Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you very much, again, for your thoughtful reply.  I waited to provide an update/ask more questions until anything changed.  My friend has now recieved a fairly unhelpful reply from their property manager saying:

"Good morning thank you for your email.  Please refer to the caretaker as I think you have parked in bays which are for another block.  We are unable to assist with any parking tickets.  Thanks"


The managers of the block adjacent to the VP spaces simply replied:

"The tenant will not have a visitor permit for this space, as the spaces belong to X not Y.  Unfortunately, I am not in the position to have the charge cancelled, if you wish to appeal then you will need to contact UKCPS directly."


You have clearly explained the other points from my previous message, although I would, for my own understanding, like to clarify one thing.  You say the physical notice to keeper is the only relevant document, and not the information on the UKCPS website.  The notice to keeper includes a link, "the photographic evidence may be viewed on www..." which contained pictures implying a period of 11 minutes.  Do these images have no baring at all simply due to their absence from the notice to keeper?  I acknowledge this may seem a pointless question due to your point regarding 10 minutes potentially being insufficient consideration!


With the IAS stage being seen as merely procedural, what is the value of engaging with this process?

Thanks for the help, and for following up during the vacuum between Christmas and New Years!

Here is the final version I went with, and also the supporting photograph

Photograph of numbered bays next to VP spot -

https://i.ibb.co/r2LmLJxc/Numbered-spaces-next-to-VP-spaces.png


I selected "Registered keeper" for appeal and confirmed my details only as the keepers, then chose "Other" for my appeal reason.



The vehicle was parked in a bay clearly marked “VP” while visiting a resident.  The driver was an invited visitor to a lawful resident of the estate.  Other bays are individually numbered and obviously reserved for specific flats.  I have attached a photograph showing the spaces which are allocated by number to specific residents.  It is entirely reasonable to understand “VP” as a visitor parking bay.  There is no information anywhere on site explaining a visitor-permit scheme or how a visitor could obtain a permit.

The parking sign states that “Parking is permitted for permit holders only when parking wholly in their allocated bays and displaying a valid permit clearly within the windscreen at all times.”  That is a prohibitive sign: it does not make any offer at all to a driver who does not already hold a permit, and it says nothing about visitor bays or visitor permits.  A sign which simply forbids parking without a permit cannot create any contractual liability for a non-permit holder.  On its own wording, the sign is incapable of forming a contractual agreement with a visitor who does not already possess some undefined permit.  In those circumstances, the only possible allegation would be trespass, which only the landowner could pursue, not UKCPS.

No contract could have been formed as UKCPS have not evidenced any period of parking beyond the obligatory minimum consideration period.  A driver is entitled to enter, locate a space, read and consider the terms and then decide whether to stay.  The Notice to Keeper only shows a single “time of issue” and no entry and exit times, no observation period, and no evidence that the vehicle was stationary for longer than the minimum consideration period allowed by the applicable Code of Practice.  Without a recorded period of parking beyond that initial consideration period, UKCPS cannot show that the driver had a fair chance to read the terms, agree to them and then breach them.

As Keeper, I challenge any attempt to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  The Notice to Keeper does not “specify the period of parking” at all; it gives a single timestamp only.  A moment in time is not a period of parking.  Because the statutory wording has not been met, UKCPS cannot transfer any alleged liability from the unidentified driver to me as Keeper. I will not be naming the driver, and there is no legal obligation on me to do so.

To conclude, (1) the “VP” marking reasonably indicates visitor parking; (2) there is no clear or prominent information about any visitor-permit requirement; (3) the sign is prohibitive and incapable of creating a contract with a non-permit holder; (4) no period of parking beyond the minimum consideration period has been evidenced, so no contract could have been formed or breached; and (5) the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with PoFA because it does not specify any period of parking, so I, as Keeper, cannot be held liable.

I invite UKCPS to cancel the charge on these grounds.



I will try again with the property managers.  I had asked my friend to email as well on my behalf, so I'll check whether he's done that, and if not I'll give him the souped-up version!

Thank you again, b789, for your help and advice.  The draft is 99% based on the factual points you listed.  That's a good point re. their internal appeals process!  Seeing as UKCPS are part of IPC, I understand the next stage of their process is the Independent Appeals Service, but it sounds like "Independent" is questionably used in this case!

Cheers b789, that's a really comprehensive and helpful reply!


The driver was visiting a resident of that estate.  The driver does not live at this property. The resident has their own numbered parking space.  The resident has since said they are unaware of any visitor permits, such as a book of visitor permit tickets. 

My first action is contacting the property management company on Monday morning.  I've tracked down their details, so I'll ask if they can waive the charge.


If the property management company will not ask UKPC to waive the ticket -

The notice to keeper was sent on 26/11, and states it considers the letter to be received after 2 working days, on 28/11.  This implies that a 14 day appeal can be made anytime before 12/12.  I was planning to appeal as the keeper on 11/12.

I have read that appealing via the UKCPS portal is unlikely to succeed, but is still a necessary step.  Following your helpful comment on entrappment, I would choose "other".  My initial thought had been to contest that the car is clearly parked in a visitor space, and that the driver was legitimately using this space to visit a resident of the building.


"Bring these strands together by stating that: (1) the “VP” marking reasonably indicates visitor parking; (2) there is no clear or prominent information about any visitor-permit requirement; (3) the sign is prohibitive and incapable of creating a contract with a non-permit holder; (4) no period of parking beyond the minimum consideration period has been evidenced, so no contract could have been formed or breached; and (5) the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with PoFA because it does not specify any period of parking, so you, as Keeper, cannot be held liable. Invite UKCPS to cancel the charge on these grounds."


After reading your reply + information on FTLA, MSE, and Parking Cowboys, I can't disagree with anything you've typed.  From my (admittedly limited) understanding, the prohibitive sign seems to be a particularly strong defence, as UKCPS would rely on entering a contract.  As I said, cracking reply and thank you for your help.  I'll update with any developments.