Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you to everyone who has contributed. Unfortunately, I don't think I am going to be able to get time off work to take pictures.

I have written an appeal and will send it the day before the appeal period expires:

Appeal

I appeal as the registered keeper.

The driver has not been identified. I am under no obligation to identify the driver and will not be doing so.

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

The Notice to Keeper does not contain the mandatory warning required by paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4. It does not warn the keeper that, if after the relevant 28-day period the parking charge remains unpaid and the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will have the right to recover the unpaid charge from the keeper, if all applicable conditions are met.

Instead, the notice merely states that "further recovery action will be taken to secure payment". That is not the warning required by paragraph 9(2)(f), and it does not create keeper liability.

As keeper liability has not been created, you cannot hold me liable as registered keeper.

In addition, parking had been paid for covering the relevant period. The allegation is "Restricted Area", not non-payment or overstay. It is disputed that the signage and markings made clear that bay 29 was a restricted/Premier bay, or that a £100 charge would be payable. The vehicle was parked within a marked bay during what appeared to be a busy period at the station car park. The "Premier Parking" marking appears to be on the roadway rather than within the bay itself, and the markings/signage do not appear sufficiently prominent or clear from a driver’s perspective when entering and parking in the area. To the extent any roadway marking was present, it appeared faded and was not sufficiently conspicuous to clearly communicate that the bay was subject to a separate restriction carrying a £100 charge.

Please cancel the charge or issue a POPLA code.

Hi all,

Thank you so much for taking the time to help me.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and have received a Parking Charge Notice from National Car Parks Ltd.

Details:
Operator: National Car Parks Ltd / NCP
Location: Bishops Stortford Station car park
Alleged contravention: Restricted Area
Incident date: 30/04/2026
Date of sending notice: 05/05/2026
Amount: £100, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days

I have not appealed yet
The driver has not been identified

Parking had been paid for covering 7 days. This was not a non-payment or overstay issue. The alleged contravention is "Restricted Area", so the dispute appears to be whether bay 29 was clearly marked/signed as a Premier/restricted bay and whether the driver would reasonably have understood that the paid parking did not apply to that bay.

NCP's evidence photos show the vehicle parked in bay 29. The vehicle appears to be parked wholly within a marked bay. NCP's photos also show signs stating "This parking area is restricted for authorised Premier Parking Only" and "PREMIER BAY PARKING ONLY - Authorised users only."

The car park was busy, and the driver was driving around looking for a space. From the driver's perspective, it was not obvious that bay 29 itself was a Premier/restricted bay. The "PREMIER PARKING" wording appears to be painted on the roadway rather than inside the bay itself.

I have also found a Google Street View image which appears to show the relevant row of bays. It looks like "PREMIER PARKING" is painted once along the roadway in front of the row, rather than inside each individual bay. It appears fairly worn/low contrast and I am not sure how clear it would be to a driver manoeuvring in a busy car park, particularly if vehicles were already parked nearby.

Google Street View link showing the relevant row/bay area.

I would appreciate advice on the best way to approach the first appeal.

A few questions:

1. Is the Notice to Keeper wording important here, particularly where it refers to "further recovery action" rather than clearly warning about keeper liability under POFA?

2. Do any different rules apply because this is a railway station car park / railway land?

3. Does it matter that the Notice to Keeper was dated/sent while the paid parking session was still ongoing?

Thanks.

Images:
https://ibb.co/wFBpy0MM - PCN Front
https://ibb.co/wh17D6Wg - PCN Reverse

Provided by NCP
https://ibb.co/j9PgmFSN
https://ibb.co/KpckCPx3
https://ibb.co/XrVHDQgy
https://ibb.co/8ZPYnm0
https://ibb.co/mr54cNCB
https://ibb.co/xKMMT4Pq
https://ibb.co/JjvsCPkH
https://ibb.co/sd94VfqZ
https://ibb.co/Mxbd0Y2L
https://ibb.co/GfNkdztG
https://ibb.co/nq3B5Tx9
https://ibb.co/pBSQN9Mv
https://ibb.co/Kj7zthvr
https://ibb.co/wZy3jNNm
https://ibb.co/dJzQfpDt

Thank you.

Would my representation be along the lines of

1.There was no signage
2. Please establish I saw the signs on the way into the zone?

Thanks

Thank you so much once again.

Sorry, I thought the decision was binding. I am a bit clueless about this stuff, so really appreciate your help here.

There was some more information I left off:

Assessor Name: Gayle Stanton

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the vehicle was parked on the site and the driver failed to make payment.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: There is confusion caused by the conflicting roles of, and Hozah Ltd regarding, ANPR data collection and processing, and the failure to mention Hozah Ltd in the NtK. The main signs did not mention the requirement to enter the VRN into a tablet, making the PCN unfair. The CRA 2015 sets out requirements for transparency and fairness, as well as the SCoP’s obligations to provide clear, readable signage; the conflicting and missing information on the signs is a breach of these requirements.

Furthermore, the driver, having left the vehicle with a mechanic, was not informed of the VRM requirement and could not be reasonably expected to comply with this undisclosed condition. The separate signs do not include the UKPA’s name or the BPA logo. As a result, these signs cannot form part of the contractual agreement, meaning that the PCN issued for "non payment" (based on the failure to enter the VRM) is not enforceable. This constitutes a clear breach of the SCoP and reinforces the overall argument that the terms were not properly communicated to the driver.

In the comments, the appellant advised that the operator failed to address four of the five points raised, adding that this is a very predatory practice aimed at preying on unsuspecting customers of the businesses on the site, with the mechanic making no mention of this issue. The appellant provided the following evidence: Photograph 1 of 5; Image 1 of 5 – Signage at the Car Park; Photograph 2 of 5; Photograph 3 of 5; Photograph 4 of 5; Photograph 5 of 5; Notice to Keeper dated 08/10/2024; and Appeal Rejection dated 16/10/2024.

Understood. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much for your comprehensive response.

UKPA's letter to me said that I have cannot appeal any more and have to go straight to POPLA.

Would it be worthwhile to write back to them outlining the points you mentioned above, hopefully making them want to drop the case before it escalates to POPLA?

Or would you just go straight to POPLA?

Many thanks!

I tried calling him and he didn't answer. I sent a whatsapp and he's not read the messages.

I will go back there tonight and get images of his business (which may be closed for the day) as well as the signage. I have a feeling he's either subletting or there's some other dodgy arrangement going on. I did not get a receipt for the works. Silly me