Free Traffic Legal Advice

DCB Legal have finally decided to send out their letter

Well, surprise surprise, the appeal has been unsuccessful. Here is their predictable, pathetic response. Interesting that they have stated the name of a Registered Keeper who is not actually the Registered Keeper, nor any connection to the vehicle whatsoever - I have replaced that person's name with "************" and have no idea who the person is. Furthermore, the claim that "the appellant did not raise any issues with the signage as part of their grounds of appeal to POPLA" is demonstrably false:

Decision  Unsuccessful

Assessor Name  (I have removed this)

Assessor summary of operator case  The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to exceeding the maximum stay time of one hour and 30 minutes.

Assessor summary of your case  The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal in detail: • They say that the PCN was not issued correctly under the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), as the deemed delivery date was 9 January 2025 however, a final reminder letter was issued on 24 December 2024 to state the PCN is valid as 14 days has elapsed. • They say that the 28-day period also had not even reached halfway when the parking operator made them liable for the parking charge. • They say that the parking operator has also made a procedural error of the Private Parking Code of Practice when it comes to issuing to debt recovery. In their comments to the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on their grounds of appeal in extensive detail, stating that while the Notice to Keeper is technically compliant, breaches of PofA have occurred as the parking operator has already made the keeper liable before the 14-day period has elapsed in its final reminder letter. In their further comments to the parking operator’s case file, the appellant has challenged the signage in extensive detail. Including that it is inadequate, unreadable, and incapable of forming a contract

Assessor supporting rational for decision  When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The parking operator has provided photographs of the signs, stating that the maximum stay time on the site is 90 minutes, and failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in the issue of a £100 PCN. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the vehicle was on the date of the parking event. As such, I must consider the requirements of PoFA, as the parking operator issued the PCN to the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and as the driver’s details have not been provided as part of the appellant’s initial appeal to the parking operator, the parking operator has successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. As such, I will be considering ************’s liability for the parking charge as the registered keeper. Whilst I note the parking operator issued a final reminder letter to the registered keeper within the 28-day period, and the possibility of debt collection recovery is mentioned, this does not invalidate the issue of the PCN. Had the appellant provided the driver's details within their appeal to the parking operator, it will have needed to pursue the driver, as the details would have been provided within the relevant timescale, however this was not done. If the appellant believes that administration errors have taken place when it comes to the parking operator’s correspondence, they would have to escalate these points with the parking operator directly. This information will be available on the parking operator’s website. Having considered the ANPR images provided by the parking operator, the vehicle remained on the site for an additional 54 minutes, which was beyond the maximum stay time of 90 minutes and therefore, the PCN has been issued. In their further comments to the parking operator’s case file, the appellant has challenged the signage in extensive detail. Including that it is inadequate, unreadable, and incapable of forming a contract. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s extensive comments, this section is for providing comments and not for raising new grounds of appeal. As the appellant did not raise any issues with the signage as part of their grounds of appeal to POPLA, I am unable to consider these new grounds. POPLA’s role is to assess if the parking operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the parking operator has issued the PCN correctly, and the appeal is refused.

As expected, UKPC rejected the appeal, citing a load of predictable logical fallacies for their basis. I submitted a POPLA appeal and stated the procedural deficiences. UKPC have now offered their evidence to the appeal as follows:


























































They also included the following signage plan:

The way I would have dealt with this typically is to basically stuff their process and deal with them directly, not recognising their 'appeal' system and bypassing it. However, as the usual advice is to just go through the processs and as I have some personal stuff going on in my life right now and so am not firing on as many cylinders as I would be ordinarily, I figured it probably better to just go through the motions and get the help from you guys along the way. As the deadline was upon me I've just sent in my stance to UKPC's 'appeal' system using the info and photos I laid out above

On Saturday 7th December my vehicle was parked in McDonald's car park in Ardwick, Manchester. I, the registered keeper have received the attached parking charge notices through the post. I realise that it's late to be posting here, however I have been away.


I appreciate that the vehicle does appear to have overstayed. However, I contest that the signage is insufficient and unclear. I have since visited the location on foot and took the attached photographs that clearly show that there are no signs at the point of entry and two poorly placed signs above head height along the left-hand wall at the point after which a vehicle has entered the land. I contest that it would be unreasonable for a driver to drive safely and keep one's eyes on the road in front while at the same time be expected to attempt to turn one's head to read a sign that is above head height and would require a distraction from driving in order to read, especially given that pedestrians cross at this point. Furthermore, it would be impossible for a driver to be able to read the second sign along this wall which outlines the potential charges, as the writing is too small and it is too far away.


There are no signs at all at the point of entrance to the car park itself around the back of the building.


On this day and at the time of the vehicle visiting McDonald's, the rain was torrential so no signs could be seen clearly due to their poor placement and small writing. Furthermore, as can be seen from the CCTV image of the vehicle, there were what appear to be trolleys and crates in front of the exact location of the "90 Minutes Maximum Stay" sign. The driver claims that the sign simply was not visible due to a combination of the poor placement of the sign, obstruction and poor visibility due to the torrential rain.


Additionally, in the "final reminder" letter, I do not believe that a private company should be citing any potential concequences as a result of court action. Such things are for to a court decide and I believe that a private company to be citing such things could be viewed as misrepresentation.


Given all of the above, I do not believe that I should be liable to make the "requested" payment.


Here is the Google Maps location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/yeaKJsys6i6HtqqB8