Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi everyone,

On Sunday 29th September I went to Maidenhead to attend a Coffee Festival. Beforehand I read online that on Sunday most parkings are free around that area. My first choice was full and someone directed me to the next closest option and said it's free. I ended up in Clock Tower Park at 14:06. I read the sign and on top clearly said Monday-Saturday followed by charges. I looked at all the parked cars and none had any tickets on display. So I assumed that it was free.

Today I had this PCN through the post by Green Parking asking for £85. I was shocked so went back and looked at the Parking display photo that I had taken on that day. To my horror, right at the end and not in the same colour as charges, it says £2 on Sundays. I have attached the photo. To me, this signage is very cheeky and if you are a bit in rush or don't have your glasses on, you can easily miss this bit. I genuinely missed this and clearly won't risk it for the sake of 2 quid.

What do you suggest I need to do?

Thanks in advance

PS. I have uploaded my PCN and car park display on this link. I couldn't embed them here, no matter how small!

https://imgur.com/a/ZJDFJRa

Incredible knowledge and service! Thank you so much. Will keep you updated if/when I hear back.

Hello I finally heard back from Green Parking with regards to my appeal. The date on their letter is 29t/10/2024 but just received it today 4th Nov and they have given me till 5th in order to pay the "discounted" price! Incredibly annoying and cheeky of them to put pressure so you pay last minute!

My appeal was pretty much what you suggested above and bellow is what they sent me. Looks like a typical generic cut/paste letter. Awaiting you kind suggestion of what to do next. One problem is that I will be going away in a month and won't be around for few weeks to deal with any possible letters and more headaches!

-----

Issue date: 04/10/2024
POPLA Verification Code:......

Thank you for your appeal received on 29/10/2024 regarding the above detailed Parking Charge Notice
We have carefully considered your appeal, however on this occasion the appeal has been rejected for the following reason (s):

By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage Therefore the Parking Charge Notice has been issued correctly
We have now extended the discounted payment period by 7 days to allow you time to pay the discounted settlement amount.

Please now make payment of £40.00 to reach us by 05/1 1/2024 or £85.00 to reach us by 19/11/2024.
We must advise you that once the discounted settlement rate passes it will not be offered again.and therefore you now have two options:-
You can pay the total amount due as shown above via the following payment options:..(blah blah)

You can appeal to an Independent Appeals Service, POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals using the POPLA Reference code provided above. Please note, should you decide to appeal to POPLA and your appeal is subsequently rejected, the option to pay a discounted amount will no longer be available and the full amount of the PCN will become due.
If you decide to appeal to POPLA, you will need to visit their website,www.popla.co.uk, where further details of how to appeal (either online or by downloading the relevant forms) can be found. If you are unable to access their website, please call us for further information on how to obtain the forms. Please ensure that your POPLA Reference Number as noted above is quoted on all correspondence to POPLA
You have 28 days from the date of this letter to submit an appeal to POPLA. If you appeal to POPLA we will suspend recovery activity on the PCN and the charge will not increase until the appeal has been determined
By law we are also required to you that Ombudsman Service (www.ombudsman-services.org/ ) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above
if you do not make payment or submit an appeal to POPLA within the relevant timeframe, the outstanding PCN may be passed to bur appointed debt collection agency for further action. All costs associated with this process will be added to the amount outstanding
Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department Green Parking Limited

Update: I have now submitted my appeal to POPLA

What exactly did you submit to POPLA?

I selected the reason as signage not being clear and then used your above argument as my ground for appeal. I attached photos of the parking signage and their PCN.

Hello everyone.

First off, my apologies for not getting back to your comments. For some reasons I did not get any notifications on my email after the last one. I just came to post my update and saw them. As for why I rushed my submission to POPLA, I had a surgery being done on my hand and I couldn't type for a while and maybe psychologically as well, I wanted to get it done so went with your original appeal.

I heard from POLPA today saying that Green Parking has added their bit and I have 7 days to reply. I have copied their reply below. They have also attached the PCN that was issued and shows my car + their letter of rejection to my appeal as per my previous post +pages of their terms and conditions and 2 pages list of all the cars that were parked and paid on that day. I put a link at the bottom showing their submitted photos and signage. I can tell that they have cleaned them up nicely for photo shoot!

