Free Traffic Legal Advice

Welcome. Why would you want to pay anything to an unregulated private parking firm? Are you tempted by the "mugs discount"?

That sign does not form a valid parking contract for someone parking between 7am and 6pm on a weekday. In the small print, it says that the area is for "permit holders only" during those hours. It also says that public parking using Phone and Pay is only allowed from 6pm to 7am Monday to Friday, and all day on weekends.

This means that during 7am to 6pm on weekdays, public parking is not offered at all. The sign does not invite the public to pay and park during that time. There is no price shown for that time period, and no clear offer is made. Because of this, no contract can be formed for a non-permit holder parking there during those hours. A driver in that situation would not know if they are allowed to park or what rules apply.

The main restriction—"permit holders only" between 7am and 6pm—is hidden in small print. A key requirement of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) is that contract terms must be fair and transparent. Section 68 of the Act says that terms must be brought to the consumer’s attention clearly and prominently. Here, the restriction is not visible enough to meet that standard. The average driver could easily miss it.

Also, under Section 62 of the CRA, any term that causes a significant imbalance to the consumer’s disadvantage is unfair and therefore not binding. It is unfair to bury the main restriction in fine print, then issue a £100 charge when the driver had no proper opportunity to read or understand it.

If the operator issues a £100 parking charge for being on-site without a permit during those restricted hours, that also falls under the CRA’s list of potentially unfair terms. Schedule 2 includes terms that require a consumer to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation. Where no clear contract is formed and the driver was not properly informed, the £100 charge is likely to be considered excessive and unfair.

In summary, no contract can be formed for public parking between 7am and 6pm on a weekday. The sign fails to clearly explain the restriction, the relevant terms are buried in small print, and any charge issued is likely to breach the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The operator’s signage does not meet the legal standard of fairness, transparency, or enforceability.

So, with that knowledge, you should appeal to POPLA. The following points should be raised:

1. No contract was formed

There was no clear offer of parking during 7am to 6pm on a weekday. The sign gives the impression that parking is allowed for payment, but then restricts it to permit holders in small print. A driver cannot accept terms that are not clearly offered, so no contract could be formed.

2. Signage is misleading and unfair

The key restriction is hidden in fine print, which fails the legal requirement for clear and prominent terms. The sign does not make it obvious that daytime parking is banned for non-permit holders. That goes against what most people would understand from looking at it quickly. POPLA assessors have previously cancelled charges where signage is unclear.

3. Consumer Rights Act 2015 applies

The hidden restriction breaches the Consumer Rights Act. Section 62 requires fairness. Section 68 requires transparency. Schedule 2 says a term may be unfair if it causes a significant imbalance, or makes someone pay an excessive penalty. In this case, the sign hides key terms, and the £100 charge is out of proportion if the person did not know parking was restricted.

4. App showed zero charge

You tried to pay using the app, and it showed £0 and didn’t allow payment. That confirms there was no option to pay. If the system doesn’t let the driver pay, there’s no contract. You’ve provided a screenshot from the same location and time of day that shows this behaviour.

5. Driver was not identified

While the keeper can be held liable under PoFA, this doesn’t affect the rest of the appeal. POPLA will still cancel if they find the signage and terms are unclear or unfair. POPLA decisions are based on evidence and contract law, not just PoFA.

6. Require Proof of Posting date of the NtK

You claim that the NtK was not received by post until 23rd May. The operator is required to be able to evidence the date the notice entered the postal system. Put them to strict proof.

7. Put the operator to strict proof of a valid contract flowing from the landowner

Put CE to strict proof that they hold a valid contract flowing from the landowner. If they only provide a statement, it must still evidence the following points as required under the PPSCoP section 14:


Conclusion: You have good grounds to appeal to POPLA. The core issue is that the sign did not clearly explain that daytime parking was banned for non-permit holders. A hidden restriction cannot create a valid contract. Add the failed app and CRA issues, and your appeal has a real chance of success. Even if it doesn't succeed, this is almost certainly never going to get to a hearing if they try to litigate it.

3. App Confirms That No Payment Option Was Offered
I attempted to pay using the official app (evidence attached – screenshot taken at the same location)...

