Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all,

I’ve finally received the decision from POPLA and, as predicted by b789, it was unsuccessful. The assessor seems to have brushed aside the legal arguments quite dismissively.

Key points from the Assessor’s summary:

PoFA/Late Service: He claimed that because I provided no "evidence" of the late delivery (other than my statement), the 14-day rule was met based on the "date of issue."

Jopson v Homeguard: He dismissed this entirely, stating it is "not a Supreme Court case and does not set the precedent." He also claimed no evidence of loading was provided.

Equality Act: He stated that UKPC wouldn't have been aware of the disability at the time and that POPLA cannot determine if discrimination occurred as only a court can do that.

Consideration Period: He ruled that because the vehicle was not in a marked bay, no consideration period applies at all.

I have now received a demand from UKPC for £100, threatening debt recovery and an extra £70 charge if not paid within 28 days.

I am still standing my ground as per the advice here. What are my next steps? Do I simply ignore the inevitable "Debt Recovery Plus" letters and wait for a Letter Before Claim, or is there a specific "Rejection of POPLA Decision" letter I should send to UKPC?

Many thanks,

Rob.

Ok - so the latest installment.

UKPC have responded to my POPLA with a whole barrage of documentation to include

Copy of their Entrace Sign
Copy of their 'Main' Sign
A 'witness statement' with the landowner signature redacted which 'presumably' grants UKPC authority to operate on their land
A site plan of their current sign locations.   Links below:

https://ibb.co/5xCzqCH9
https://ibb.co/GQQqnymn
https://ibb.co/LhtLG78f
https://ibb.co/SD2Fp0dL

Case and Summary - which reads (I apologise - you've probably read these before but just for completeness) :

Site Name Snowhill Retail Park
Contravention Date/Time 17/10/2025 12:30
Lower Charge Rate £60.00
Contravention No Parking

On 17/10/2025, a parking event occurred relating to vehicle registration XXXXXX.
The event was recorded by our ANPR cameras at Snowhill Retail Park because the
vehicle was parked in an area where no parking is allowed.

The parking charge rate was £100.00, reduced to £60.00 if payment was received
within fourteen days.

Following the parking event on 17/10/2025, UKPC had reasonable cause to obtain
the details of the registered keeper from the DVLA for the purposes of issuing a
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by post- a copy of this PCN is included in this pack.
The PCN was issued on 25/10/2025

An appeal was received from the vehicle's registered keeper MR x on
the 10/11/2025, which the appeals department investigated and decided to reject.
Whilst UKPC note the comments, we cannot accept them as evidence when
reviewing a parking charge notice. Clause 5.1 Annex B of the Private Parking
Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) states that unauthorised motorists will
not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period
in spaces designated for specific users or where parking is not allowed. In this case,
parking is not permitted, therefore, the appellant would not be granted any period
of time to remain stationary within this area. While the signage specifies “No
roadway parking”, UKPC maintains that this falls under the broader term “No
Parking”, as the roadway is designated as a non-parking area. Therefore, the two
terms are interchangeable in this context. The photographic evidence shows that
the vehicle was parked partially on the roadway.

Please note that while the appellants state they did not receive the Parking Charge
Notice until 07/11/2025, we have no control over any issues relating to the postal
service. We can confirm that the relevant correspondence was issued and sent
accordingly. In accordance with Paragraph 8(6) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), a notice sent by post is presumed—unless proven
otherwise—to have been delivered, and therefore 'given', on the second working day
after the date of posting. For the purposes of this provision, a 'working day' excludes
Saturdays, Sundays, and public holidays.

Definition of parking Whether an individual can be said to have 'parked' as opposed
to merely 'stopped' or 'waited' is a question of fact to be determined on the
circumstances of each case. However, for the purposes of parking enforcement, the
terms 'parking' and 'waiting' are generally treated as synonymous. In essence, a
motorist who 'waits' at a site for their own purposes is deemed to have 'parked'
within the meaning of the applicable terms and conditions. Accordingly, by parking,
Page 2 of 13

waiting, or otherwise remaining at the site, the appellant became subject to the
terms and conditions in force, which apply uniformly to all motorists irrespective of
the reason for their presence.

In the present case, the appellant contends that the display of a Blue Badge should
have entitled them to park in the location in question. However, it must be
emphasised that the possession of a Blue Badge does not confer an unconditional
right to park, nor does it override the specific terms and conditions applicable to all
users of a private car park. It is incumbent upon the motorist to ensure they are fully
informed as to where and under what circumstances the Blue Badge is valid. Further
clarification on this point can be found within the Blue Badge Handbook, particularly
in relation to provisions governing ‘off-street’ parking. Accordingly, the appellant
remained bound by the site's terms and conditions, regardless of the display of a
Blue Badge.

