Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi

The notice is dated the 23 July but i have been away and just retuned home.

It states the vehicle was not authorised to park however the vehicle was not parked, the vehicle entered a passage way seen here https://maps.app.goo.gl/eBUaa8J2bHqMj8e79 the signs on google has recently changed but it does not advise on entry of any requirements. He driver informed they simply went in and a truck ahead was blocking access and needed to wait to turn around. They turned around and had left. The PCN has them timed at 15 mins.

I was thinking to argue no notice of enforcement is too small to read and only on one side so if you drove in from left you miss the sign. Secondly ticket states not authored to park however the vehicle did not park it remained on the road. Any suggestions on what else I can do or say.

I have had my rejection, the details below;

Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for
the following reasons:
• The car park is operated by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). Cameras capture
an image of vehicles entering and leaving the car park and calculate their length of stay on
site.
• The car park in question is on private land and upon entering such land vehicles are subject
to the terms and conditions of parking as shown on the signage. The signage quite clearly
states that if your vehicle is in breach of the terms and conditions of the car park then a
Parking Charge Notice will be issued.
• On entry to private land it is the responsibility of the driver to check for signage and ensure
that your vehicle has been correctly parked. Any vehicles found not adhering to the signage
will be issued with a Parking Charge Notice.
• The signage onsite clearly states ‘Authorised Vehicles Only’, your vehicle was not authorised
to park in Margaret Powell House - Milton Keynes – your full and correct vehicle registration
was not registered via the console located on the premises, therefore the Parking Charge
Notice was issued correctly and remains payable.
• Euro Car Parks do not need to provide evidence of who was driving the vehicle, it is the
registered keeper’s responsibility to inform of the full name and address within 28 days
beginning with the day after the notice was given. If the full amount remains unpaid, under
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the Act’), Euro Car Parks have the right
subject of the Act to recover from the keeper of the vehicle at the time it was parked so much
of that amount which remains unpaid.

Quote

Hi,

How does this sound?

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.

The following non-compliance on the part of the car park operator is noted:

Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet PoFA requirements. The NtK does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, so the keeper of the vehicle liable cannot be held liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. ECP has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only. The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. The NtK can only hold the driver liable.

Inadequate Signage. Version 1.1 of the BPA code of practice point 3.1.1 requires an entrance sign to displayed at the entrance. The registered keeper notes a sign is visible on the right hand entrance for traffic exiting or entering from the right hand passage but not from the left hand passage. The registered keeper understands the signage would be blocked or obscured should a vehicle enter from the left while a vehicle is exiting from the right.

The signage used by ECP indicates a parking sign with blue P and it’s noted it states authorised staff and visitor vehicles only. The road itself is part of a number of passage ways around the city centre, the interpretation by the average driver would indicate the parking bays themselves are controlled not the act of entering and leaving the road. There is no signage or otherwise which indicates the road itself is controlled entry and the act of entering the lane enters the vehicle into a contract or otherwise. ECP relies on implied consent without making clear a vehicle station and not parked within the marked parking bays has entered a contract.
The registered keeper understands the vehicle in question simply entered and was stationary in the public
The entrance sign fails to comply with 3.1.2-B with no details of payments on the entrance. The act of a vehicle entering and not parking within any of the bays would fall foul to inadequate information.

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) shows no parking time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question.
The Notice to Keeper states:
“On 14/02/2025 the vehicle entered at
17:29:29 and departed at 19:45:30.”
These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking.
Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements
of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a)
The signage at the entrance does not comply with BPA code of Practice Appendix B- if there are previous allowances made for this by the BPA please provide evidence. The act of entering the road does not constitute as a vehicle being parked. ECP assumes the vehicle was parked despite no evidence being presented to support the vehicle having entered.

I note a few references to the BPA Code of Practice, you should be referring to the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.

True enough, although one assume not version 1.1

I have no idea why you have used the "code" option to display your text but it is a PITA to try and read it that way. I have taken the liberty of re-posting it using the "quote" option which is what you should have used in the first place:

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I herby dispute your 'Parking Charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.

I note the allegation / contravention stated is Your vehicle was not authorised to park. I hearby put you on the strict burden of proof to demonstrate the vehicle was parked, CCTV images of an entry and exit from a road are not evidence of a vehicle being parked. It simply indicates a vehicle passed through a given point at a specific time. It cannot be assumed simply a vehicle entering the vehicle must have parked.