4. The Operator Has Not Identified the Driver
This Notice to Keeper has been issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), but no evidence has been supplied that the operator has identified the driver. I am the registered keeper and do not admit to being the driver. Liability under PoFA must therefore be established strictly according to the requirements of the Act, which have not been demonstrated.

Can you see what's wrong above? If you are claiming no Keeper liability, whilst there is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking firm, it is very easy to inadvertently blab the drivers identity if you don't refer to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that".

I just had the POPLA appeal outcome. They rejected it.

Should I just wait to see if they take it to court, or should I be doing anything else in the meanwhile?
Is it worth raising a compliant with the BPA? Or should I just wait and see if I receive a LBC?

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When entering onto a private car park such as this one, a motorist might form a contract with the parking operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The contract on site is a pay for parking car park and permit holders can register their vehicle registration. The operator provided photographic evidence of the vehicle in question remaining in the car park for 29 minutes and didn’t register their vehicle registration. In relation to point 1: The appellant was present on site during hours when public parking is not permitted. It is the responsibility of the motorist to observe and comply with the clearly displayed signage. The operator is under no obligation to offer public parking between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM. The terms and conditions for parking on the site are set by the landowner, not the motorist. It is the motorist’s duty to ensure they are parking in accordance with these terms. Failure to do so may result in the issuance of a Parking Charge Notice. In relation to point 2: This sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code). Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that there must be an entrance sign displayed and maintained at the entrance to the site, to inform drivers whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions or prohibited. Section 3.1.2 of the Code contains the principles the entrance sign must display, including whether public parking is available and if a payment is required. Its design must also comply with the standard format as described in Annex A. The entrance sign must take into account the speed of vehicles approaching the car park. The operator's evidence proves clear entrance signage. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. I am satisfied that the signage on site meets the single code of practice. Furthermore, the signage is clear that public parking is Monday to Friday 6pm – 7am. The signage does not mislead motorists as the font is large and clear when public parking is. The smaller writing tells motorists that public parking is only permitted 7am – 6pm, Monday to Friday. But is still clear for the motorists to see. The obligation lies with the motorist to read the full sign and ensure they are fully aware of the terms and conditions. Furthermore, the signage does not breach the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as it is clear, abundant. Additionally, that they app payment details are clear and there to advertise the payment method only. It does not mislead motorists into thinking the app payment is at all times. The responsibility lies with the motorist to read the signage carefully. In relation to point 3: The reason why the payment appellant showed zero, was because it was not possible to pay for parking during the time the driver was on site. The time they were parked the car park was for permit holders only which was clearly stated in the signage. In relation to point 4: In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I will therefore be assessing the appellant’s liability as the keeper of the vehicle. I can see from the Notice to Keeper (NTK) that it meets POFA and the keeper has rightly been pursued for the parking event. In relation to point 5: There is not requirement for the posting date as the parking event was 09/05/25 and the PCN was issued 7 days later. It is assumed that the PCN would be delivered 2 days after the postage date, which would take the PCN to 19 May as the delivery date, which is still only 10 days after the parking event and well within the POFA guidelines. In relation to point 6: Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this case I can see from the operator's evidence pack that they have included an Enforcement Agreement to prove they have authority to issue the PCN. POPLA accepts Enforcement Agreements from operators to confirm they have landowner authority to operate at a site, and we do this because it is only a small part of confirming on the balance of probabilities that they have landowner authority. The fact that they have signs, camera, personnel, etc, at the site also supports that proof. While I note the appellant’s comments, from the information provided from the operator I am satisfied therefore, that the operator had sufficient authority on the date of the contravention. Furthermore, if authority had since been removed, it is likely that the landowner would remove the signage at the same time. Not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission. In relation to point 7: I note the appellant's comments, however, the operator's only responsibility is to ensure the third party payment provider’s details are correct on the signage. The operator has no authority over what information the third party payment provider presents on its app. Any complaints about the third party payment provider would need to be raised with them directly outside of this appeals service. I note the appellant's comments. As POPLA is an independent body we are unable to become involved with anything to do with the costs, collections, or payments of the PCN. Any questions regarding payment would need to be addressed with the operator directly. POFA does not state a requirements for payment time frames - it only states the time frames in which the keeper will become liable, which is the warning - and this warning has been correctly given. They can contact the operator for further payment issues or queries. I acknowledge the appellant states the charge is disproportionate and does not reflect the loss to the landowner. The appeal reasons raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage itself. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the legibility of the signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable. Ultimately, the crux of this case is that the driver entered the car park during a time when the car park was a permit holders only car park and public paid parking was not permitted. The signage was clear and told motorists public paid parking is only available Monday to Friday 6pm – 7am. The appellant should have left the car park as soon as they read the signage, rather than trying to pay for parking when payment was not possible. it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. The car park had clear signage to advise the driver of the terms and conditions. Upon consideration of the evidence provided, the driver parked during a time when they were not permitted to park or should have registered their vehicle registration and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. This PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I have refused this appeal.

