Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello,

I have, today (06.05.25), recived a PCN dated 02.05.2 from parkingeye regarding the driver of the vehicle which I am the registered keeper of, being parked without a permit.

The driver did this a further two times. If there is no way to get out of the fine, I would be greatly appriciative of any advice in regards to potentially having to pay only one fine should a further two fines come in. (A total of £300 or £180 if paid in 14 days).

As it is somewhere the driver goes frequently, I will get them to get some photos of the car park enterance and potentially get dashcam footage that, hopefully, show the signs are not clear enough on entry to the car park.

The driver is Autistic and was stressed about this being their first few days starting at a new place of employment and being late due to not being able to find parking if this could be used as a mitigating factor




TIA

Being stressed about a new job is unlikely to provide a useful avenue of defence at any stage of the process, but your mention of said job had raised a question - does the driver work at Wasabi Sushi & Bento? If so, a good first port of call would be to speak to the management there to see if they will intervene.

Unfortunatly not. That would be too easy.

The driver works on the same industrial estate. They were not made aware of additional parking on site for the first three days of his employment. They parked there at their interview and never recived a ticket. They have spoken to people at their work and have been told site management of Wasabi will not intervene.

Hi All

I, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, have been issued 3 PCNS for 3 days of alleged contraventions by parkingeye. As you can imagine £180 or £300 is quite a sum of money to be presented with in the space of a few days.

The tickets and evidence pointing to the lack of signage are located at the bottom of the post. For context, The driver drives into the car park from right to left - meaning the sign is facing away from the driver! (The writing on the tickets is to remind me one day prior to appeal to give me as much time as possible for the others)

Any opinions on how sucessful my appeal is likely to be based on past expirence would be greatly weclomed.

Below is my the appeal i have created for the first one as a result of some ChatGPT work.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally appeal the Parking Charge Notice issued by ParkingEye Ltd, reference number (Ref #), on the grounds of inadequate and non-compliant entrance signage at the site in question.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. I wish to make it clear that I am not admitting to being the driver at the time of the alleged contravention, nor am I obligated to identify the driver under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 unless the notice fully complies with the strict conditions set out in that legislation.

According to the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice – Section 19.2 and Appendix B, entrance signage must be:

• Clear and prominent
• Positioned to face oncoming vehicles
• Visible and legible without requiring drivers to stop

On the date of the alleged contravention, the signage at the entrance was not facing the direction of oncoming traffic, making it impossible to read upon entry. This violates the BPA requirement that drivers must be able to see and understand the terms and conditions upon entering the site.

To support this, I have included:

• A photograph taken today, showing that the entrance sign is still incorrectly positioned and not facing approaching vehicles.
• Dashcam footage from the date of the alleged contravention, clearly showing the entrance signage was not visible or legible.
  Please note that the file size of the footage exceeds the allowable upload limit for this appeal platform. However, I will gladly provide the video footage upon request via email, file transfer, or physical media if necessary.

Due to the poor positioning of the entrance sign, the driver was not made aware that they were entering private land governed by specific parking terms, and therefore no contract could have been formed.

I respectfully request that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled. Should you decide not to uphold my appeal, please provide the following:

I respectfully request that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled. Should you decide not to uphold my appeal, please provide the following:

• Evidence of the entrance signage at the time of entry, including photographs showing its orientation relative to approaching vehicles.
  
• A site map showing the exact positioning of the signage.

Confirmation that the signage complied with BPA Code of Practice requirements at the time of the alleged contravention.

Please consider this a formal appeal. I request that all enforcement activity is paused while the appeal is under review.

This is a standard response they send to everyone who appeals as the keeper without nominating a driver. I'd just ignore it and wait for a proper appeal response.

Not really surprising, it wasn't a strong appeal reason especially considering there's a sign in the photo above, right in front of you as you drive in as well as the one at an angle by the entrance. Parking Eye signage is usually OK and often used on here to highlight deficiencies in the signage of other companies.

I have now used satilite view on Google Maps to create this as it has become clear that some people may get confused that the sign is facing a dead end with no entry/exit point and will attach to POPLA. Also, a provisional appeal to POPLA, which any advice would be appriciated.

POPLA Appeal Statement
PCN Reference:
Vehicle Registration:
POPLA Verification Code:
Appellant:
Date:

Grounds of Appeal
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced above. I am appealing ParkingEye Ltd’s decision to reject my initial appeal on the basis of:

• Inadequate and incorrectly positioned signage at the site
• Keeper liability cannot apply – no contract formed
• Failure to comply with BPA Code of Practice
• No valid contract was formed

1. Inadequate and Misplaced Entrance Signage – No Contract Could Have Been Formed
The alleged contravention is based on the presence of signage that was not visible to any driver entering the car park from the only logical access route. ParkingEye relies on an “entrance sign” which is not positioned at the actual estate or car park entrance but is instead located at the end of a dead-end road which has no access, no traffic flow, and no entry/exit point.

