Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you in advance.

At 08:27 on 16/07/2025, the vehicle was driven onto the Esso/Sainsbury's petrol station forecourt on South Ealing Road W5. The driver recalls a sign on entry stating the existence of parking restriction enforcement, but there was no mention on the entry sign that parking at the pump is prohibited unless fuel is purchased. The vehicle was stopped at pump number 1 for approximately 3-5 minutes while the driver purchased a bottle of water from Sainsbury's.

The date of the PCN is 18/07/2025 but it was not received in the post until 26/07/2025. This leaves 6 days from the date of receiving the notice to the end of the 14 day discounted fine.

The evidence provided can only be accessed online, and when viewed, there is a photograph of a different, unrelated vehicle parked somewhere else on the forecourt, as well as photographs of the vehicle to which the PCN was issued. There are photographs of signage displaying the prohibited parking at the pump, however, the sign is not clearly affixed to pump number 1 (see street view image, it appears that sign is affixed to the pump nearest to the exit), and the other sign which is visible in the photograph of the vehicle is turned facing the Sainsbury's so it is not visible to the driver of the vehicle prior to parking. The zoomed image from the PCN evidence shows the entry signage, but does not clearly state that parking at the pump is prohibited.












Google Streetview

The notice from PPS does not properly specify a “period of parking” (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4):

Quote

9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;

(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—

(i)specified in the notice; and

(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
(g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;

(h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;

(i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).

Why are there pictures at 17:13:32 on 15 July & 08:27:30 on 16 July? Are they claiming in some way that this covers the period of parking?

In any case, saying “The period of parking to which this notice relates is the period that immediately preceded the incident Date and Time” is not good enough, not least because it precludes a short period of time during which a contract could not have been established.

They've included a photo of an unrelated vehicle parked on 15 July as part of the evidence for this vehicle's PCN. Is the inclusion of this unrelated vehicle in the PCN evidence sufficient grounds for the PCN to be cancelled?

This is what I've got so far for the appeal; I appreciate the feedback @b789 and @jfollows

I am writing as the registered keeper of the above vehicle in relation to the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued at 36–39 South Ealing Road, W5 4QT on 16 July 2025. I formally dispute your claim for the following reasons.

1. Non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4)
Your Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet the mandatory conditions set out in Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), which are necessary to establish keeper liability.

- Failure to Specify a Period of Parking: Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires that the notice must “specify the period of parking to which the notice relates.” Your NTK does not do this. Instead, it refers only to “the period that immediately preceded the Incident Date and Time,” which is not sufficient. This does not represent a period because it is a moment in time. You have provided no evidence of how long the vehicle was present, and therefore, the NTK fails to comply with statutory requirements.

- Defective Warning under Paragraph 9(2)(f): The NTK also fails to contain the statutory warning informing the keeper that, if the parking charge remains unpaid and the operator does not know the name and address of the driver, the operator has the right to recover the charge from the keeper after 28 days. Your notice uses unclear and paraphrased wording that does not satisfy the statutory requirement.

For these reasons alone, keeper liability cannot be established, and your demand for payment is invalid.

2. Unclear, Inadequate, and Misleading Signage
There is no signage at the entrance to the forecourt that informs drivers that parking at the fuel pumps is prohibited unless fuel is purchased. Signage on-site is inconsistent and, as shown in photograph 4/7 of the evidence, the sign prohibiting parking at the pump is turned away from drivers approaching the pumps and instead faces the shop. The only image of a sign uploaded in evidence (photographs 6 and 7) is undated and does not show a clear relation to the pump where the vehicle stopped. The terms and conditions alleged to have been breached were therefore:
- Not clearly communicated at the entrance,
- Not adequately visible to the driver, and
- Not capable of forming a valid contract.

This is contrary to the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice, which requires all terms to be clearly displayed and legible to drivers.

3. Irrelevant and Potentially Unlawful Photographic Evidence
The photographic evidence uploaded by your company includes a photo of an entirely unrelated vehicle with a clearly visible and unredacted registration plate, taken the day before the alleged contravention as per the photograph timestamp, and parked elsewhere on the forecourt. This is wholly irrelevant to this case and may constitute a breach of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), as the image includes personally identifiable data of a third party that should not have been disclosed. I reserve the right to report this data handling failure to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

4. The Driver Was Visiting the On-Site Shop
The driver stopped at the forecourt and went into the Sainsbury's on the forecourt. The vehicle was parked briefly at the pump, and no signs upon entry stated that this was prohibited unless fuel was purchased. The shop is part of the same commercial site, and there was no indication that this would be treated as unauthorised parking. It is unreasonable to penalise customers for visiting the premises, particularly where no clear signage to the contrary exists. Additionally, no evidence has been provided to prove that the driver parked at the pump without the intention of purchasing fuel, or that fuel was not purchased during this visit.

5. Disproportionate and Unfair Charge
Even if a contract were formed, the term relied upon by the operator is unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It is neither fair, transparent, nor proportionate. The signage upon entry does not make clear that stopping at a pump without purchasing fuel is a contravention, and the penalty imposed is excessive in relation to any legitimate interest. As such, the term fails Sections 62 and 68 of the Act and cannot be binding on the consumer.

This charge must be cancelled immediately. Should you reject this appeal, I request that you issue a POPLA verification code so that I may escalate the matter to independent adjudication.

I reserve the right to submit a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office in relation to the publication of photographic evidence relating to an unrelated vehicle.

I'm pleased to say the initial appeal was accepted and the ticket cancelled!

The appeal was worded exactly as I wrote above (war & peace).

I guess it's my lucky day.