Premier Park PCN – Parent and Child Bay – The Springs Shopping Centre, Leeds

Upon entering the car park which was particularly empty, the driver with an very elderly passenger suffering from the heat, parked in a 'Parent and Child Bay' for a couple of hours. There were multiple other equivalent spaces available at the time in the late afternoon. The driver has a 13 year old child.

The driver didn't notice / read the signs within this car park and lives too far away to go back and check what they say. It is a new shopping centre and signs not available on google maps, unfortunately

Upon leaving On 11th August, I, the registered keeper, received a PCN through the post.





Any help regarding the appeals process, and advice greatly appreciated.

The PCN does not comply with Paragraph 9 of to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, so any appeal by the registered keeper needs to ensure that the driver is not identified and referred to as “the driver”.

One failing is no “period of parking”, for example. There may be others.

There are appeals on this forum which you can find if you want to search for them and then post here before submitting. The appeal will be rejected, but it’s the start of a well known process which will probably end in a county court claim which will be discontinued before the court fee has to be paid.

You will need to stay on top of the process and not miss deadlines.

Thanks so much

One assumes that there must be some possible evidence from Parking Company that they witnessed car being parked without a child present. As there is no evidence of this in photographs you could put them on notice that this is required as well. If they saw you parking there and did not intervene then this may have similar ramifications as VCS Vs Ibbotson although the driver did not leave the site.

My Appeal to Premier Park on the above, the Shopping centre has refused to cancel, Should I take out any of the points below? :

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am appealing Parking Charge Notice ###### as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

I deny any liability for this charge and request that it be cancelled for the reasons set out below.

1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA").

Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires a Notice to Keeper to:

"specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates."

Your Notice to Keeper states:

"The period of parking to which this notice relates is the period immediately preceding the incident time stated above."

This does not specify any actual period of parking. It merely refers to an unspecified period immediately preceding a single incident time. No start time, end time, or identifiable duration of parking is stated.

As the statutory requirement is to specify the period of parking, I contend that the Notice to Keeper does not satisfy Paragraph 9(2)(a) and therefore does not establish keeper liability under Schedule 4 of POFA.

If Premier Park disagrees, please provide a detailed explanation setting out how the Notice to Keeper fully complies with every requirement of Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 and how keeper liability has therefore been established.

2. The evidence provided does not establish the alleged breach

The photographs supplied show a vehicle parked in a marked bay; however, they do not in themselves establish that a legally enforceable contractual term was breached.

The burden of proof rests entirely with Premier Park to demonstrate:

The exact contractual term allegedly breached.
That the term was prominently displayed and brought to the attention of drivers.
That the driver was afforded a reasonable opportunity to read and understand the terms before any contract was formed.
That the evidence supports the allegation made in the Parking Charge Notice.

I therefore require strict proof of the alleged breach.

3. Inadequate evidence of signage

Premier Park has supplied a photograph of a site sign. However, the image provided does not clearly show the wording of the relevant terms and conditions.

The supplied photograph does not enable the reader to determine:

The precise wording relating to Parent and Child bays.
Whether the wording is sufficiently prominent.
Whether the wording is capable of creating a contractual obligation.
Whether the wording was visible from the location where the vehicle was parked.

I therefore require Premier Park to provide:

A clear and legible copy of all signage relied upon.
Photographs showing the signage as it appeared on the date of the alleged contravention.
A site map showing the location of all signs and the Parent and Child bays.

Until such evidence is provided, Premier Park has failed to establish that the alleged contractual terms were adequately communicated to motorists.

4. Discrepancy in the evidence timestamps

The Notice to Keeper alleges an incident time of:

18:55 on 10 August 2026

However, the photographs subsequently supplied by Premier Park appear to be timestamped at approximately:

16:40 on 10 August 2026

This discrepancy of more than two hours is significant.

I require Premier Park to explain this inconsistency and provide evidence demonstrating that the photographs relied upon relate to the alleged incident specified in the Notice to Keeper.

5. Landowner authority

I put Premier Park to strict proof that it has the necessary authority from the landowner to:

Offer parking contracts at this location.
Issue Parking Charge Notices.
Pursue unpaid charges in its own name.

Please provide evidence of such authority upon rejection of this appeal.

Keeper liability denied

For the avoidance of doubt, I am appealing solely as the registered keeper. I am under no obligation to identify the driver and will not be doing so. No assumptions should be made regarding the identity of the driver.

Request for cancellation

In view of the above, I request that the Parking Charge Notice be cancelled.

Should Premier Park decide to reject this appeal, please provide:

A full explanation of your reliance on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
A copy of all evidence relied upon.
Copies of all signage relied upon.
Evidence of landowner authority.
A POPLA verification code so that I may refer the matter to independent adjudication.

I look forward to your confirmation that this Parking Charge Notice has been cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

 Registered Keeper

You need it to be tailored slightly to appeal to POPLA but you can put them on notice that you require evidence that they can provide that no child was present during the event. One can possibly assume that a parking attendant was present at the point of parking. This then opens up why no action was taken at the time.One could argue that if a child was present when it was parked they do not need to be present at the time it was moved. However the issue here is that you are not claiming this in your post.