The contract between UK Parking Control Ltd and the landowner (or their managing
agent) authorising UKPC to provide parking management, and therefore issue
parking charges to vehicles breaching the terms of parking, is confidential and we
are unable to provide a copy for reasons of commercial sensitivity. As a member of
the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme, UKPC is regularly
audited to ensure that all relevant contracts are in place. UKPC will provide a copy
of the contract to the court if they require it. At this stage we have included a
witness statement that confirms the agreement authorising UKPC to issue parking
charges at Snowhill Retail Park. This statement complies fully with the Code of
Practice and confirms our authority in an agreement.

Although the BPA Code of Practice outlines what authorisation must set out, we
have also shown that beyond checking documentation; there is equipment, signage
and on occasion personnel on site to manage the function of enforcement and this
cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. I am sure that if the parking
operator was not allowed to issue charges on site the landowner would not permit
the parking operator to keep its signage on site nor would the landowner allow
motorists to park on its land without authorisation.

UKPC must maintain a consistent approach when issuing and upholding a charge. In
this instance, this vehicle had been parked on site in direct breach of the terms and
conditions of parking on site as stated on signage. The vehicle was parked in close
proximity to UKPC signage, please see all photographic evidence to support this.

UK Parking Control signage complies fully with section 3 of the British Parking
Association Code of Practice and we reject the suggestion that it is vague or
misleading. Entrance signage advises motorists that terms of parking apply, and that
notices within the car park should be checked to identify the full terms and
conditions. These notices are placed throughout the car park. It is ultimately the
responsibility of the motorist to ensure they identify the terms of parking, and then
decide whether to park their vehicle, or leave the site if they are unable to meet
those terms.

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. The signage states the terms and conditions of parking and
explains that a parking charge will be payable if the terms are not met by the driver.
We ensure that signage is ample, clear and visible, wholly in line with the British
Page 3 of 13

Parking Association Code of Practice. It is settled law that a driver is deemed to
have accepted the terms and conditions of parking by the act of parking and leaving
a vehicle.

Ultimately, it is fundamentally the responsibility of the motorist to identify the terms
of parking when leaving their vehicle on private land. If they feel they are unable to
adhere to the terms, they may leave the site before agreeing to those terms.

There are sufficient signs advising drivers that parking in this area may result in a
parking charge being issued. MR X's the vehicle was parked in an area
where no parking is allowed; consequently, the parking charge was issued correctly.
A letter was sent to MR X informing him of our decision on the
17/11/2025.

So I now have 7 days to provide my "Comments on the operator evidence"


I'd appreciate any advice as to what these comments should be, or whether they make any difference or not.  I could of course mention that there was no road marking to indicate that I could not park there as has been mentioned above.  Awaiting your expert advice.

Best regards,

Rob.

So, I popped my details so far into AI, and asked it to write a POPLA appeal for me.  How does this look ?



Draft POPLA Appeal
POPLA Code: [Insert POPLA Code] Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM] PCN Reference: [Insert PCN Number] Appellant: [Insert Your Name] (Keeper)

Summary of Appeal

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I submit this appeal on the following grounds:

Keeper Liability not established: The Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not delivered within the relevant period required by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

No Breach of Contract (Loading is not Parking): The vehicle was stopped briefly for the purpose of loading, which is distinct from parking (Jopson v Homeguard).

Breach of the Equality Act 2010: The operator failed to make reasonable adjustments for a driver with a protected characteristic (Blue Badge holder).

De Minimis: The duration of the stop (1 minute 5 seconds) is trivial and falls within a reasonable grace period.

Inadequate Signage: The operator has not proved that clear and obvious signs formed a contract.

No Landowner Authority: The operator has not proved they have the authority to issue charges on this land.

Detailed Grounds for Appeal

1. Keeper Liability not established (PoFA Schedule 4 Non-Compliance) The operator has issued a Notice to Keeper (NtK) citing the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) to claim keeper liability. However, they have failed to meet the strict conditions required to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.

The alleged contravention took place on 17/10/2025. The NtK is dated 25/10/2025. However, this document was not received by me until 07/11/2025.

PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(5) specifies that the relevant period for service of the notice is 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

While PoFA Paragraph 9(6) creates a rebuttable presumption that a notice is delivered on the second working day after posting, I hereby rebut this presumption. I certify that the Notice was not received until 07/11/2025, which is 21 days after the event and well outside the statutory 14-day limit.

