Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: uwaisrehman on July 09, 2026, 12:23:10 pm
-
You already said
The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, keeper liability does not apply.
All that “non-PoFA” means is that UKPC can’t be bothered to use or is incapable of using the legislation to transfer the liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.
So you don’t identify the driver and let them take you to court, and if you search the forum as I suggested you will see that they will eventually give up. Your defence will be that you, as registered keeper, can not be liable, at the very least.
-
You do nothing.
The advice they have given you is designed to frighten you into paying.
It's for them to prove their case in Court - they won't be able to do that as they do not know who the driver was.
Sit back and relax.
You are now waiting for a Letter Before Claim - once you get this we can advise further.
Do not engage with any debt collecting company as they are trying to trick you.
PoFA is method of moving liability from the unknown driver onto the registered keeper - they have acknowledged that they are unable to do this.
-
Perfect - the notice is non-PoFA so there is nothing they can do to make you legally liable.
They will chase you however but this will be easy to defend.
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/s4rrH1M.jpg)
Sorry, I'm a noob. What does "the notice is non-PoFA" mean?
As mentioned in my initial post, I never actually received the appeal response by email or post. Now it has been passed to TRACE and they said there's nothing I can do apart from challenge it in court.
Going to court over £170 fine which was increased from £60 initially then £100 seems excessive.
I don't know how to proceed.
-
Perfect - the notice is non-PoFA so there is nothing they can do to make you legally liable.
They will chase you however but this will be easy to defend.
-
Can you post up the original PCN?
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/VNXYRMV.jpg)
-
Can you post up the original PCN?
It wouldn't let me upload the picture so I have inserted a link for you to view the NtK and appeal response I received via TRACE.
https://imgpile.com/p/JPpM80Z (https://imgpile.com/p/JPpM80Z)
-
Can you post up the original PCN?
-
TRACE can do nothing, other than send you letters with increasing amounts of red ink and words designed to frighten you into giving them money.
Search the forum for
UKCPS Leeds
and you will find many cases, just bear in mind the change in the law requiring a different approach for events in 2026 to the one of “not relevant land” used in 2025 and earlier.
If the driver has not been identified and PoFA 2012 is not being used, the registered keeper can not be liable. There is no legal basis for the recovery of their charge from the keeper “on the assumption that you were the driver”, they can assume what they like but can’t back up the assumption with anything.
-
What steps should I take next? What are TRACE likely to do? Should I submit a written complaint to UKCPS?
My main concern isn't even the legal arguments anymore. It's that I genuinely never received the rejection letter and therefore lost my opportunity to make an informed decision about whether to appeal to the IAS or pay the charge before it escalated.
-
Leeds City Station is railway land subject to byelaws and therefore not "relevant land" under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
is not true, the law changed at the end of 2025. I quoted the details yesterday in https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/apcoa-no-payment-south-western-railway-train-station/msg124104/#msg124104
However, it's a moot point because the operator states they are not attempting to use PoFA 2012 anyway.
-
Appeal response is below.
Thank you for your appeal submitted on 27th March 2026. After reviewing your comments, and carefully
considering the evidence collected at the time the Parking Charge was issued, we regret to inform you that your
appeal has been unsuccessful. The reasons for our decision are detailed below:
The operator has fully considered the representations made and responds as follows. The site is subject to a clear
“no stopping at any time” restriction, which is prominently communicated through multiple signs positioned at the
entrance and throughout the location in compliance with the IPC Code of Practice. The Code does not require
signage at every stopping point, but instead requires that signage is sufficiently clear, visible, and intelligible to
give motorists a fair opportunity to understand the terms. This requirement is met in full. The prohibition applies
regardless of duration or reason for stopping, including for the purposes of picking up or dropping off passengers,
and therefore any period of stopping constitutes a breach.
With regard to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, this notice has been issued on a non-PoFA basis and as
such the provisions relating to keeper liability do not apply. The operator is entitled to pursue the charge on this
basis and is not required to rely on PoFA in order to enforce the terms and conditions of the site. In any event, the
driver entered land where clear contractual terms were displayed and subsequently breached those terms by
stopping.
In respect of land status, the operator manages the site under the authority of the landholder and operates in
accordance with the IPC Code of Practice. The presence of byelaws does not negate the existence of a
contractual arrangement for the purposes of managing vehicle access and enforcing site restrictions. The operator
is authorised to issue Parking Charge Notices in line with those terms.
