Reasonably unfair?

Urgh can't edit the above post from phone, forgotten password link not working so can't access from computer....

Does the lack of terms mean there is "no breach of contract" as nothing to breach?
Or does it mean pcn issued incorrectly?
Should I try writing back to TPS even though they said end of internal appeal to try to get them to cancel as well as sending appeal to popla based on this?

Key points I think should be included/can win at POPLA? Paragraphs numbered for ease of reply.
1. Did the parking company have authority to issue tickets on the land in question? I have requested evidence of TPS’s authority at the time of the alleged “offence” but TPS has refused to provide me with it.
2. Are first time offenders to be issued with a parking charge notice, or only repeat offenders? (can heresay be used) after getting the pcn I have heard that repeat offenders were given a warning on the windscreen about charges if they continued to park there before this ticket was issued.

3. Inadequate signage: BPA code of practice regarding signage: 18.2 Entrances signs must be in place at entrance to parking area, unless the car park is very small, there is no clearly defined entrance or where general parking is not permitted. This is a one-way street with a ~6-car on street drop-off bay along the right edge of road with a terms and conditions sign at start, middle and end of bay, and opposite, off the left side of the road are 6 marked bays perpendicular to the road with only a single sign in the middle. Does this sound like a scenario where entrance signs are/are not necessary?
4. Further to this point the Government’s guidance for hospital parking is to have a sign at the entrance to all parking areas …
5. 18.9 So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there must be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign must be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists. This is NOT the case. The terms and conditions of the single sign CANNOT be read from any vehicle.
6. Signage is illegible and does not conform to the Beavis case. The penalty charge notice for breach of terms is in small print. The print was so small that TPS were unable to provide a legible photograph of the sign in question as provided by their Parking Attendant.
7. 5. The following reason was given for the issue of the pcn: “recorded by a Parking Attendant as having breached the below site terms and conditions: Parked in a permit holders only parking area.” However the signage does not state that the area is for permit holders only. Perhaps the print is so small that the Parking Attendant could not read it and therefore incorrectly issued this ticket!
8. Furthermore the signage states that a pcn will be issued for “failing to comply with the above terms”, however there are no parking terms apparent on the sign.
9. List of items breaching the Consumer Contract Regulations 2013 and private parking e.g. https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/consumer-contract-regulations-2013/
10. Planning permission for signage – will check tomorrow – website not working.
11. I don’t think “forbidding signage” applies here given that it the sign is sparse and does not actually say that cannot park there.
12. Extra points that had not been adhered to from the BPA hospital charter and government guidelines that I wrote when creating my first appeal.

13. No breach of contract – the car park is for ‘Nursery Parking Only - private [hospital] property’ but the nursery is closed down so therefore the signage is out-of-date and there are no legitimate persons who can park there who may have been displaced by the driver parking there?

14. No legitimate interest in enforcing a charge: there were no legitimate business users that could have been prevented from parking in this car-park by the vehicle having been present, therefore there is no legitimate interest in controlling parking at this site. To provide further evidence of this the landowner has cordoned-off this car park to prevent permit holders parking there and receiving charges, whilst the renting trust is allowing permit holders to park in contravention of the terms and conditions INSIDE the barriered car parks whilst 40 new spaces are created for the permit holders. This suggests the landowner does not wish to enforce the parking charge notice.

15. True pre-estimate of loss (So I believe after Beavis that the true pre-estimate of loss is now viewed in terms of whether the charge is extravagant and unconscionable: in most cases where not paying/overstaying a free period will result in loss of revenue to the landowner/car park operator/nearby shops by not allowing other customers the chance to park the ruling goes against the driver as the charge is a deterrent to loss of revenue.) In this situation I believe the charge is to deter cars parking without legitimate business therefore displacing a rightful person from their allocated space, and given that the premises is defunct it may be reasonable that this is extended to deterring persons from trying to avoid using a barrier-controlled car-park (e.g. either staff avoiding paying for swipe-access or visitors avoiding paying). In this instance the driver was a frequent user that had paid for a permit that allowed access to 4 car parks, all of which were full (they stop allowing entry when full) and was not allowed to park in the pay-per-visit car parks due to displacing visitors and resulting in a loss of revenue for the hospital. As the driver had no available options for parking at this site (and it’s in the middle of countryside so cannot park nearby and walk) they chose to park outside the disused premises as they had seen other cars with the same permit do for the previous months. Given the subsequent actions of the 2 trusts (above) would this be a case where the charge is considered extravagant and unconscionable?

Thanks coupon_mad. Will get photos today from drivers approach to car park and start writing tonight.

Windscreen ticket was 24 Jan. Ntk issued 6 March, arrived 13th i think. All above board, except the ntk didn't specify the period of stay like the windscreen did.... Although I think it is mute given they are claiming it was a permit car park