Free Traffic Legal Advice

I respond to the operator's evidence as follows:
But first I must point out some incorrect statements in their evidence:
a)   UKPC state “An appeal was received from the vehicle driver MR ..”.  However, the appeal was made by the keeper.
b)   UKPC state “the vehicle was positioned in a manner that caused an obstruction”.  This is not true as can be seen in the photos of the NtK.  And I would reiterate the comments in the appeal at section 3.
c)   UKPC state “The vehicle was parked adjacent to the signage”.  This is not true.  The car was parked some distance from the signage show in UKPC’s NtK photos. 
d)   UKPC state “The appellant has stated that there isn’t a clear date that the period of parking.”  Whilst grammatically incorrect, the keeper did not state the same.
1. PoFA Compliance: UKPC states that the Notice to Keeper complies with Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This is incorrect. The NtK only includes a single timestamp (11:12:14) and does not specify a "period of parking" as required by Paragraph 9(2)(a). This omission means that the NtK is non-compliant, and the operator cannot pursue the registered keeper. UKPC has made no attempt to explain how a single moment in time constitutes a period of parking, nor have they addressed the precedent set in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023), which confirms that a period of parking is required. Without a recorded duration, it is also impossible to establish whether the vehicle remained on site longer than the minimum consideration period that must be allowed before any contractual terms can take effect. Simply regurgitating that the NtK is PoFA compliant does not make it so. PoFA is not a “best efforts” checklist. It is an all-or-nothing statute. You cannot be “mostly PoFA compliant” any more than someone can be “mostly pregnant.” It’s binary: you either fully comply, or you don’t. As shown here, UKPC does not.
The purpose of this Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice 5.1 Annex B is to set the MANDATORY minima for the consideration periods that parking operators are required to apply. “As a matter of contract law, drivers need to be given an appropriate opportunity to understand and decide whether to accept the terms and conditions that apply should they choose to park a vehicle on controlled land.”
UKPC state “The vehicle was parked adjacent to the signage” – this is not true.  The car was parked some distance from the signage show in UKPC’s NtK photos.  Furthermore, that same sign is some 10 feet or more above the road and partially obscured by foliage.
UKPC state “no one was at the signage or in the vehicle, which supports the conclusion that a parking event did take place”.  This suggests that a driver cannot view other more easily accessible signs without being presented with a PCN.
UKPC has provided no “evidence the consideration period had expired”. 
Therefore, in the absence of an 'agreed contract' I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld.


2. Presumption of Driver Identity: UKPC has not identified the driver. Their comments imply an assumption that the keeper was the driver, but they have not contested or rebutted the legal position in VCS v Edward (2023) which makes clear that no such presumption exists in law. As UKPC has not identified the driver, and PoFA has not been complied with, the keeper cannot be held liable.

3. Landowner Authority: UKPC has failed to provide any evidence of landowner authority. Their evidence pack does not include a contract, redacted or otherwise, no witness statement, and no proof that they are authorised to operate on this land. UKPC’s narrative merely asserts that a contract exists, but nothing is provided to support this. This is a clear breach of Section 14 of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)). POPLA requires documentary evidence of landowner authority, and UKPC has failed to provide it. The appeal must be allowed on this basis alone.

4. UKPC’s photographic evidence shows the vehicle parked along side other vehicles parked on the same section of the car park. However, whilst other sections on the car park include double yellow lines and/or white road markings in the centre of a road to indicate no parking, the subject area lacked any such markings.  Hence, if other cars are parked and a space is between them without yellow or white lines any reasonable person would view it as a parking place.  UKPC’s signage evidence indicates ‘no parking on yellow lines’ and also ‘no roadway parking’ where white lines are marked on the roadway. UKPC have not provided any signage or markings to warn drivers that use of such areas would result in a PCN.
This layout appears to be a deliberate entrapment setup: the road visually invites people to use it. Rather than include yellow lines, UKPC instead chooses to entrap. This is unfair, and the alleged contravention is not clearly established. The burden of proof remains with UKPC, and they have failed to discharge it.

5. UKPC’s failure to include yellow or white lines in this area suggests that enforcement is not based on genuine management, but on opportunistic ticketing – especially in view of the number of cars parked in the area. This undermines any suggestion that the charge serves a legitimate interest and instead reflects a model based on entrapment.

