Free Traffic Legal Advice

To whom it may concern,


I am the registered keeper of the vehicle shown in this PCN received from Total Car Parks on 6th August 2025, (letter dated 1st August 2025). I dispute any and all liability for this parking charge, and appeal it in full.


I quote the relevant statutory requirement from Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (henceforth referred to by me as "POFA 2012"):

“The notice must— (e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges.”

This is a mandatory requirement. The Notice to Keeper must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the charge if the driver is not identified.


Now here is the wording used in the Notice to Keeper from Total Car Parks:

"You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. As we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them."

Nowhere in this wording is there any invitation for the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge. The notice says the driver is required to pay, and that if the keeper was not the driver, they should pass the notice on and provide the driver’s details. It then says that if the charge is not paid or the driver is not identified, Total Car Parks has the right to recover the charge from the keeper.

Again, the crucial difference is this:

- POFA 2012 requires Total Car Parks to 1. state they do not know who the driver was, and 2. invite the registered keeper to pay.

- Instead, Total Car Parks asks the keeper to tell them who the driver is, and pass the notice on to the driver.


They fail to comply with POFA 2012 because they fail to ask the keeper to pay the charge; they instead ask the keeper to identify the driver and to pass the notice on to them.


As Total Car Parks did not invite the keeper to pay, they have failed to comply with PoFA 2012, specifically with 9(2)(e)(i), as quoted above; they did NOT invite the keeper to pay the charge.


This means they cannot rely on Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 to hold the keeper liable. They may only pursue the driver, whose identity they admit they do not know. This is a clear procedural failure.


In my original appeal, I put this to Total Car Parks (henceforth referred to as "TCP"):

- As your (TCP's) Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient.

- TCP has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

- The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. TCP's NtK can only hold the driver liable.

- There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn.

TCP then rejected this appeal, stating (quoting part of the response verbatim, key section bolded)

Thank you for your appeal.
You explained you are the registered keeper of the vehicle and the Parking Charge is not POFA 2012
compliant.
Please note the Parking Charge is POFA2012 as approved by the British Parking Associationand was
sent to the registered keeper.
You were notified as the registered keeper of the vehicle, "You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of
schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay
this parking charge in full. As we do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, if you were
not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass
this notice to them

As above, the appeal rejection provides no valid counter to my appeal, and is in fact nonsensical. It is not even clear what their basis of rejection actually is; in the absence of any clear justification, it appears the appeal was never truly considered by TCP, and may have been declined simply in keeping with their internal working procedure.


As before, without full compliance with PoFA 2012 (as demonstrated to be the case above), TCP are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the parking charge. Partial compliance is not sufficient to comply with PoFA 2012.


In addition to the failure to comply with POFA 2012, which alone makes the parking charge unenforceable: Below is a summary of how the driver attempted to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park:



The driver arrived at the car park in question at 8.33pm. The signage stated that the first hour was free, and that the tariff thereafter was:

• Up to 2 hours: £1.60
• Up to 4 hours: £2.60

The driver attempted to pay on-site but the machine did not accept card payments. They photographed the signage and opted to pay online via Parkonomy, as advertised. At 9.19pm—before the free hour had expired—they paid for 2 hours of parking, covering the period from 9.20pm to 11.20pm. The vehicle then left the car park at 11.15pm, within the paid period.

The total stay was 2 hours and 45 minutes. The driver reasonably believed this consisted of:

• 1 hour free (8.30pm–9.30pm)
• 2 hours paid (9.30pm*–11.20pm) [*note: paid at 9.20pm, thus the 2 hours ran only to 11.20pm: 10 minutes of overlap with the free hour occurred to ensure any PCN for over-running the free hour would be avoided]

The driver paid £1.75 (including booking and SMS fees), which covered the 2-hour paid period. The signage did not clearly state that the free hour was not cumulative with the paid tariff. The driver interpreted the structure as additive: 1 hour free plus 2 hours paid equals 3 hours total.