The operator confirms that it holds the necessary written authority from the landowner, as required under the IPC
Code of Practice. Such agreements are commercially sensitive and will not be disclosed in full; however, they
confirm the operator’s authority to manage the land, install signage, and issue and pursue charges.
In relation to contract formation, the signage is clear and unambiguous in setting out the no stopping restriction.
The IPC Code recognises that signage must provide adequate notice of terms, which it does in this case. A driver
is deemed to have accepted those terms upon entering the site and remaining, even for a short period. A no
stopping zone does not invalidate contract formation; rather, it creates a contractual prohibition which is breached
upon stopping.
Regarding the circumstances described, including the involvement of a passenger, the restriction applies at all
times and does not provide exemptions for passenger drop-off, collection, or any professional duties. The IPC
Code does not require operators to provide grace periods in prohibited areas such as no stopping zones, and
therefore enforcement is valid even where the stop is brief.
The operator does not accept that the doctrine of frustration of contract applies. The terms are clear and capable
of being complied with by not stopping on the land. Any decision to stop, regardless of the reason, remains within
the control of the driver.
The enforcement approach is consistent with the IPC Code of Practice and is neither predatory nor unreasonable.
The use of camera enforcement is a recognised and compliant method of monitoring adherence to site restrictions,
particularly in locations where stopping presents safety or traffic management concerns.
The charge amount is in line with industry standards and is commercially justified, serving as a deterrent to ensure
compliance with clearly stated restrictions. It is not required to represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
There is no presumption made as to the identity of the driver; however, liability arises from the act of breaching the
displayed terms and conditions. The operator has issued the notice correctly based on the evidence available.
Finally, the operator confirms that all necessary permissions and consents relating to signage and enforcement
equipment are in place in accordance with applicable requirements. The signage complies with the IPC Code of
Practice in terms of clarity, placement, and visibility.
The area where the vehicle stopped is designated as private land where parking, stopping, or waiting is strictly
prohibited at all times.
At the time of the event, the vehicle was parked, stopped or waiting in this area, and as a result, the driver
contractually agrees to pay a parking charge.
Attached, you will find photographic evidence showing the vehicle parked at the location mentioned above.
We have extended the opportunity for you
-
My appeal is below:
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this Parking Charge Notice and submit this appeal in full.
I am handling this matter strictly as the registered keeper under the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the relevant Code of Practice.
I make no admission as to the identity of the driver at the time of the alleged incident.
1. Failure to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, keeper liability does not apply.
Under Paragraph 9(5), where no notice was affixed to the vehicle, the Notice to Keeper must be delivered within 14 days of the alleged incident.
The alleged incident occurred on 05 March 2026. The deadline for delivery was therefore 19 March 2026.
The Notice to Keeper was received on 21 March 2026, outside the statutory period.
I require strict proof of the date of posting. The operator must demonstrate when the notice was actually entered into the postal system, not merely when it was generated.
As the notice was not delivered within the required timeframe, the operator has forfeited any right to transfer liability to the registered keeper.
2. Land is Not Relevant Land Under the Act
The location is Leeds City Station, which is subject to statutory control under the Railway Byelaws 2005.
Under Schedule 4 Paragraph 3 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, land is not relevant land if it is subject to statutory control.
Railway land, including station forecourts and access roads, is excluded.
As a result:
The operator cannot rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to pursue the registered keeper
No keeper liability can arise under any circumstances
The operator cannot require the keeper to identify the driver
Any potential enforcement would fall under railway byelaws, which can only be enforced by the landowner or relevant statutory authority, not a private parking company
In these circumstances, the operator is limited to pursuing the driver only, whom they have not identified.
This renders the charge unenforceable against the registered keeper.
3. No Evidence of Landowner Authority
I put the operator to strict proof of full compliance with the Code of Practice regarding landowner authority.
The operator must provide a valid, contemporaneous, and unredacted written agreement with the landowner which includes:
The identity of the landowner
Defined site boundaries
Duration and scope of authority
Authority to issue parking charges and pursue legal action in their own name
Details of any applicable byelaws
Parking terms, conditions, and exemptions
Responsibility for signage and statutory consents
These are mandatory requirements.
Any failure to provide a fully compliant agreement invalidates the charge.