6. Signage and Photographic Evidence: UKPC has included photographs of signage taken at the time of the alleged contravention, but these images do not assist their case. UKPC fails to address the keeper’s evidence of ambiguous signage (see previous photos) or the fact that the entrance sign is on the left of the vehicle and is not legible from the driver's seat of a vehicle entering from the road into the development except for the words “P 3 Hours Maximum Stay”.
UKPC, have not addressed the existence of the other signs in the keepers photographic evidence one of which indicates the property “is managed by Savills” and another which indicate “Parking time limit is 3 hours” without any conditions attached.
UKPC's photographic evidence cannot be relied upon as it is out of date and not viewed from the position of a driver's seat of a vehicle entering the car park.
Furthermore, POPLA has previously upheld numerous appeals where UKPC signage was found to be non-compliant with both PoFA and the BPA Code of Practice. The signs in this case suffer from the same fundamental defects: poor layout, inadequate font size, and failure to make key terms—particularly the charge—sufficiently prominent.

UKPC has failed to show that any contract could have been formed, and therefore cannot demonstrate that a contravention occurred.

7. Generalised Assertions: UKPC repeatedly rely on boilerplate language rather than addressing the specific context of this case. They refer to signage and enforcement “throughout the car park” but do not show current information – UKPC photos are dated July 2025.  The operator must prove the terms were properly conveyed and that the driver breached them—this has not been done.

In conclusion, UKPC has failed to prove valid PoFA compliance, failed to prove landowner authority, failed to provide adequate signage evidence from the material date, failed to justify the charge under Beavis, and failed to rebut the specific arguments made in my appeal. I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and cancel the PCN.

Re. POPLA Reference: xxxxx

I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxx and I dispute the above-referenced Parking Charge. The NtK (Notice to Keeper) is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA (Protection of Freedoms Act) which means that they cannot transfer liability for the charge to the keeper. I therefore dispute the charge on the following grounds :

1.   No contract
2.   Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act
3.   Inadequate signage/Ambiguous Signage
4.   Duration of parking period
5.   No evidence of Landowner authority


1. No Contract
The NtK states “The Terms and Conditions of the car park were [] agreed to by the driver when the vehicle was parked on private land”.  However, for a contract to have been agreed certain conditions must have been met.  One important conditions that has not been met is set out in Section 5.1 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice Version 1.1 dated 17 February 2025 – the “COP”

Section 5.1 states “Where a parking operator assumes a vehicle is parked based on time alone they must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out at Annex B.”
 
Annex B states “It is important to note that where there is evidence the consideration period has expired the minimum period of time for the consideration is not relevant however, the operator should retain evidence to show how the consideration period had ended.
The significance of whether the consideration has expired is fundamental as it is the point the driver has accepted the terms and conditions attached to the controlled land in question. A consideration period is not a free period of parking.”

UKPC has provided no “evidence the consideration period [had] expired”.  See 4. below (Duration of parking period) for additional details.

Therefore, in the absence of an 'agreed contract' I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld.


2. Non-Compliance with POFA

Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) is binary (“MUST” means all or nothing)

Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) does not say the notice should include certain things. It says: “The notice must — (a)… (b)… (c)… (d)… (e)… (f)… (g)… (h)… (i)…”. “Must” is compulsory. PoFA 9(2) is a statutory gateway to keeper liability: either every required element is present or the gateway never opens. There is no such thing as “partial” or even “substantial compliance” with 9(2). Like pregnancy, it is binary: a notice is either PoFA-compliant or it is not. If one required limb is missing, the operator cannot use PoFA to pursue the keeper.

Here the missing limb is 9(2)(a). That sub-paragraph requires the NtK to specify 'the period of parking to which the notice relates'.

What this NtK actually does is specify one moment in time - that being '21/12/2025 at 11:12:14'.  This does not demonstrate any 'period' which is defined as a length or interval of time with a specific start and end. 


3. Inadequate signage/Ambiguous Signage

I refer to Section 3 (signs and surface markings) of the “COP”

The commentary states “Signs and surface markings must be .... unambiguous to drivers.”
 
Section 3.1.2 states “The size and positioning of the sign must take into account the expected speed and direction of travel of vehicles approaching the entrance and must be visible (i.e. not be obscured e.g. by foliage or other objects).  The design of entrance signs must comply with the requirements detailed at Annex A”.

The keeper has identified that the entrance sign is on the left of the vehicle and is not legible from the driver's seat of a vehicle entering from the road into the development except for the words “P 3 Hours Maximum Stay”.   

Section 3.1.2 NOTE 2: states “Where cameras are installed operators, are reminded of their obligations to inform motorists that personal data is being obtained and/or retained.”

The keeper has identified that nothing on the entrance sign informs motorists that personal data is being obtained and/or retained.

Section 3.1.3 states “Signs within controlled land displaying the specific terms and conditions applying must:”
 
“a) be placed within the controlled land, such that drivers have the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle;”

The keeper has identified that there is no signage at the place where the car appears to be parked (see photos in NtK letter and also photos taken by the keeper at a later date).