As the keeper, I cannot be held liable unless the operator can provide concrete evidence (such as a certificate of posting or a track-and-trace record) proving that the Notice was actually posted via First Class mail on the working day immediately following the "Date of Issue." A generic bulk-mail print log is insufficient to prove the specific date of entry into the postal system for this specific letter. Since the Notice was served late, the operator has forfeited the right to claim keeper liability.

2. No Breach of Contract (Loading is not Parking) The vehicle was not "parked" in the definition of the term established by case law. The vehicle was stationary for a total of 1 minute and 5 seconds for the sole purpose of collecting pre-ordered heavy goods.

In the key appeal case of Jopson v Homeguard Services [2016] B9GF0A9E, His Honour Judge Harris QC found that the act of stopping to load or unload does not constitute "parking." The Judge distinguished between "parking" (leaving a car) and "stopping" (a temporary pause for a specific purpose, such as loading). As the vehicle was engaged in loading heavy goods—an activity incompatible with "parking"—no breach of the parking contract occurred.

3. Breach of the Equality Act 2010 (Reasonable Adjustments) The driver of the vehicle is a Blue Badge holder and suffers from a disability that limits their mobility and ability to carry heavy items over distance. A valid Blue Badge was clearly displayed and is visible in the operator's own evidence.

On the day in question, all designated disabled bays were occupied (some by vehicles not displaying Blue Badges). Under the Equality Act 2010, service providers are under a statutory duty to make "reasonable adjustments" to allow disabled persons to access their services.

Forcing a disabled driver to park in a distant bay (had one even been available) and carry heavy goods is not a reasonable expectation. A temporary stop of 65 seconds nearest to the collection point to load goods is a "reasonable adjustment" to the parking policy. By issuing a PCN for this necessary accommodation, the operator is engaging in indirect discrimination and is in breach of the Equality Act 2010.

4. De Minimis and Grace Periods The operator’s evidence shows the vehicle was present for a mere 1 minute and 5 seconds. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires operators to allow a reasonable grace period. A duration of roughly one minute is de minimis (too small to be concerned with by the law) and clearly falls within the time required for a driver to assess the situation, attempt to locate a valid bay, or load goods. It is unreasonable to suggest a contract to park was formed, accepted, and breached in such a trivial timeframe.

5. Inadequate Signage The operator is put to strict proof that their signage is prominent, clear, and legible, and that it specifically forbids the activity of loading/unloading. If the signage is "forbidding" (e.g., "No Parking"), it offers no license to park and therefore no contract can be formed; the matter would be one of trespass, for which only the landowner can sue for actual damages (which are zero).

6. No Landowner Authority The operator is put to strict proof that they have a valid contract with the landowner that specifically authorises them to pursue parking charges in their own name at this location, and that this authorisation was in effect on the date in question. A redacted or generic witness statement is insufficient; I require a copy of the actual contract chain.

Conclusion For the reasons stated above—specifically the failure to serve the NtK within the PoFA 14-day limit and the protection afforded by the Equality Act—this charge is invalid and must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

Wow.  I am blown away by your response.  Thank you so much for your advice.  I quite astonishingly received a further threatening letter from them. This time, dated 8/11/25.  Received 14/11.  That's some 6 days later.  It seems they are not so keen at getting their mail into the postal system.   

This time, a final reminder as they have heard nothing in 14 days. Basically your 14 day discount period is up.  Pay us £100 now or in 14 days we'll pass you over to a debt collection agency.

I shall continue to follow the advice posted above and not deviate.  Currently awaiting their refusal of my appeal.

Many thanks.

Rob.

Hi all,
        received the above presumably automated PCN on Friday 7/11/25.  Date of alleged offence 17/10/25.  Letter dated 25/10/25.

I am the registered owner of the vehicle.

On the date of the alleged offence the driver had visited the retail park to collect reserved goods.  All disabled bays within the vicinity were occupied, some without disabled badges being displayed.  No parking bays were available within the vicinity.  The driver is unable to carry the large item for collection for any distance due to their disability and so pulled up directly outside the retail outlet, collected their goods and departed.

The recorded duration by UKPC is 1 minute, 5 seconds which would probably be consistent with collecting the goods pre-ordered.

The blue disabled badge can be seen clearly within the CCTV camera recorded image provided.

I am unable to provide images of the signage at present but can obtain this shortly and will provide.

I have responded via online appeal stating that the PCN has only been received 21 days after the alleged offence and should have been received within 14 days.  Also stated that the Disabled Badge can clearly be seen within the images provided.

Their automated response says they will respond within 28 days.

Should this be sufficient / are there any further steps I should take at this point ?

Links to images below:

https://ibb.co/s9p5Wfp0
https://ibb.co/n8YR6yYS

Br,

Rob.