Other things to mention is how they put a date on their letters and it takes up to 6 days to get to me and they keep clocking their deadline as per date on letter. they even sent another demand over a week after my submission to POPLA. Now they want 100 based on their 28 days rule but I hardly had any days in between the communications, as if I was chilling! This might be normal for you experienced people and they just use this for intimidation. Thought of mentioning it.


So here it goes....


 ===============================

Case summary and rules/conditions
On 29/09/2024 @ 14:06hrs vehicle ...... was observed entering on Private Land called Clock
Tower Car Park, Maidenhead. Our Car Park offers pay and display accepting both coin and card,
along with an online payment system (RingGo location code 2854). Disabled Parking is available and
normal Tariff applies, as per displayed on our signage.
Signage on entrance clearly shows this is private land and our terms and conditions apply.
Prior to the Parking Charge Notice being issued the vehicle was observed for 2hr 34 minutes.
No payment has been made for this vehicle.
Therefore, as no parking was paid to us for this vehicle it was in breach of the terms and conditions
and we issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
Parking charge notice and any notes
A contravention was logged by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera on 29/09/2024
@ 16:41 hrs
A PCN was issued on 04/10/24 and sent second class to the vehicle keeper supplied by the DVLA.
Time and Date Stamped Pictures also enclosed; these clearly shows times of vehicle ......
entering and exiting our car park Clock Tower Car Park Maidenhead.
Our terms and conditions state that a vehicle is allowed a grace period of 15 minutes which exceeds
the BPA guidelines for 10 minutes, before a parking charge notice is issued. This provides the
motorist enough time to read the signage and move the vehicle.
Registered keeper details and liability trail
The registered keeper details were requested from the DVLA via KADOE link on 03/10/2024 and the
PCN was issued under POFA on 04/10/2024 to ...... (Registered keeper).
No transfer of liability was received.
Original representations and notice of rejection
An appeal was received on 29/10/2024 from ..... The appeal explained that there wasn’t
sufficient signage on the car park. Letter is attached along with the evidence provided.
We responded back to ....., the Keeper of the vehicle, confirming that the PCN was issued
correctly, for not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer
than permitted in accordance with terms and conditions set out in the signage.
Our parking facility operates on the basis of clearly outlined terms and conditions, prominently
displayed at various points within the premises, including the requirement for all vehicles to pay the
designated parking fees. It is the responsibility of all individuals, to familiarise themselves with these
regulations before utilising our parking facilities.
The appellant claims that the £85 charge was not adequately brought to the attention of the driver,
citing Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The signage at the car park
complies with Sections 19.1 to 19.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, which
requires that parking terms and charges be clear, legible, and prominently displayed. The £85 charge
is specifically highlighted alongside the terms of parking at both the entrance and within the car
park, ensuring that drivers are sufficiently informed of the potential consequences of non-
compliance.
Regarding the presentation of tariffs, the appellant argues that Sunday and bank holiday charges are
misleading. The signage at Clock Tower Car Park clearly lists all applicable tariffs, including those for
Sundays and bank holidays, in accordance with Section 19.4 of the BPA Code. The layout of the
signage is not misleading, and the responsibility lies with the driver to review and understand the full
terms before parking.
The appellant further claims the Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to meet the requirements of Schedule
4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA. The NtK explicitly informs the registered keeper of their liability if the
driver is not identified, stating: “You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days...we do not know
both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the
parking charge from you.” This language satisfies the statutory requirements outlined in PoFA.
The signage fully complies with the BPA Code by presenting terms and charges in a clear and
accessible manner. The £85 parking charge is neither hidden nor buried in small print but is
prominently displayed in a format that ensures visibility and comprehension by all users of the car
park.
Our company has taken considerable measures to ensure that all relevant signage and information
are clearly visible and easily comprehensible for all users of our car park. Our signs explicitly
communicate the necessity of adhering to the payment terms.
We then extended the discounted payment period by 7 days to allow them to pay the discounted
amount of £40, but should no further communication be received the PCN would process at the full
charge of £85.00 and then after 28 days if no payment is made this would increase to £100.00
(£85.00 + £15.00 which is our administration charge). This all falls in line with the BPA guidelines.
A POPLA case has been logged on the 05/11/2024 and therefore the discount rate of £40 would be
removed and the advertised rate as per the signage of £100.00 would apply.
Summary of Evidence
Please see attached as part of our evidence package, signage for the car park which clearly displays
the Terms and Conditions. We also include all records of payment from RingGo and the Pay and
Display Machine showing no payment was allocated to Vehicle registration ‘......’.
Attachments etc.
Signage for the car park
Terms and Conditions on website and displayed at car park
Evidence of Non- Payment from our Parking Records.

https://ibb.co/GP5zNPk

Reason selected was: I was not improperly parked - The terms and conditions of the car park were not properly signed

No mention of Beavis!I just had to search and read the case!