The on-site tariff board states:

• “60 Minutes Free Parking”
• “Charges apply to all vehicles after 60 minutes”
• “Failure to comply with the Terms & Conditions of the car park may result in enforcement... and a Parking Charge Notice of £100”
• “Pay Here” with instructions to use Parkonomy.com

There is no breakdown of the actual tariff amounts (e.g. £1.60 for up to 2 hours, £2.60 for up to 4 hours) on the board itself. Nor is there any clarification of whether the free hour is included in the paid duration or in addition to it.

This lack of clarity is critical. The driver reasonably interpreted the signage to mean:

• First hour is free
• After that, time is charged cumulatively
• Therefore, 1 hour free + 2 hours paid = 3 hours total

The signage does not state that the free hour is not cumulative or that the paid tariff must cover the entire stay including the free hour. That ambiguity directly affects how a reasonable person would calculate the required payment.

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, contractual terms must be transparent and fair. Where signage forms the basis of a contract, any ambiguity or lack of clarity renders the term unenforceable. In this case, the signage failed to provide a clear tariff structure or explain how the free hour interacts with paid time.


Furthermore, the Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP), section F1(j), amended in February 2025 states:

“Parking charges must not be pursued in relation to vehicles where evidence is provided that they are identified as: a vehicle parked in a car park managed by fixed camera technology (ANPR and/or CCTV) for which payment has been made for the full period of parking prior to the vehicle leaving the car park.”

The driver paid before the free hour expired, covered the intended duration, and left before the paid period ended. Issuing a PCN in these circumstances is contrary to the PPSCoP and undermines the principle of fair enforcement.

The sign on-site, per the photograph (uploaded below), states "60 minutes free parking. Charges apply to all vehicles after 60 minutes". This clearly means that charges only begin to accrue AFTER the free 60 minutes have expired. Thus, paying for 2 hours (before the free hour expired), and staying a further 1 hour 45 minutes, means the car was only parked within time for which the parking was either free, or fully covered by the 2 hours paid for, per the attached email receipt (uploaded as evidence against the question "Can you upload any evidence to support that you were still within the time you paid for?")

In short, the signage was ambiguous and the driver paid for what they reasonably believed was the correct tariff. The payment was made before the free hour expired, and the vehicle left within the paid period. There was no attempt to evade payment, and any discrepancy was caused by unclear signage and a confusing tariff structure. This is not a case of non-payment or other deliberate breach of the terms of parking. It is a case of procedural ambiguity resulting in a PCN being issued in bad-faith, in spite of good-faith compliance by the user. The charge is therefore unjustified.

Please find attached relevant info including a photograph of the signage taken on the night in question, and confirmation of payment of the aforementioned £2.60 for 2 hours of parking at 9.19pm.

I look forward to hearing from you.

To whom it may concern,


I am the registered keeper of the vehicle shown in this PCN received from Total Car Parks on 6th August 2025, (letter dated 1st August 2025). I dispute any and all liability for this parking charge, and appeal it in full.


I quote the relevant statutory requirement from Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012:

“The notice must— (e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges.”

This is a mandatory requirement. The Notice to Keeper must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the charge if the driver is not identified.


Now here is the wording used in the Notice to Keeper from Total Car Parks:

"You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. As we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them."

Nowhere in this wording is there any invitation for the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge. The notice says the driver is required to pay, and that if the keeper was not the driver, they should pass the notice on and provide the driver’s details. It then says that if the charge is not paid or the driver is not identified, Total Car Parks has the right to recover the charge from the keeper.


This is not an invitation to pay. It is a statement of intent to pursue. That fails to meet the requirement under PoFA 9(2)(e)(i), which requires an actual invitation to the keeper to pay the charge.

Because this requirement has not been met, Total Car Parks cannot rely on Schedule 4 of PoFA to hold the keeper liable. They may only pursue the driver, whose identity they admit they do not know. This is a clear procedural failure.


In my original appeal, I put this to Total Car Parks (henceforth referred to as "TCP"):

- As your (TCP's) Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient.

- TCP has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

- The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. TCP's NtK can only hold the driver liable.

- There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn.