As confirmed in Vehicle Control Services v HMRC 2013, an operator without proper landowner authority has no standing to issue or enforce charges.
4. No Contract Formed Due to Inadequate and Unfair Terms
A valid parking charge requires a legally binding contract.
As established in ParkingEye v Beavis 2015, this requires clear, prominent, and intelligible signage, allowing a driver a fair opportunity to read and accept the terms.
At a busy train station environment:
Signage is not safely readable while driving
A no stopping zone provides no opportunity to read or consider terms
A driver cannot accept terms that require immediate compliance without any consideration period
The operator’s terms are therefore incapable of forming a contract.
5. Necessary Stop Due to Safety, Professional Duties, and Equality Obligations
The vehicle was operating as a licensed taxi and was present solely to drop off a disabled passenger.
Due to the nature of this role, the driver’s work is inherently unpredictable. The driver must prioritise safety at all times, including the safety of themselves, their passengers, and other road users and pedestrians.
This means that situations can arise where the vehicle must be brought to a stop immediately and safely in response to circumstances outside of the driver’s control.
In this instance, the vehicle was stationary for less than 60 seconds. The driver remained inside the vehicle at all times, with the engine running, and was actively managing the situation involving the passenger.
At no point was the vehicle parked or left unattended.
The stop was necessary due to passenger safety and behaviour. The driver was required to deal with the situation safely and appropriately. Failing to do so could have created risk for other road users and pedestrians.
This is recognised in law and guidance:
The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides exemptions where stopping is necessary due to circumstances beyond the driver’s control, including safety considerations
The Highway Code recognises that drivers may stop where necessary to avoid danger or respond to immediate circumstances
Legal principles distinguish between parking and stopping, confirming that a brief and necessary stop does not constitute parking
In addition, any fair and lawful parking regime must allow a reasonable consideration period for a driver to read signage, assess conditions, and act accordingly.
A system that penalises a vehicle that was stationary for less than 60 seconds, with the driver present and engaged in safety related activity, is unreasonable and contrary to basic principles of fairness.
Given the nature of taxi work and the need to respond to real time situations, a reasonable grace or consideration period should be allowed.
The absence of such a period makes compliance impossible and renders enforcement unfair.
Furthermore, under the Equality Act 2010, there is a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals.
Allowing sufficient time and safe access for drop off is a clear example of such an adjustment.
Penalising a driver for complying with safety obligations and assisting a disabled passenger is unreasonable and may amount to unlawful discrimination.
The driver’s actions were lawful, necessary, and proportionate.
This was not parking, but a justified temporary stop, and no breach can be said to have occurred.
6. Frustration of Contract
Even if a contract were capable of being formed, which is denied, it would be frustrated.
The driver was required to stop due to safety concerns and passenger behaviour, circumstances entirely outside their control.
This prevents performance of any alleged contractual term and renders the contract void.
7. Predatory and Unreasonable Enforcement
The operator’s enforcement model is predatory.
A no stopping zone enforced by automatic cameras, with no grace or consideration period, captures drivers instantly without allowing any realistic opportunity to comply.
This is particularly problematic given the nature of taxi work, where stops are often necessary, brief, and safety driven.
Such enforcement disproportionately impacts professional drivers and those assisting vulnerable or unpredictable passengers.
This is unreasonable and contrary to the requirement to act fairly and proportionately.
8. Breach of Code of Practice
The operator has failed to act reasonably, fairly, and proportionately.
The combination of:
No consideration period
Instant enforcement
Failure to account for disabled passengers
Failure to consider the realities of professional driving
places the operator in breach of the Code of Practice requirements regarding fairness, professionalism, and duty of care.
9. Charge is Disproportionate and Not a Genuine Reflection of Any Loss or Impact
The charge is excessive and not representative of any disruption or loss.
The stop was brief and necessary for safety.
There is no evidence of obstruction, damage, or impact on site operations.
The nature of taxi work means drivers do not have full control over passenger behaviour and may be required to stop unexpectedly to manage situations safely.
In this case, the stop was influenced by a disruptive passenger and was necessary to prevent risk to others.
As evidenced by the job record, the fare for this journey was £5.70.
The parking charge is significantly higher and bears no relation to the activity undertaken or any alleged impact.
While ParkingEye v Beavis allows charges in certain circumstances, it also requires that charges serve a legitimate interest and are not excessive or unconscionable.