“b) be sufficiently large to be visible from a distance and legible on approach;”

The keeper has identified that the signage identified in the NtK is not visible from the position of the car shown in the NtK.  Furthermore, the signage identified in the NtK is at a height which makes it impossible to be read without the aid of a step ladder (see photo of Keeper standing by the sign post).

“f) ........ be clearly readable by a driver, having regard to the likely position of the driver in relation to the sign;”

See keeper's responses at Section 3.1.2, and also a and b above.

“h) display the parking tariff of sums payable, or indicate where the tariff is displayed if separate, or the duration of permitted free parking as appropriate;”

The keeper has identified that none of the signs refer to “Free Parking” or a “Tariff for Parking”

“i)  be clear, unambiguous ........”

The keeper has identified that there is conflicting signage at the site which indicate “Parking time limit is 3 hours” without any conditions attached.  Another sign identifies the property “is managed by Savills” - see photos.

Section 3.1.4 states “Signs informing drivers that a parking charge may be applicable and of the level of that charge must do so in a font of comparable size and boldness to the main body text on the sign, and where included on signs also displaying the parking tariff a font no smaller than the tariff text/numbers.”

The keeper has identified that none of the signs refer to “Free Parking” or a “Tariff for Parking”

Section 3.1.6 states “Signs must be designed and installed so as to be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions during which the controlled land may legitimately be accessed, at a height that takes account of whether the signs are intended to be viewed from the vehicle (including by headlight in the hours of darkness) or having left the vehicle by a driver on foot or in a wheelchair.  ...
NOTE 2: If there is more than one sign, all should be consistent with regards to typeface style, size and weight, colour and layout.”

See keeper's responses at Section 3.1.2, and also a, b and i above.

Section 3.3 states “Where relevant obligations require drivers to park within delineated parking bays, surface markings must be applied and maintained in such a manner as to be clearly visible to drivers in all lighting and weather conditions as might apply.  NOTE: ...  it is good practice to use surface markings to display symbols indicating restricted uses,”

The keeper has identified that where the car is shown as parked on the NtK there are no restrictions to parking and it would appear, from the other cars in the photo on the NtK, that there may have been parking available.  The keeper has included photos showing some of the car park roads where there are white line marks but there are no similar white line marks where the car is shown as parked in the NtK.  Note, there are other sections of the car park that have double yellow lines to indicate 'no parking'   


4. Duration of parking period

Section 5 states “As a matter of contract law, drivers need to be given an appropriate opportunity to understand and decide whether to accept the terms and conditions that apply should they choose to park a vehicle on controlled land.”

Section 5.1 states “Where a parking operator assumes a vehicle is parked based on time alone they must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out at Annex B.”

Annex B states “It is important to note that where there is evidence the consideration period has expired the minimum period of time for the consideration is not relevant however, the operator should retain evidence to show how the consideration period had ended.
The significance of whether the consideration has expired is fundamental as it is the point the driver has accepted the terms and conditions attached to the controlled land in question. A consideration period is not a free period of parking.”

Annex B.1 states “The minimum consideration and grace periods listed in Table B.1 must be applied by parking operators.
NOTE: The consideration period may end earlier than the times prescribed in Annex B where there is evidence that the driver has accepted the terms and conditions applying (whether or not they have chosen to read them), which may for example be evidenced by
the driver parking the vehicle and leaving the premises, paying the applicable parking tariff, or remaining stationary for more than 5 minutes.”

The Keeper has stated above that the NtK actually only specifies one moment in time - that being '21/12/2025 at 11:12:14'.  However, none of the photographs on the website 'https://ukpcappeals.co.uk/Appeal/Review' include a timestamp of '11:12:14'.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that “the consideration period [had] expired”.  In order to evidence any expired consideration period the NtK must provide two time-stamped photos of the car in the exact same position where the time-stamps are a minimum of 5 minutes or 10 minutes apart (dependent on the size of the car park).  Also, there is no evidence that the driver had accepted the terms and conditions i.e. there is no evidence the driver parking the vehicle and left the premises or that the car remained stationary for more than 5 minutes.   


4. No evidence of Landowner authority

The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landowner of the “relevant land” to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landowner’s definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints nor that both the landowner and operator are in full compliance with planning permission granted against a Traffic Management Plan.

Section 14 of the COP  defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner, to prove that they have the right to enforce the charge in court in their own name.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld.

