Free Traffic Legal Advice

I sent the below, will update when I hear back:

"I refer to your correspondence dated 12 March 2026 requesting a copy of a valid parking permit.Please find attached a copy of the permit associated with the vehicle, confirming that the vehicle was authorised to be parked at the location. This is provided in good faith in response to your request.In light of this evidence, I expect the charge to be cancelled.There is no admission as to the identity of the driver and all rights are reserved.I look forward to your confirmation that this matter is now closed."

I responded to the NtK with:

I am the registered keeper and I dispute these parking charges. I deny any liability and no admission is made as to the identity of the driver.

The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore cannot transfer liability to the keeper. The NtK does not specify any “period of parking”, relying instead on single timestamps. A timestamp is not a period. This omission is fatal to any attempt to transfer liability to the keeper. Keeper liability does not apply.

Multiple PCNs have been issued for the same stationary vehicle over consecutive days 3002460480115,3002460490126,3002460500130. There is no evidence of the vehicle leaving and returning. This constitutes a single, continuous event, and the issuing of multiple charges is an unreasonable and punitive attempt to recover multiple sums for the same alleged contravention. The signage does not state that charges apply per day or per 24-hour period.

Further, the NtK fails to clearly specify the relevant land. The location details are inconsistent and ambiguous:

The street is stated as “Cottrells,” which does not exist as a legitimate street name. The closest match is Cottrell St (West Bromwich). The postcode (HP1 1JZ) corresponds to different locations including Hemel Hempstead Town Cricket Club and Station Road. Together, not a single identifier points to the same 'relevant land'.

There are too many conflicting identifiers resulting in multiple, inconsistent location references. These discrepancies fail to identify a single, clearly defined location, and the NtK is therefore non-compliant.

The vehicle was parked in a space associated with a residential property, advertised as including parking. This establishes a tenant pre-existing right to park, which cannot be overridden by a third-party operator’s signage.

UKPC has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only. For all the above reasons, these charges must be cancelled.

The parking space itself isn’t explicitly written into the tenancy agreement, but it was included as part of the rental advert and a permit has been issued for the site. At best, I can find a screenshot of the initial rental advert but not sure it will be enough as typical rebuttals from reading such posts are :
"The parking charges issued by UK Parking Control Limited are based on a
contractual agreement between UKPC and the driver, as detailed on the signage
displayed in the car park."

Is this still the best argument to pursue?

UPDATE: I’ve now received a third PCN for the same location (17th, 18th, 19th Feb), all relating to the same vehicle parked in the same residential bay. The vehicle appears to have remained stationary throughout this period.


Wording on Advert below:

Submitted below:

I am the registered keeper and I dispute this parking charge. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.

Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and you cannot transfer liability to the keeper.

The NtK fails to specify the required “period of parking.” It states only a single timestamp, which is not compliant with the statutory requirement. As such, keeper liability does not apply.

Further, the NtK fails to clearly specify the relevant land. The location details are inconsistent and ambiguous:

- The street is stated as “Cottrells,” which does not exist as a legitimate street name. The closest match is Cottrell St (West Bromwich).

- The postcode (HP1 1JZ) corresponds to different locations including Hemel Hempstead Town Cricket Club and Station Road.

There are too many conflicting identifiers resulting in multiple, inconsistent location references. These discrepancies fail to identify a single, clearly defined location, and the NtK is therefore non-compliant.

There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver and no assumptions can be made.

In addition, no contract was formed. The operator is a member of the British Parking Association and must ensure signage is clear and legible. The alleged contravention occurred at 22:39.  If terms cannot be read from a standing position, they cannot be read from a vehicle. I am happy tom provide photographic evidence. The operator’s own photographic evidence demonstrates that the signage is not legible from close view at 22:39, particularly the terms and conditions displayed in small font.

Furthermore, some signage in the area is not illuminated. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. UKPC has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only. You are urged to cancel this charge.

Hello,

I require your help in a case against a recent PCN.

Allegation : Contravention Code 31. The driver was turning left, and was stationary in a yellow-box.

The PCN delivered to the address and attached makes clear a charge of £160 but halved if paid within 28 days else £240 (50% increase). The wording is not the clearest, it could easily mean a person sends a £160 cheque as payment as the £80 reduced fine is not as explicitly spelt out. That currently, is my best defence (not the greatest!)

I have tried ringing them for video but gave up on the wait time but will try again today.

Any advice/help on the argument to contest?