TCP then rejected this appeal, stating (quoting verbatim, key section bolded)

Thank you for your appeal.
You explained you are the registered keeper of the vehicle and the Parking Charge is not POFA 2012
compliant.
Please note the Parking Charge is POFA2012 as approved by the British Parking Associationand was
sent to the registered keeper.
You were notified as the registered keeper of the vehicle, "You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of
schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay
this parking charge in full. As we do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, if you were
not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass
this notice to them

As above, the appeal rejection provides no valid counter to my appeal, and is in fact nonsensical. It is not even clear what their basis of rejection actually is.


Below I have summarised why this PCN has been issued in bad faith and is unjustifiable on grounds of procedural ambiguity and the unfair application of said vague terms, resulting in a PCN being issued despite the driver taking all relevant steps to ensure parking was fully paid for:



The driver arrived at 8.33pm. The signage stated that the first hour was free, and that the tariff thereafter was:

• Up to 2 hours: £1.60
• Up to 4 hours: £2.60

The driver attempted to pay on-site but the machine did not accept card payments. They photographed the signage and opted to pay online via Parkonomy, as advertised. At 9.19pm—before the free hour expired—they paid for 2 hours of parking, covering the period from 9.20pm to 11.20pm. The vehicle left at 11.15pm, within the paid period.

The total stay was 2 hours and 45 minutes. The driver reasonably believed this consisted of:

• 1 hour free (8.30pm–9.30pm)
• 2 hours paid (9.30pm–11.30pm)

They paid £1.75 (including booking and SMS fees), which covered the 2-hour paid period. The signage did not clearly state that the free hour was not cumulative with the paid tariff. The driver interpreted the structure as additive: 1 hour free plus 2 hours paid equals 3 hours total.

The tariff board states:

• “60 Minutes Free Parking”
• “Charges apply to all vehicles after 60 minutes”
• “Failure to comply with the Terms & Conditions of the car park may result in enforcement... and a Parking Charge Notice of £100”
• “Pay Here” with instructions to use Parkonomy.com

There is no breakdown of the actual tariff amounts (e.g. £1.60 for up to 2 hours, £2.60 for up to 4 hours) on the board itself. Nor is there any clarification of whether the free hour is included in the paid duration or in addition to it.

This lack of clarity is critical. The driver reasonably interpreted the signage to mean:

• First hour is free
• After that, time is charged cumulatively
• Therefore, 1 hour free + 2 hours paid = 3 hours total

The signage does not state that the free hour is not cumulative or that the paid tariff must cover the entire stay including the free hour. That ambiguity directly affects how a reasonable person would calculate the required payment.

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, contractual terms must be transparent and fair. Where signage forms the basis of a contract, any ambiguity or lack of clarity renders the term unenforceable. In this case, the signage failed to provide a clear tariff structure or explain how the free hour interacts with paid time.

Furthermore, the Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP), section F1(j), amended in February 2025 states:

“Parking charges must not be pursued in relation to vehicles where evidence is provided that they are identified as: a vehicle parked in a car park managed by fixed camera technology (ANPR and/or CCTV) for which payment has been made for the full period of parking prior to the vehicle leaving the car park.”

The driver paid before the free hour expired, covered the intended duration, and left before the paid period ended. Issuing a PCN in these circumstances is contrary to the PPSCoP and undermines the principle of fair enforcement.

In short, the signage was ambiguous and the driver paid for what they reasonably believed was the correct tariff. The payment was made before the free hour expired, and the vehicle left within the paid period. There was no attempt to evade payment, and any discrepancy was caused by unclear signage and a confusing tariff structure. This is not a case of non-payment or deliberate breach. It is a case of procedural ambiguity and good-faith compliance. The charge is therefore unjustified.

Please find attached relevant info including a photograph of the signage taken on the night in question, and confirmation of payment of the aforementioned £2.60 for 2 hours of parking at 9.19pm.

I look forward to hearing from you.

I refer to your appeal received on 17th August 2025 regarding the Parking Charge which was issued at
the above car park.

