UKPC ticket whilst driver was delivering parcels on moat lane, nine elms.

[b789]

@zyno, thanks for the additional photograph. This strengthens the appeal considerably. I've also had a look at the location on GSV and the entrance sign merely states that parking conditions apply and directs motorists to other notices. However, the actual sign prominently states "NO PARKING", reinforced by a crossed-out parking symbol.

This is prohibitory signage, not an offer to park in exchange for £100. UKPC would have to establish how a driver could accept a contractual offer to park somewhere that parking is expressly forbidden.

There is also the distinction between the entrance sign referring to a car park and the NtK alleging parking on a roadway. UKPC must establish that the relevant contractual terms applied to the precise location.

The existing PoFA objections concerning paragraphs 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(f) should remain in the keeper appeal.

I would add the following paragraph:

"The signage at the location is expressly prohibitory, prominently stating 'NO PARKING'. Such wording does not constitute an offer of parking capable of acceptance by the prohibited conduct. The entrance sign merely states that parking conditions apply and does not establish any contractual offer relating to the roadway. UKPC is put to strict proof of the contractual offer allegedly made, its acceptance, and its authority to pursue any alleged breach. Any allegation of trespass would require a separate legal basis and proof of the necessary standing."

Remember, this is an appeal by the registered keeper ONLY. The driver must not be identified. There is no legal obligation on the keeper to do so, and UKPC cannot presume that the keeper was driving.

Submit the keeper appeal and, if rejected, we can develop these arguments further at POPLA.