In this case, the charge is clearly disproportionate.
10. No Evidence the Keeper Was the Driver
There is no legal presumption that the registered keeper was the driver.
The burden of proof rests entirely with the operator.
Keeper liability only arises where the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 are met, which they have not been.
Only the driver could be liable and I am under no obligation to identify them.
11. Planning Permission and Advertising Consent
I put the operator to strict proof that:
All necessary planning permission for the camera system has been obtained
All required advertising consent for signage is in place
In the absence of such consent, the operation of the enforcement system is unlawful and the charge is invalid.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined:
The Notice to Keeper is non compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
The land is not relevant land and is subject to statutory control
No keeper liability exists
No valid contract was formed
Any alleged contract would be frustrated
The operator has not demonstrated landowner authority
The stop was lawful, necessary, and required for safety
The charge is disproportionate and unjustified
The enforcement is predatory and in breach of the Code of Practice
I require that this Parking Charge Notice is cancelled immediately.
If you reject this appeal, you must provide:
Full evidence of compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
Proof that the land is relevant land
A complete and unredacted landowner agreement
Evidence of adequate signage
Proof of the date of posting of the Notice to Keeper
Evidence of planning permission and advertising consent
Failure to address these points will be considered unreasonable conduct.
Yours faithfully,
Registered Keeper
-
I'm looking for some advice on a UKCPS Parking Charge at Leeds City Station (railway land) because I don't think I've been treated fairly.
I am the registered keeper and submitted a detailed appeal to UKCPS through their online appeals portal on 27 March 2026. I immediately received an email confirming my appeal had been successfully submitted and that I would receive a response within 28 days.
After that, I heard absolutely nothing.
I received no email, no letter, and no communication from UKCPS. I therefore believed my appeal was still being considered or successful.
The next correspondence I received was a letter from TRACE Debt Recovery demanding £170. This was the first I knew that my appeal had supposedly been rejected.
I contacted TRACE, who kindly provided me with a copy of the appeal rejection letter. During my initial call, they also told me there was an email address on file that did not belong to me, which immediately raised concerns. They also said they could not provide proof that the rejection had actually been sent.
I then submitted a Subject Access Request to UKCPS.
The SAR included a copy of the rejection letter and an email delivery log showing it was supposedly sent to my correct Outlook email address on 17 April 2026. However, I have checked my inbox, junk folder, deleted items and archive and can confirm I never received it. I did receive the original appeal acknowledgement from the same email address, so I know their emails are capable of reaching me.
Because I never received the rejection, I was denied the opportunity to:
- Consider the reasons for rejecting my appeal.
- Decide whether to pay the charge at the lower amount (£60).
- Exercise my right to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS).
Instead, the matter was passed straight to TRACE, who are now pursuing £170.
UKCPS have now told me that if I wish to complain, I must do so in writing by post. I am preparing that complaint.
For context, my original appeal raised the following points:
- The Notice to Keeper was issued as Non PoFA, so there is no keeper liability.
- Leeds City Station is railway land subject to byelaws and therefore not "relevant land" under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
- I was appealing as the registered keeper and did not identify the driver.
- The stop lasted less than a minute and involved a licensed taxi assisting a disabled passenger. The driver remained with the vehicle at all times and stopped because of safety considerations arising from the passenger.
- I also challenged landowner authority, signage and compliance with the relevant Code of Practice.
UKCPS rejected the appeal, stating that because the driver had not been identified they could not transfer liability. However, they then went on to state that "you have breached the terms and conditions", which seems contradictory because they had already accepted they could not transfer liability to the registered keeper.
I can include details of my original appeal and the rejection letter that TRACE provided to me, as these give the full background and explain the reasons UKCPS relied upon to reject my appeal.
At this point, I'm genuinely unsure what to do next.
Should I submit the written complaint to UKCPS and wait for their response before doing anything else?
What action is TRACE likely to take from here? Are they likely to recommend that UKCPS issue court proceedings over what was originally a £60 Parking Charge that has now increased to £170, particularly given that I never had the opportunity to consider the appeal outcome or decide whether to appeal further or pay the original amount?
Has anyone been in a similar position, and if so, what was the outcome?
Any advice on the best next steps would be greatly appreciated, as this whole situation has become incredibly stressful and I feel I've done everything I reasonably could throughout the process in good faith.