It is also noted the Notice to keeper shows no parking time, merely two images of a number plate of the vehicle in question. There is no connection demonstrated with the car park in question. For the avoidance of doubt the entry/exit point is in the town centre where mark public car parking spaces exist and all the roads are a similar road design. There is no evidence to support the road itself is a car park.

The Notice to keeper states: On the 15/07/2025 the vehicle entered at 17:29:29 and departed at 17:45:30. The times do not equate any to any single evidence of parking period. Since there is no evidence of actual parking times, this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012 paragraph 9(2)(a)

The signage at the entry does not comply with the BPA code of practice Appendix B - If there are any previous allowances made for this by the BPA, please provide evidence of the same.


The following non-compliance of the part of ECP is noted;

1) The Notice to Keeper does not meet PoFA requirements. The NTK does not fully comply with ALL requirements of the PoPA 2012, the keeper cannot be held liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There is no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. ECP has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only. The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued. The notice to keeper can only hold the driver liable for which the registered keeper is not liable for.

2)  Inadequate signage, Version 1.1 of the BPA code of practice point 3.1.1 requires an entrance sign to be displayed at the entrance to any said car park. I note as the registered keeper a single sign exists on the right hand side and no sign exist on entry on the left hand site. The location is a road for heavy good vehicles and delivery vehicles which simply by driving out of the road would obscure the sign to the right. With no sign on the entry road to the left side to which traffic drives given we are in England it would be non compliant with BPA rules but also unreasonable to assume every driver must have read the sign to the right.

3) The signage used by ECP indicated a parking sign with a P in a blue font, its noted it states authorised staff and visitor vehicles only. The road itself is part of a number of passage ways in the city centre. The interpretation by the average person would indicate the parking bays themselves are controlled and not the act of entering and leaving the road. ECP relies on implied consent, the signage does not stipulate the act of entering the road and moving in traffic or being stationary on the road but not parked in any of the bays is a breach of the rules. The registered keeper highlights the signage should state controlled entry zone, only authorised staff and visitors.

4) The information available to the registered keeper indicated the vehicle did not enter any parking bay and was stationary awaiting traffic to move from a delivery vehicle in front of them.

5) the entrance sign also fails BPA code of practice 3.1.2 (b) with no details of payments on the entrance. The act of a vehicle entering, not parking and therefore having no reason to review any of the signage for parking bays would fall foul to inadequate information.

6) The BPA code of practice V1.0 Annex A.1 the signage on entry fails to comply with the requitement if public parking is not welcome then it must be made clear. The statement authorised staff and visitor vehicles only does not state entry to the road is not permissible or the zone is controlled for entry. it is noted non of the text from the Group 1 in table A.1 is found on the sign.

7) The BPA code of practice V1.0 Annex 2.2 states the signs should be placed so that its reasonable by the driver without needing to look away from the road ahead. With no sign on the entry section on the left hand side, its not in compliance with the BPA code.

The entry sign would also fall foul of The BPA code of practice V1.0 Table B.1 types of controlled land, no-stopping, the entry signs should state no stopping. The sign fails to comply with the requirement.

While I trust you will cancel this charge notice, I do intend as the registered keeper to vigorously defend this matter and pursue adverse costs as a result of its actions.

I have had a skim read through and I admire your tenacity, but as I already mentioned, this is unlikely to be successful at POPLA and wasting too much effort on the POPLA appeal will only lead to disappointment. I repeat the advice I gave earlier that if POPLA is unsuccessful, you can safely ignore everything until you receive a county court claim from the bulk litigation firm, DCB Legal. If you follow this advice, I can say with greater than 99% certainty, that you will not be paying a penny to ECP and the claim will either be struck out or discontinued.

For now, you need to remember that your POPLA appeal is addressed to the POPLA assessor, not ECP, so references such as "you did this or that..." come across as evidence that you don't know who you are addressing.

Also, you keep referring to the BPA CoP v1... Why? Everything, except signage, should refer to the PPSCoP v1.1 (Feb 2025) and for signage, you refer to the BPA CoP v9 (Feb 2024)

So, with the above in mind, just prepare something that uses the correct references and don't pin your hopes on POPLA. If you are successful, great. If not, no big deal. Either way, you won't be paying ECP.

Yes, you are right, the way this is worded is illiterate, but you’re off the hook, well done.