Indigian I'd be most grateful if you would take a few more photos of that car park when you next go past. I'm down in London now. Photos showing where the sign is in relation to the entrance/exit and a wide angle photo of the whole car park would be most helpful. Thank you for your kind offer.

I'm not sure if we are talking about the same white moss car park. The one I was ticketed in certainly has no signs at the entrance/exit, whereas the car park 100 meters down the road on the other side was signed. How effective is GEPOL in practice? I would have thought subject to clear signs they could levy a fine/charge

I think we're talking about the same car park. So the photo of the sign you uploaded to this thread was located somewhere in the middle of the car park? I'm certain there are no signs near the entrance/exit, which to my understanding is required for the charge to be enforceable.

Indigian - where exactly was the sign that you uploaded the photo of? When I went back to the car park there was only one sign in the middle of the car park that was easy to miss. However, it appears that there are two carparks in close proximity that may both go by the name "white moss". One of them is adequately signed at the entrance/exit while one is not.

Sorry if I have caused confusion but I'm not actually the OP. I began contributing to this thread because I'm currently also fighting Park With Ease over this same car park. But your help and advice are equally of value to me and the OP. Thanks.

I didn't know about no loss or GPEOL at the time I did my appeal. I did however write to The IAS asking how it was determined that large and prominent signs were on display at the entrance/exit. I asked if someone had actually checked. The response was that they refused to tell me. The just replied that the adjudicators outcome is final and that is the end of it. The so called independent appeal through the IAS didn't end up feeling very genuinely independent to me. I should have supplied the photos, but somehow I'm not sure it would have made much difference. Do you think they will really enforce my charge at county court where I have told them I will defend and show photos or is it just bluff on their part? I'd also note that I got a letter from Park With Ease doubling my parking charge about a day before I received the IAS appeal outcome. They seemed to already know what the outcome was going to be. And I received the IAS appeal outcome by email, so it's not as if it was caught up in the post etc.

I did do an appeal to The IAS. I lost because they responded (wrongly) that there are large and prominent signs at the entrance/exit warning motorists of the charges. Foolishly I did not present my photos to The IAS proving that no such signs are being displayed. One thing that I found to be a bit fishy, is that the tone of the response from The IAS was very aggressive, similar to Park With Ease themselves. The adjudicator reached some conclusions that were not able to be ascertained from the evidence available, for instance claiming that it was my preoccupation/distraction with getting my kids to the public toilet at the car park that caused me not to see the large and prominent signs. How on earth could they conclude that?! And in any case I made clear that I had specifically returned to the car park looking for signs and found there were none at the entrance/exit. So there seemed no need for this aggressive outcome against me. But in any case I have learned that the outcome of appeals is binding legally only on the car park operator and not the motorist. I am still free to defend myself in court (using my photos) if I so wish. And I do indeed wish to. Park With Ease continually point to the fact my appeal wasn't upheld, while I continually point to the fact that the assumptions central to the appeal outcome (being that signs exist at the entrance/exit) are proven incorrect by the photos Park With Ease refuse to acknowledge. They seem to think county court will simply accept the appeal outcome as proof there are signs, whereas I feel photos showing there aren't will outweigh.

Thanks for explaining that. I must say that park with ease are absolutely awful to deal with. They refuse to respond to photos I've sent them showing there are no signs at the entrance/exit to the car park. In every correspondence they make aggressive reference that they will take me to court and add costs. I've asked them repeatedly to comment on the photos I've sent them and they repeatedly refuse. They just say that signs are there and that they'll show photos of such to the judge in court. I've informed them that prior to a county court claim being heard they would be required to exchange evidence with me and so if they really have the photos they claim to have why not share them with me now? They refuse. Somehow I expect if this does go to county court they'll show photos of another car park that does have adequate signs. In considering offering them an hour or two normal car park charge as a goodwill gesture (the judge might see at least that I tried to work towards resolution out of court). I believe I am correct in believing there should be clear signs at the entrance/exit warning motorists it is a paying car park? This car park had only one easily missed sign in the middle of the car park that you'd only see if you parked by it. I discovered this only when I went back specifically looking for signs.

Appeal has to go to the IAS rather than POPLA, as they are not a member of the BPA. Can someone tell me what a GPeOL submission is?

I'm not sure if it's that easy to ignore, as potentially further penalty charges may be added. They certainly are very unpleasant to deal with. They've responded to a few emails today alone, yet in all of them they are very aggressive and constantly mention that they are taking me to court. Heavens, my emails to them were all reasonable raising the very pertinent fact that there are no signs. They've claimed there are signs and they'll show photo evidence of them to the court, but they refuse to show these claimed photos to me.

I'm currently having a dispute with Park With Ease over this same car park and I think there's something that's being overlooked in this thread. that is that there are no signs at the entrance/exit alerting motorists that this is a paying car park. British Parking Association best practice requires clear signs at entrance/exit. I've presented Park With Ease with photos showing there are no signs but they are not nice to deal with and they just claim there are signs, whilst refusing to acknowledge or comment on my photos. I think white moss car park is distinct from other car parks along that stretch of road in as much as I would agree the other car parks are well signed, but white moss is not.