 ========wording:

Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice AGP......

As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I am appealing the above-referenced Parking Charge Notice issued at the Clock Tower Car Park, Maidenhead, on 29th Sep 2024. The appeal is submitted strictly as the keeper, with no obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company. I expect the Parking Charge Notice to be cancelled for the following reasons:
1. Failure to Adequately Bring the £85 Charge to the Attention of the Driver (PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(3)(b)(ii))

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(3)(b)(ii), requires that the parking charge be adequately brought to the attention of the driver. The signage at the Clock Tower Car Park does not comply with this requirement. The £85 charge is buried within smaller text towards the bottom of the sign, and it is not prominently displayed to sufficiently alert drivers to the potential penalty for non-compliance.

A significant term such as the £85 charge should be presented in a clear, prominent manner, similar to how the main tariff rates are displayed, to ensure it is adequately communicated to motorists before they choose to park.

2. Misleading Presentation of Tariffs (Consumer Rights Act 2015)

Under Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, terms must be transparent and prominently displayed. In this case, while the Monday-Saturday rates are in green at the top, the Sunday and bank holiday tariff is placed at the bottom in black text, below other less crucial information. This separation and difference in formatting mislead the driver into assuming that parking is free on Sundays, as the Sunday tariff is not presented with the same prominence as the other tariffs. Such a presentation fails to meet the requirement of transparency.

3. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Requirements for the Notice to Keeper

The Notice to Keeper issued does not meet the requirements of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA, as there is no invitation for the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge. This omission makes the NtK non-compliant with PoFA, invalidating any claim to hold the registered keeper liable for the parking charge if the driver is not identified.

4. Breach of BPA Code of Practice Regarding Signage (Paragraphs 18.1, 18.3, and 19.1)

The British Parking Association Code of Practice stipulates that signage must be clear, legible, and positioned so that terms are easily understandable by drivers. Paragraph 18.3 specifically requires that parking charges be clearly highlighted on signage, while Paragraph 19.1 mandates that signs must make it easy for drivers to understand the terms before parking. The £85 charge is buried in small print, failing to comply with these requirements.

In conclusion, Given these breaches of PoFA, the BPA Code of Practice, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, I believe the Parking Charge Notice is unenforceable.

Copy and paste this (under 10,000 character limit) into their webform for the response:

The operator has failed to adequately address or rebut the key points raised in the appeal and has instead introduced irrelevant information in an apparent attempt to distract from the deficiencies in their case. Below is a response to their claims:

Signage and the £85 Charge

The operator claims that:

“The £85 charge is specifically highlighted alongside the terms of parking at both the entrance and within the car park, ensuring that drivers are sufficiently informed of the potential consequences of non-compliance.”

However, this statement does not rebut the keeper’s appeal point that the £85 charge is hidden within a dense wall of text on the main sign, written in a smaller font than all other key information, such as the parking tariffs and “Pay Here” instructions. The £85 charge, as the most significant term of the alleged contract, should have been displayed with equal or greater prominence than other elements on the sign to ensure it was brought to the attention of drivers. Instead, it has been buried in a poorly designed layout, making it difficult to notice and undermining the operator’s claim that the signage complies with the BPA Code of Practice.

The operator’s mention of the entrance sign is irrelevant. The point of an entrance sign, as defined in the BPA Code, is to alert drivers they are entering privately controlled land, not to display detailed terms. Even if the entrance sign included the £85 charge, it would be buried within the same unreadable wall of text, which no driver could reasonably be expected to read while manoeuvring their vehicle safely.

In summary, the operator has failed to rebut the keeper’s main appeal point: the £85 charge is insufficiently prominent, buried in small text on the main sign, and cannot form the basis of a valid contract. This lack of clarity renders the parking charge unenforceable.

