at the time, which is required under Section 19 and Appendix B of the BPA Code. Their own evidence proves I was on site for only 8 minutes, which is well within the mandatory consideration period under Sections 13.1 and 13.2. For these reasons, the Parking Charge Notice has not been issued in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice and must be cancelled.


As for what the sign says, this is a link to the evidence they provided as to what the sign says https://ibb.co/Y7JnGDwX this is the picture they posted as "proof" that signs are clear at the location

once again, chatgpt told me 10 minutes, its so stupid that i relied on them. im a relatively new driver and have never had a ticket before, i am careful where i park and was shocked when i found out i got a ticket that i didnt even think to go and check if there exists a forum for this kind of stuff. but alas, here we are.

So if im getting this correctly, lets say POPLA reject my appeal, the operator will then send me a letter again demanding payment, your saying legally i dont have to listen to it and pay and nothing can happen as they have no power to demand a payment from me? What if they go through a debt collector, i know of companies that will sell certain debts to debt collecting companies, what if that happens here? i thought they had powers to remove items from me in total value of the amount i owe do they not?

You are conflating too many different scenarios. A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is not a fine or a penalty. Only an "authority" such as the police or a council under its 'Traffic Authority' powers can issue a fine or a penalty. Even then, only the police can legally require the Keeper to identify the driver.

An unregulated private parking firm can only issue a PCN. They are not an 'authority' of any kind and the PCN is simply a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver. There in no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver to a private firm. The invoice is issued under civil contract law.

Your vehicle may be registered to you as the Keeper. However, just because YOUR insurance policy only has yourself listed, it does not mean that someone else with third party insurance can't driver it. My own insurance allows me to drive any other car with third party liability as long as I have the owners permission. So, in theory, millions of people could drive your car with your permission as ling as they have third party cover.

So, your only option is NOT to name the driver. All you ever have to do is to refer to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that". only "the driver did this or that". The only data the parking operator can get is the Keepers data from the DVLA. That does not prove who was driving, only the name of the Keeper. As long as they fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA, then if the unknown driver is not identified, they can then transfer liability to the known Keeper.

In the majority of these PCNs, they have not fully complied with all the requirements of PoFA and so, they cannot transfer liability to the Keeper if the driver is not identified. As with this case, their NtK os not 100% PoFA compliant and had you not identified the driver, they could not hold you liable as the Keeper. Hence the advice to never, ever identify the driver, even if you think their PCN may be PoFA compliant. We are experts on PoFA and can spot any discrepancies.

Their PCNs cannot be partially or even mostly/substantially compliant with PoFA. Just like you cannot be partially or even mostly/substantially pregnant, it is a binary position. You either are or you aren't. Likewise, a PCN either is or is not PoFA compliant.

Things like "consideration" and "grace" periods are also often confused, even (or especially) by ChatGPT. A consideration period is to allow a driver to find a parking spot, seek out a terms sign, read it and 'consider' whether to accept the terms or leave. It is a minimum of 5 minutes but can be longer. However, once the decision to remain is made, the consideration period is no longer relevant and it is not "extra time" that can be added to a period of parking. However, if the driver had accepted the terms and remains parked, they are allowed an extra minimum of 10 minutes "grace period" before a PCN can be issued. That minimum 10 minutes is extra time but only applies if the driver considers the terms and decided to accept them and remain.

As I have already pls you, even if you do nothing from now on, the only thing you need to respond to is a county court claim That is very likely to happen but, I can guarantee with greater then 99.9% certainty that if you defend it with our advice, it ill never reach a hearing and will either be struck out or discontinued.

Your fears about CCJs and bailiffs are also unfounded. You can safely ignore any debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear. Here is an article I wrote to try and educate all the low-hanging fruit as to why there is no danger of a CCJ or bailiffs:

These unregulated private parking firms and their pet debt collectors thrive on one thing: the public’s ignorance of how County Court claims and CCJs actually work. They know that if they can make you believe that “a claim” or a “debt recovery” letter somehow wrecks your credit rating, you will panic and pay them. The gullible tree is full of low-hanging fruit, and they make a very good living shaking it.

Here is the reality, which you should read and take a “life lesson” from...

A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a private firm is not a fine. It is just a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver. At that stage, nothing touches your credit file.

If you are not successful in appealing the PCN – and appeals are almost never successful at the initial stage and rarely at the secondary, supposedly “independent” (but not) appeal – most low-hanging fruit do not understand that those decisions are not binding on them and they should never just pay. Many do, however, because they are ignorant of the process and fearful of imaginary consequences.

If you then get “debt recovery” letters from so-called debt collectors, those are just more speculative invoices dressed up in scary language designed to prey on your ignorance and fear. Debt collectors have no legal powers whatsoever to come to your door, take goods, or report anything to credit reference agencies. You could receive fifty of those letters and your credit rating would be unchanged.

As part of the modus operandi of these unregulated firms, the next formal step is usually a Letter of Claim (LoC). That is just a threat that they may start a County Court claim. Even then, your credit record is still untouched. It is simply a threat of legal action, not the result of it. Just more attempts to intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.

Only if they go ahead and issue a County Court claim do you enter the court (judicial) process. A Claim Form comes from the court, not from a useless and powerless debt collector. Getting a claim issued against you does not, by itself, affect your credit rating. A claim is simply an allegation that you owe money. You have the right to defend it. As long as you read your post, acknowledge the claim in time, and either defend it or settle it, your credit file remains untouched.

A County Court Judgment (CCJ) only arises if the court actually makes a judgment against you. That happens either because you defended and were unsuccessful at a hearing, or because you ignored the claim and the parking firm got judgment in default. Even then, you still have a crucial safety net that the low-hanging fruit do not realise exists. If you pay the full judgment sum within 30 days of the date of judgment, the CCJ is not registered on your credit file. It is expunged completely from the record. It is as if it never happened as far as lenders are concerned.

A CCJ only appears on your credit record if you fail to pay within that 30-day window. That is the point at which it gets recorded and can affect your ability to obtain credit. Up to that point, no amount of tickets, no stack of debt recovery letters, no Letter of/Before Claim, and not even the issuing of a County Court claim has any impact on your credit history.

Bailiffs are a separate step again. They cannot simply be sent because you have ignored an unregulated private parking invoice or a useless debt recovery letter. Bailiffs (enforcement agents) only become relevant after there is a CCJ and it has not been paid.

For most smaller PCN CCJs, it is not even worth the creditor’s time and cost to instruct bailiffs, especially when the amount is under £600 and stuck in the slower County Court enforcement system. But the key point is this: no unpaid CCJ, no lawful bailiff.

So when people say things like “I had a debt recovery letter so I might not get a mortgage now” or “if I defend, I will get a CCJ,” they are simply wrong. It is precisely that ignorance and fear that these firms trade on. They rely on ordinary motorists incorrectly assuming that a red-letter demand automatically means ruined credit and bailiffs at the door.

There is nothing in the advice given here that will affect your credit record. On the contrary, proper advice is what keeps you away from CCJs. If you engage with the process, defend where appropriate, and, in the extremely rare instance where you are unsuccessful defending a claim, pay any judgment within 30 days, your credit file will remain completely unaffected and no bailiff will lawfully darken your doorstep over a private parking charge.

These companies rely on being able to intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.