Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: afroditi on March 10, 2026, 02:06:26 pm
-
Gently bumping this again - I am now at a stage where I need to take this to POPLA and potentially have it rejected by them too, or just pay £60 to get rid of it, by principle I would rather not though because it is unfair that the ticket was issued in the first place.
I would really appreciate your guidance on this - the only thing I do not want is to end up paying even more to them!
Thank you in advance.
-
Hello,
An update here to say that UKPC responded and did not accept the appeal.
I have added a screenshot of the letter in the shared folder (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1xNIp4-IbEX-yOaH-AQCCa5s6facVnBng?usp=drive_link).
But basically they give no reason, even though I have attached pictures showing the lack of signage, they simply replied "In this instance having completed our assessment, we consider the parking charge to have been correctly issued, as the vehicle was parked on site without displaying a valid permit."
So it seems like I need to take this to POPLA and of course consider the possibility that I will need to pay £100 in case they don't accept the appeal either.
I want to take it to the next step because this is a genuine situation where the car would not have been left there if there were signs, it's unfair and a rip off.
Anyone having any experience with POPLA and/or can help/guide with the next stage of the appeal, I would be very grateful.
-
Looks good.
-
Hi again,
Here is the text i prepared to challenge the parking fine.
Any feedback would be highly appreciated, and hopefully this can help other members who may have to appeal similar cases:
I am writing to formally challenge the above Parking Charge Notice.
I submit that I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds of: Inadequate and Non-Compliant Signage – No Contract Formed.
The vehicle was parked on the side of a road where no signage was present displaying parking terms and conditions. From the position where the vehicle was parked, a driver would not have been able to see or read any signage capable of forming a contractual agreement.
Section 19 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires that signs must be “clear and conspicuous” and placed so that drivers are able to see them before deciding to park. The absence of signage in the immediate vicinity of the parking location represents a clear breach of this requirement.
The Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 confirmed that parking charges can only be enforceable where the terms are prominently displayed and clearly communicated. In this case, the lack of visible signage at the specific location where the vehicle was parked, means that no contract could have been formed between the driver and UK Parking Control Ltd.
As such, the parking charge is unenforceable.
In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, keeper liability can only arise where the parking operator has complied fully with the statutory conditions and where adequate notice of the parking terms has been given. Given the lack of visible signage where the vehicle was parked, the requirement for “adequate notice” has not been satisfied.
Should you reject this appeal, please provide:
A detailed site map showing the exact location of all signage at the site.
Photographic evidence demonstrating that signage was visible from the location where the vehicle was parked.
Evidence of your contractual authority from the landowner to issue parking charges at this location.
If this appeal is rejected, please treat this letter as a request for a POPLA verification code so that the matter can be referred to independent adjudication.
In light of the above, I request that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled.
-
Exactly.
This is the exact route, further down, which leads to the space where the car was parked.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5894272,-0.11596,3a,75y,241.24h,76.78t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbdfzHcokFPiTxZykFl43HA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D13.223827713658949%26panoid%3DbdfzHcokFPiTxZykFl43HA%26yaw%3D241.24294324127!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDMwOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
There is a sign on the left going down the road - even though not visible at night while one is driving.
And then you turn right at the bottom and that is where the ticket was issued:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5893206,-0.1163491,3a,75y,296.76h,65.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8IyuerLpJfJ7PyEVWeDkBQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D24.230863584979474%26panoid%3D8IyuerLpJfJ7PyEVWeDkBQ%26yaw%3D296.75844658654256!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDMwOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Where the car was parked, the same sign seen in the first link is not present, so the assumption is there is no restriction.
The sign is clearly placed where the resident parking spaces are, and not where the car was left.
-
Yes, use the signage issue with the operator appeal.
We can sex up the appeal for POPLA stage.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Great+Amwell+Ln,+London/@51.5882072,-0.1144643,3a,90y,12.92h,86.16t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCztIouvi_czEM5vu8u3jLw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D3.841910849425517%26panoid%3DCztIouvi_czEM5vu8u3jLw%26yaw%3D12.917978048364255!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x48761be795d30937:0x14fe0ab3ab06643f!8m2!3d51.5900175!4d-0.1166599!16s%2Fg%2F1tf6g3kc?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDMwOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
This is GSV where you must have entered the private land.
Sign is very small and on the wrong side of the road - not much to indicate that this is all private land etc.
-
Thank you all for your responses.
I will appeal this tomorrow on the grounds of insufficient signs - not sure if I should add anything about non compliance.
If anybody has any advice or template wording with any helpful legal references, I would be most grateful to be pointed to them so I can make it stronger and minimise the chances of rejection.
-
"if you choose to appeal with POPLA, the charge will automatically increase to the higher rate". Is that even legal? It sounds like an indirect threat to discourage people from appealing tickets??
Yes. The charge is £100. The 'discount' is offered essentially for those who feel that they owe the money and don't want to challenge it. In theory, it prevents people submitting frivolous appeals simply to be a pain, which they could do risk-free if there was no discount. It's a similar set up with penalty charges issued by councils, where the 'discount' is lost when you appeal to the tribunal, and indeed criminal motoring offences, where costs increase if you plead not guilty and go to court vs accepting a speed awareness course for example.
-
Thank you for your comment.
You say it's not compliant because it fails to explicitly mention the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012?
I googled the compliance rules and spotted that this one is missing.
Please let me know if you noticed something else.
It might not cut any ice with them but hopefully it will do if I end up appealing with POPLA.
What I do want to question though is the note that "if you choose to appeal with POPLA, the charge will automatically increase to the higher rate". Is that even legal? It sounds like an indirect threat to discourage people from appealing tickets??
-
The NtK is not PoFA compliant - this won't cut any ice with the parking operator.
The signage is highly questionable - especially the entrance signage which demonstrably insufficient.
-
Thank you for the response and apologies for the permissions, you should be able to see the pictures now.
I did read around a bit before creating this, I read mixed comments, some people saying don't pay them it doesn't matter, some others approaching this as an enforceable fine.
They can be beaten by going to POPLA or they are easier to accept the appeals because they make usual mistakes like in this case with signage?
-
You need to change the access permissions on the Google Drive folder so that we can view them without requesting access.
In the meantime, if you look around on this forum you'll see that UKPC are one of the most active parking companies in the UK. It's usually a drawn out process, but they can usually be beaten.
-
Hello,
A parking fine was issued by UKPC on the grounds of having parked in a residential permit area without displaying a permit
While there are designated car spaces behind the building clearly indicating that they are "for residents only" and therefore imply the restriction - there are no signs whatsoever on the other side which is part of the road accessing the area.
The driver looked before leaving the vehicle and made sure there was no sign on that side of the road (the entire side, not just that spot).
The vehicle was parked at the side of the road and NOT at a designated resident parking space - please see attachment showing the position.
Adding to it that it was a Sunday after 6pm where no parking restrictions are in place even in most of London's councils, let alone a road with zero signage on its side.
Nobody wants to risk a ticket on a Sunday when parking is free everywhere - this is clearly a case where there was lack of signs indicating that the side of the road is part of the private land and it was not just the resident parking bays.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1xNIp4-IbEX-yOaH-AQCCa5s6facVnBng?usp=drive_link
In the Google folder link:
- pictures of the fine received by letter
- images from Google Maps showing location and signage
- images from the online UKPC platform showing the evidence they attached to the ticket
Unfortunately the wording on the sign cannot be read, neither in their picture provided as evidence, nor from Google Maps.
I would think this has strong grounds for appeal but I would welcome your advice and feedback from any previous experience with UKPC fines and how enforceable they are.
Thank you very much.