What was the name of this moronic POPLA assessor? Quite clearly, they have had the BPA chip fully inserted and activated.

The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. I am satisfied that the signage on site meets the single code of practice. Furthermore, the signage is clear that public parking is Monday to Friday 6pm – 7am. The signage does not mislead motorists as the font is large and clear when public parking is. The smaller writing tells motorists that public parking is only permitted 7am – 6pm, Monday to Friday. But is still clear for the motorists to see. The obligation lies with the motorist to read the full sign and ensure they are fully aware of the terms and conditions. Furthermore, the signage does not breach the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as it is clear, abundant. Additionally, that they app payment details are clear and there to advertise the payment method only. It does not mislead motorists into thinking the app payment is at all times. The responsibility lies with the motorist to read the signage carefully.

That sign is in no way, shape or form unambiguous. The critical information about permit holders only between 7am and 6pm is hidden in tiny font and certainly wouldn't pass Lord Dennings' Red Hand Rule. The ambiguity is also present because it says a permit can be purchased.

I could go on but it is a waste of effort. DO NOT pay a penny. The POPLA decision is not binding on you. Should this ever reach a court room, they would not stand a chance trying to convince a really independent arbiter that the sign does not fail the CRA.

For now, you can safely ignore all useless debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to actually do anything except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and this is easily fought with the advice we provide.

Edited to add: I just asked a judge about this signage and he agreed and couldn't see a judge finding for the claimant on this one.

You can respond to that LBC (LoC) as follows:

Subject: Response to your Letter Before Claim Ref: [reference number]

Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence you place reliance upon, putting it in clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

As a serial litigator, one would expect you to comply with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You may wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), require the exchange of sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.

Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet encloses none. That omission undermines the only foundation upon which your claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue while you decline to furnish the very document you purport to enforce.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with para 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required. Accordingly, please provide:

1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) and any notice chain relied upon to assert PoFA 2012 liability.

2. A copy of the contract you allege exists between you and the driver, being an actual photograph of the sign(s) in place on the material date (not a stock image), together with a site plan showing the sign locations.

3. The precise wording of the clause(s) allegedly breached.

4. The written agreement between you and the landowner evidencing standing/authority to enforce and to litigate.

5. A breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” add-on includes VAT.


I am entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction, and I require it to meet my own obligation under paragraph 6(b).

If you fail to provide the above, I will treat that as non-compliance with the PAPDC and Pre-Action Conduct. I reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court and to seek appropriate sanctions and costs (including, where appropriate, a stay and/or other case management orders).

Until you comply and provide the requested material, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim or to consider my position. It would be premature and a waste of costs and court time to issue proceedings. Should you do so, I will seek immediate case management relief pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order compelling provision of the above.

Please note, I will not engage with any web portal; I will only respond by email or post.

Yours faithfully,

[Your name]

I went back to the Landowner, and as they had initially took the PCN details down and told me that they would get it cancelled. Today they told me that the assistant had forgotten to do so, and since its 28 days after the PCN issue date they cannot do anything now.

I don't know if this is a real thing.

I thought so as much. I think at this point it might be a dead end to convince the landowners to cancel this, as they were unwilling to even try. The shops in the building will definitely lose my business for good irrespective of the outcome.

I will wait to hear back from CEL to see if they take this forward.