Misleading Presentation of Tariffs

The operator has failed to address the specific point raised in the appeal regarding the misleading presentation of the Sunday tariff. While they claim that:

"all tariffs are clearly listed,"

they do not explain why the Sunday tariff is detached from the main daily tariff ("Monday - Saturday") and placed six lines further down the sign after unrelated information and instructions. The Sunday tariff is also displayed in a different coloured font, which reinforces the impression that it is not part of the primary terms for parking. This inconsistent formatting creates unnecessary ambiguity and could easily lead a reasonable driver to believe that parking on Sundays is free.

The separation of the Sunday tariff from the main list of tariffs suggests either poor design or a deliberate attempt to mislead or entrap drivers into non-compliance. This layout fails to meet the standards of clarity and transparency required under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. A reasonable driver would naturally focus on the prominently marked "Monday - Saturday" section and assume this covers all relevant terms. The detached placement of the Sunday tariff undermines this assumption and creates a risk of misunderstanding.

Despite this being a central point in the appeal, the operator has provided no explanation for the unusual placement of the Sunday tariff or its presentation in a different coloured font. This failure to rebut the appeal point only strengthens the conclusion that the signage is not fit for purpose.

In conclusion, the detached and inconsistent presentation of the Sunday tariff makes it highly unlikely that it would be noticed or understood by a reasonable driver. The operator’s failure to address this point highlights the deficiencies in their signage, rendering the parking charge unenforceable.

Notice to Keeper (NtK) Non-Compliance

The operator asserts that the NtK is compliant with PoFA, but their response is fundamentally flawed and insufficient. The appeal highlighted that the NtK fails to meet the specific requirement under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA, which mandates a clear “invitation” for the keeper to pay the parking charge. The NtK merely states:

“You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days...we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you.”

This statement is not an "invitation" to the keeper to pay the charge; it is simply an assertion of potential liability if the operator does not have the driver’s details. This does not satisfy Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), which explicitly requires the NtK to "invite" the keeper to pay. Without this, the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper, making the NtK non-compliant.

The operator entirely ignores this specific point raised in the appeal, instead repeating their claim that the NtK complies with PoFA. However, PoFA requires FULL compliance with ALL provisions, not partial or substantial compliance. The operator’s response relies on a partial quotation without addressing the lack of an invitation to pay, further highlighting their inability to rebut this key issue.

This failure renders the NtK non-compliant and invalidates any claim of keeper liability. The operator's inability to provide a satisfactory response only strengthens the position that they cannot lawfully pursue the charge against the registered keeper.

Breach of BPA Code of Practice

The operator claims their signage complies with the BPA Code but fails to provide meaningful evidence to support this. The appeal raised specific breaches, including the lack of prominence for the £85 charge, poor layout and positioning of terms, and inadequate contrast between text and background. Instead of addressing these points, the operator makes a blanket claim of compliance without demonstrating how their signage meets the requirements.

Photos of the signage highlight these breaches. The £85 charge is buried in a block of text far less prominent than other elements such as payment instructions or tariffs, violating Paragraphs 18.3 and 19.1 of the BPA Code, which require key terms to be clear and prominently displayed. The signs are cluttered, poorly organised, and difficult to read, further failing the Code’s standards.

The operator has provided no evidence to rebut these points, such as font measurements or explanations of compliance with the BPA Code. Their vague claims are unsupported and fail to demonstrate that their signage meets the required standards.

In conclusion, the signage does not meet the BPA Code of Practice’s requirements for prominence, clarity, or readability. The operator’s failure to address these deficiencies renders the parking charge unenforceable.

Grace Periods – Relevance?

The operator devotes significant effort to discussing compliance with grace periods, which is irrelevant to this appeal. The appellant does not dispute that no permit was purchased or whether the vehicle exceeded any grace period. The appeal concerns unclear signage that failed to inform the driver that a tariff was due on a Sunday.

This focus on grace periods does not address the appeal’s core argument and appears to distract from their inability to rebut the substantive points raised. Such irrelevant detail highlights the weaknesses in their case.

Conclusion

The operator has failed to rebut or adequately address the points raised in the appeal. Their signage does not meet the required standards for clarity, prominence, or transparency, nor does it adequately communicate key terms. Their NtK fails to comply with PoFA, and their inclusion of irrelevant arguments further highlights the deficiencies in their case. The Parking Charge Notice must be cancelled.