Thanks for your replies.
I have drafted an appeal:
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I dispute this Parking Charge in full.
This is the first correspondence I have received regarding this matter and this is my first opportunity to respond. No prior Notice to Keeper was received within the required timeframe. As such, I was not given a fair opportunity to respond or appeal at the appropriate stage. In the absence of a properly served and compliant Notice to Keeper in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, you cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper.
Further to this, I dispute the charge on the following grounds:
1. The vehicle was not parked on any red route
The allegation refers to “Parking in a No Parking area” and relies on signage stating “No Parking on Red Routes”. The vehicle was not parked on any red route. There were no double red lines or any standard road markings indicating a red route at the position where the vehicle was parked.
The vehicle was positioned on a separate block-paved area adjacent to the building frontage, outside what appears to be a loading/service entrance. This area is visually and physically distinct from the main carriageway and from any red route markings, which are located further away on the actual roadway.
As such, the restriction stated on the sign does not apply to the location where the vehicle was parked.
2. The area is not clearly defined as restricted
There are no clear boundary markings, signage, or physical indicators to define the area where the vehicle was parked as part of any restricted zone. The block-paved area gives the clear impression of a separate space, such as a loading bay or frontage area, rather than part of a controlled red route.
A reasonable driver would not interpret this area as being subject to the same restrictions as the red-lined roadway. The lack of clarity and definition fails to meet the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice.
3. Inadequate, misleading, and non-contractual signage
The signage relied upon states “No Parking on Red Routes”, which is prohibitive in nature and does not offer parking under any contractual terms. It does not clearly state that parking is prohibited in the specific area where the vehicle was positioned, nor does it clearly display any parking charge at the point of parking.
Such signage is incapable of forming a legally binding contract. In addition, any signage positioned elsewhere (including on the opposite side of the road) is not sufficient to communicate terms to a driver parked in a separate area, particularly where it is not within a clear line of sight.
4. Signage was obstructed and not visible at the time
At the time of parking, site conditions were materially different due to roadworks and temporary obstructions.
A large beige shipping container was positioned directly in front of the building, occupying the area where signage would ordinarily be visible. This container obstructed the line of sight to any signage in that location.
Additionally, a pallet of drink boxes was positioned to the right of the container, further obstructing visibility and altering the layout of the area.
The vehicle was parked alongside this container, in a position that appeared separate from the carriageway and outside any marked red route. Due to these obstructions, no signage was visible, readable, or capable of being understood prior to parking.
Any signage visible on historical imagery (such as Google Street View) was not visible at the time due to these temporary obstructions. This fails the requirement for clear, prominent, and visible signage as required by the BPA Code of Practice.
5. No clear evidence of contravention
Given the absence of red route markings at the parking position, the unclear boundaries of the area, and the obstructed signage, it is not evident that any contravention has occurred. The burden of proof rests with the operator to demonstrate that the vehicle was parked in a clearly restricted area with adequate and visible signage, which is denied.
6. Land status and lack of proof of authority
It is unclear whether the land in question constitutes “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
I understand that areas around Royal Victoria Docks may be subject to statutory control or byelaws. If this is the case, then the land would not be “relevant land”, and you would be unable to rely on keeper liability under POFA.
You are therefore required to provide strict proof that:
- The land is relevant land as defined under Schedule 4 of POFA
- You have full authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charges at this location
I am under no obligation to identify the driver and will not be doing so.
For all of the reasons stated above, I require that this charge is cancelled. Alternatively, please provide a POPLA verification code so that I may escalate the matter.