I have attached an annotated satellite image of the area (see Annex A) showing the following:

• The Estate Entrance on Rainsford Road, which is the only viable route for vehicles to access the car park
• The Car Park Entrance and the flow of traffic into it
• The actual position of the sign being used to justify the PCN, which is facing a dead-end with no vehicle access
• The photo location where I captured images of the signage still facing away from the road

Because of this placement, no driver entering the estate via the correct and only available route would see the entrance sign, let alone be able to read any terms and conditions. This is a direct breach of the BPA Code of Practice, Section 19 and Appendix B, which require that:

“Signs at the entrance to the car park must be clearly visible to drivers when entering the land.”

Since the signage is not visible to any motorist entering the site lawfully, it is impossible for any contract to have been formed.

2. Keeper Liability Cannot Apply – No Contract Formed
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle but have made no admission as to the identity of the driver.

While ParkingEye’s Notice to Keeper complies with the technical requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, keeper liability can only apply where a valid contract has been offered to and breached by the driver.

In this case, no such contract could have been formed, because the supposed “entrance” sign relied upon by ParkingEye is not visible to any driver entering the car park. The sign is positioned facing a dead-end road, not the actual access route into the site, meaning no terms were visible or communicated at the point of entry.

As the BPA Code of Practice requires entrance signage to be clear, prominent, and readable without stopping, this failure to communicate any terms upon entry invalidates any alleged contract.

Accordingly, since no contract was formed, there can be no breach, and no basis for holding the keeper liable under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.
Without this, the PCN cannot be enforced against me as keeper.

3. Breach of BPA Code of Practic
ParkingEye has breached several key elements of the BPA Code:

• Entrance signage was not visible or readable from the route taken into the car park
• The sign’s orientation faces away from oncoming traffic
• The sign is placed in a location that no vehicle would logically pass

The Code requires that drivers be able to read and understand the terms before they decide to park. That clearly did not happen here.

4. Supporting Evidence
Annex A – Annotated satellite image showing site layout, signage location, and entry route

Photograph taken recently from the star-marked location, showing the sign still faces away from oncoming vehicles

Dashcam footage recorded on the date of the alleged offence, showing the absence of any visible entrance signage.
(Due to file size, this footage is available upon request. Please contact me and I will provide it via file transfer, email, or USB if necessary.)

Conclusion
The charge is unenforceable for the following reasons:

• There is no compliant entrance signage visible to motorists entering the estate
• The supposed sign faces a dead-end and cannot be seen by entering drivers
• I have not admitted to being the driver, and keeper liability has not been established under POFA 2012
• No valid contract was offered or accepted due to the signage issues

I respectfully request that POPLA upholds this appeal and instructs ParkingEye Ltd to cancel the charge.

Decent start... Some brief initial observations:

• If you are going to argue that there is no keeper liability, you'd be wise not to say who was driving, which you currently do in point #5
• See what others think, but I'm not sure I'd bother with point #5 at all, whilst in this case it shows the driver was unaware of the restrictions, it could equally be the actions of a driver who wilfully ignores any parking restrictions
• The entrance signage seems to be your strongest point, but it might be worth addressing the rest of the signage to demonstrate that the terms were not adequately conveyed to the driver. I note that in your image of the entrance a number of signs elsewhere in the car park are visible. This does not negate the point that entrance signage is required, but equally might not help the wider point around adequate signage.
• You mention dashcam footage "available on request". POPLA will not request it, they will make their decision based on the evidence presented to them. If you believe the dashcam footage supports your case, include stills from it in your appeal document.

Available on request has been removed and replaced with a still image, time stamped from the date and time of the alleged contravention.

I don’t think going further into the signage would be a good idea. They’re standard parkingeye signage which seem to be the gold standard having looked at other posts.

I have added the following to point 5 to make it more relevant and potentially strengthen it?

5. Pattern of Repeated PCNs – Ongoing Signage Failure
Multiple Parking Charge Notices have since been issued to this vehicle for additional visits to the same car park on subsequent days.

This strongly suggests that:

The entrance signage remained non-visible or unclear

No reasonable notice of terms or restrictions was provided

A motorist could unknowingly return and park multiple times, unaware that any parking charge scheme was in operation

It is relevant to note that the driver works at another unit within the industrial estate and is paid a base wage of £135 per day, with no additional overtime or unsociable hour enhancements.

No reasonable person in such circumstances would knowingly choose to incur parking fines of £80 (discounted) or £100 (full rate) per day — more than half of their daily income — just to attend work. The only logical conclusion is that the driver was unaware of the restrictions, further reinforcing the claim that the signage is wholly inadequate and failed to alert site users to the presence of any parking enforcement.

This pattern demonstrates a fundamental and ongoing failure to meet the BPA Code of Practice and the requirement to clearly convey terms at the point of entry.