Signage Non-Compliant - Not Prominent
For a parking charge to be enforceable, signage must be sufficiently prominent to bring the terms to the attention of a reasonable motorist entering the land. Signs that are obscured, too small, poorly positioned, or insufficient in number fail this test.
Legal basis
POFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(3) - 'adequate notice' must be given by display of signs 'adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land'. Also ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 at para 99.
How to identify this in your case
Photograph all signage at the site. Note: number of signs, size, positioning, visibility from driver's eye level, whether obscured by vegetation/other vehicles, lighting at night, distance from entrance.
Sample appeal wording
The signage at [LOCATION] was wholly inadequate to constitute 'adequate notice' under POFA 2012 Schedule 4. I have photographic evidence showing [SPECIFIC ISSUES]. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis confirmed that reasonable notice of charges is essential for enforceability. In this case, the operator has failed to give adequate notice, and accordingly no binding contract was formed regarding the parking charge.
Replace [PARKING DATE], [NtK DATE] etc. with your own dates before sending.
Beat It writes this argument automatically
Scan your PCN — our AI checks if this ground applies to your specific ticket, drafts a properly-cited appeal letter, and submits it to the council on your behalf. Only pay if you win.
Scan my ticketSources
- https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4
- ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67