The Parking Charge was issued following observation of your vehicle which seemed to be in breach of
the Terms and Conditions of the car park.

The breach in question was: Paid less than tariff displayed

The Terms and Conditions of the car park are located at the entrance to the car park, in and around the
car park. As stated in the Terms and Conditions, a valid parking session must be secured using any of
the payment methods available in the car park shoudl the vehicle stay longer than the 60 minutes free
parking.

At the time of the incident, no valid parking session covering your vehicle for the duration of the stay
was found for your vehicle.

Thank you for your appeal.

You explained you are the registered keeper of the vehicle and the Parking Charge is not POFA 2012
compliant.

Please note the Parking Charge is POFA2012 as approved by the British Parking Associationand was
sent to the registered keeper.

You were notified as the registered keeper of the vehicle, "You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of
schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay
this parking charge in full. As we do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, if you were
not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass

this notice to them."

Should you be able to provide us with the full name and full address of the driver at the time we will be
willing the re open your appeal if received within the 30 days of the issue date of the Notice to Keeper
letter sent.

Your vehicle was covered by a valid parking session on 01/08/25 from 21:20 to 23:20 - 2 hours.

Your vehicle was observed in the car park on 01/08/25 from 20:33 to 23:15 - total stay 2hr41mn without
a valid parking session covering your vehicle for the duration of the stay.

The 60 minutes are included in the tariff as stated on our signs.

We have several signs around the car park clearly stating the Terms & Conditions in place as well as
the different payment methods available – online – app – pay by mobile via Parkonomy and pay
machine.

It is clearly stated on our signs: "Private land – 60 minutes free parking- Charges apply for all vehicle
after 60 mintues - Staying for longer than 1 hour you must enter your correct entry time – You are
required to pay for your parking on arrival using one of the payment methods available on the car  park."
It is your responsibility as a driver to be aware and read the Terms & Conditions in place in the car park
you are using.

It is your responsibility as a driver to ensure that your vehicle is covered by a parking session.
Your vehicle was observed on 01/08/25 from 20:33 to 23:15 - total stay 2hr41mn without a valid parking
session covering your vehicle for the duration of the stay.

Our automated system could not link your vehicle to a valid parking session and a Parking Charge was
correctly issued.


For these reasons we have no other option than to decline your appeal.
Your appeal has been reviewed, we have considered the content of your letter, but we are unable to
cancel the Parking Charge as it was issued correctly.

Following the rejection of your appeal, you now have a number of options available to you:-
Provide us with the full name and full serviceable addree of the driver within the 30 days of the issue
date of the Notice to Keeper letter sent.

1. You can pay the Parking Charge Notice at the prevailing rate of £60 to reach us by 01/09/2025 or
£100 to reach us by 15/09/2025. If payment is not made within 14 days you will be liable for the full
amount of the original Parking Charge Notice - £100.

2. You have reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. You can now make an appeal to
POPLA - The Independent Appeals Service online by visiting www.popla.co.uk where further details of
how to appeal (either online or by downloading the relevant forms) can be found. You have 28 days
from the date of this letter to submit an appeal to POPLA and you will need to quote verification code
xxxxxx.

If you appeal to POPLA we will suspend recovery activity on the notice and the charge will not increase
past the full amount until the appeal has been determined. Please note, if you appeal to POPLA you will
no longer be entitled to the discounted rate. Please note you cannot pay AND appeal to POPLA. Should
POPLA's decision NOT go in your favour you will be required to pay the full amount of £100.

By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org)
provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal.
However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such
should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA as explained above.

3. If this parking charge notice is not appealed to POPLA within 28 days, or paid within 35 days, we will
seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court
action against you. All costs associated with this process will be added to the amount outstanding.
Payment can be made by cheque payable to Total Car Parks Ltd and sent to the address on the
Parking Charge, or online at  www.totalcarparks.co.uk/pcn  or calling the automated system on 0345
293 0818 option 1.

Please adhere to the Terms & Conditions of our car parks in order to avoid further Parking Charges.


Yours Sincerely,

PCN Processing Department