Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi,

Apologies, in the past i had not disclosed the pcn number and registration and was able to get the assistance needed from the rest of the letter, hence i thought it was not absolutely necessary. I have re-attached the PCN again showing the required details now.

Thank you for providing the link to the guide of how to post such cases, much appreciated.

Quote from: jfollows on July 09, 2025, 11:34:00 am

Yet you continue to obscure the information requested more than once which we need to be able to help you? Do you actually read posts from other people? Did you read https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/ ?

Of course they will be demanding payment. It does not mean that you owe them the money.

Our advice is to not pay it and ignore all the debt recovery letters that are going to follow. The debt collectors are powerless except to scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

Once they realise that you are not low-hanging fruit they will then issue a Letter of Claim (LoC) and then an N1SDT Claim Form. We would provide a suitable defence and eventually they will discontinue.

However, you sound as though you are going to capitulate and become a part of the problem rather than part of the solution. This is exactly what these predatory companies want... lambs to the slaughter.

You either fight this all the way to a win or you waste your money.

Never mind. Their decision is not binding on you and has no bearing on anything going forwards. Do not pay anything.

Did you not receive a copy of the operators evidence pack at some stage after you submitted the POPLA appeal? If so, why did you bot show us? Did you respond to the operators evidence pack?

This POPLA assessor has a bit of a reputation for being ignorant in most matters of contract law and I have already drafted a few formal complaints about his flawed decision making and obvious lack of sufficient contract law knowledge.

This is what is going to happen next... you will receive a bunch of useless Debt Recovery Agent (DRA) letters which you can safely ignore. They are powerless except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear. Ignore them.

Eventually, you will receive a Letter of Claim (LoC), most likely from DCB Legal (not DCBL). When you get the LoC, come back and we will advise on how to respond. After that, you will receive an actual N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC. Again, we will provide a suitable defence. After many months (could be up to a year or even more), the claim will be either struck out or discontinued and that will be the end of the matter. There is less than 1% chance that this will ever go as far as a hearing.

Just ignore everything now except either an loC or the claim. We do not need to know about the useless and powerless DRAs.

Have you had a response from Mr Appiah yet?

Here is a more detailed POPLA appeal based on your circumstances:

Quote

POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC)

PCN Number: [Insert PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert Vehicle Registration]

POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC)

Grounds for Appeal

1. The Windscreen Note Constitutes a Notice to Driver (NtD) Under PoFA, and the Notice to Keeper (NtK) Was Premature.

2. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the Requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

3. UKPC Has Not Proven That the Individual Being Pursued Was the Driver.

4. Inadequate Signage Breaching the BPA Code of Practice.

5. No Evidence of Landholder Authority.

1. The Windscreen Note Constitutes a Notice to Driver (NtD) Under PoFA, and the NtK Was Premature. The Windscreen Note Was Presented as a Notice to Driver (NtD)

The document left on the vehicle windscreen was enclosed in a yellow plastic envelope marked “Parking Charge Notice”, giving the appearance of a formal NtD. The design, language, and presentation of this document were clearly intended to mimic an official NtD, fulfilling the role of an NtD for all practical purposes.



By leaving this document on the vehicle, UKPC initiated the procedural process described in Schedule 4, Paragraph 8 of PoFA, which requires operators to wait a minimum of 28 days before serving a Notice to Keeper (NtK).

UKPC Cannot Circumvent PoFA by Issuing an Improper NtD. If UKPC claims the windscreen note was not a valid NtD, they are effectively admitting to issuing a non-compliant notice.

This non-compliance cannot exempt them from PoFA requirements. UKPC cannot rely on the windscreen note as evidence of a contravention while simultaneously denying its status as an NtD to circumvent the 28-day timeline mandated by Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(4).

Premature NtK

UKPC issued the NtK only two days after leaving the windscreen note. This premature issuance violates PoFA, rendering the NtK invalid.

2. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with PoFA

To transfer liability to the registered keeper, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). UKPC’s NtK fails to meet the mandatory requirements, rendering it invalid.

Omission of Mandatory Information

Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(2) of PoFA specifies the information that must be included in the NtK. UKPC’s NtK omits a key detail, the period of parking to which the charge relates. Without this information, the NtK is non-compliant with PoFA, and the operator cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper.

PoFA specifically states, irrespective of whether under paragraph 8 or 9 that the notice MUST: "specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates." An NtK, whether issued under paragraph 8 or 9 of Schedule 4 of PoFA is required to fully comply with ALL the requirements of the Act. Partial or even substantial compliance is insufficient.


3. UKPC Has Not Proven That the Individual Being Pursued Was the Driver

UKPC has not identified the driver at the time of the alleged contravention and instead relies on assumptions that the registered keeper was the driver.

Legal Requirements

Schedule 4 of PoFA allows liability to be transferred to the registered keeper only if the operator fully complies with ALL its requirements. UKPC has provided no evidence, to establish the identity of the driver. The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. The NtK can only hold the driver liable.

Relevant Legal Precedent

In VCS v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C], the court considered the issue of driver identification. From paragraph 31 onwards, it was emphasised that:

• A parking operator must present substantive evidence to demonstrate who the driver was at the time of the alleged contravention.
• Liability cannot simply be presumed based on the registered keeper’s details or their correspondence.

This case reinforces that unless the operator identifies the driver, they cannot hold anyone liable as the driver unless PoFA's strict conditions for transferring liability to the registered keeper are met. In this case, UKPC has failed to provide any such evidence, relying solely on the registered keeper’s details to pursue this charge.

4. Inadequate Signage Breaching the BPA Code of Practice

UKPC’s signage at the site fails to meet the standards set by the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, Section 19.

Poor Visibility and Clarity

The signs were either obscured, too small, or positioned in a way that made them unreadable. Key parking terms were not clearly communicated, leading to confusion.

Failure to Form a Contract

The lack of clear, prominent, and legible signage means no contract was formed between the driver and UKPC. This invalidates the parking charge.

5. No Evidence of Landholder Authority

UKPC is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.

The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules.

A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, consideration periods, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.

Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and, of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement). Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

(a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
(b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
(c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
(d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
(e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

Conclusion

In light of the above points, this Parking Charge Notice is invalid and unenforceable. UKPC has failed to:

• Adhere to the procedural requirements of PoFA regarding Notices to Driver and Keeper.
• Issue a Notice to Keeper that complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
• Establish who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention.
• Provide clear and adequate signage in line with BPA guidelines.
• Demonstrate their authority to operate on the land in question.

I request that POPLA allow this appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

As expected. UKPC will always reject an appeal. There's no money it for them if they don't.

So, you now have a POPLA code and you need to prepare an appeal to them based on the points I have already given you earlier. You have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection to submit the POPLA appeal so, no rush.

Show us what you think is suitable for the POPLA appeal and we will provide corrections and suggestions to make sure it is suitable for submission.

No one pays UKPC PCNs if they are getting advice here. Even if it went all the way to a court claim, it would eventually be discontinued.