Re. POPLA Reference: xxxxxx

I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxx and I dispute the above-referenced Parking Charge. The NtK (Notice to Keeper) is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA (Protection of Freedoms Act) which means that they cannot transfer liability for the charge to the keeper. I therefore dispute the charge on the following grounds :
1.  Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act
2.  Inadequate signage/Ambiguous Signage
3.  No evidence of parking
4.  No evidence of Landowner authority

Non-Compliance with POFA

Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) is binary (“MUST” means all or nothing)

Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) does not say the notice should include certain things. It says: “The notice must — (a)… (b)… (c)… (d)… (e)… (f)… (g)… (h)… (i)…”. “Must” is compulsory. PoFA 9(2) is a statutory gateway to keeper liability: either every required element is present or the gateway never opens. There is no such thing as “partial” or even “substantial compliance” with 9(2). Like pregnancy, it is binary: a notice is either PoFA-compliant or it is not. If one required limb is missing, the operator cannot use PoFA to pursue the keeper. End of.

Here the missing limb is 9(2)(a). That sub-paragraph requires the NtK to specify 'the period of parking to which the notice relates'.

What this NtK actually does is specify one moment in time - that being '21/12/2025 at 11:12:14'.  This does not demonstrate any 'period' which is defined as a length or interval of time with a specific start and end. 


Ambiguous Signage

I refer to Section 3 (signs and surface markings) of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice Version 1.1 dated 17 February 2025 – the “COP”

The commentary states “Signs and surface markings must be .... unambiguous to drivers.”
 
Section 3.1.2 states “The size and positioning of the sign must take into account the expected speed and direction of travel of vehicles approaching the entrance and must be visible (i.e. not be obscured e.g. by foliage or other objects).  The design of entrance signs must comply with the requirements detailed at Annex A”.

The keeper has identified that the entrance sign is on the left of the vehicle and is not legible from the driver's seat of a vehicle entering from the road into the development except for the words “P 3 Hours Maximum Stay”. 

Section 3.1.2 NOTE 2: states “Where cameras are installed operators, are reminded of their obligations to inform motorists that personal data is being obtained and/or retained.”

The keeper has identified that nothing on the entrance sign informs motorists that personal data is being obtained and/or retained.

Section 3.1.3 states “Signs within controlled land displaying the specific terms and conditions applying must:”
 
“a) be placed within the controlled land, such that drivers have the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle;”

The keeper has identified that there is no signage at the place where the car appears to be parked (see photos in NtK letter and also photos taken by the keeper at a later date).

“b) be sufficiently large to be visible from a distance and legible on approach;”

The keeper has identified that the signage identified in the NtK is not visible from the position of the car shown in the NtK.  Furthermore, the signage identified in the NtK is at a height which makes it impossible to be read without the aid of a step ladder (see photo of Keeper standing by the sign post).

“f) ........ be clearly readable by a driver, having regard to the likely position of the driver in relation to the sign;”

See keeper's responses at Section 3.1.2, and also a and b above.


“h) display the parking tariff of sums payable, or indicate where the tariff is displayed if separate, or the duration of permitted free parking as appropriate;”

The keeper has identified that none of the signs refer to “Free Parking” or a “Tariff for Parking”

“i)  be clear, unambiguous ........”

The keeper has identified that there is conflicting signage at the site which indicate “Parking time limit is 3 hours” without any conditions attached.  Another sign identifies the property “is managed by Savills” - see photos.


Section 3.1.4 states “Signs informing drivers that a parking charge may be applicable and of the level of that charge must do so in a font of comparable size and boldness to the main body text on the sign, and where included on signs also displaying the parking tariff a font no smaller than the tariff text/numbers.”

The keeper has identified that none of the signs refer to “Free Parking” or a “Tariff for Parking”


Section 3.1.6 states “Signs must be designed and installed so as to be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions during which the controlled land may legitimately be accessed, at a height that takes account of whether the signs are intended to be viewed from the vehicle (including by headlight in the hours of darkness) or having left the vehicle by a driver on foot or in a wheelchair.  ...
NOTE 2: If there is more than one sign, all should be consistent with regards to typeface style, size and weight, colour and layout.”

See keeper's responses at Section 3.1.2, and also a, b and i above.


Section 3.3 states “Where relevant obligations require drivers to park within delineated parking bays, surface markings must be applied and maintained in such a manner as to be clearly visible to drivers in all lighting and weather conditions as might apply.  NOTE: ...  it is good practice to use surface markings to display symbols indicating restricted uses,”

The keeper has identified that where the car is shown as parked on the NtK there are no restrictions to parking and it would appear, from the other cars in the photo on the NtK, that there may have been parking available.  The keeper has included photos showing some of the car park roads where there are white line marks but there are no similar white line marks where the car is shown as parked in the NtK.  Note, there are other sections of the car park that have double yellow lines to indicate 'no parking' 


Duration of parking period

Section 5 states “As a matter of contract law, drivers need to be given an appropriate opportunity to understand and decide whether to accept the terms and conditions that apply should they choose to park a vehicle on controlled land.”

Section 5.1 states “Where a parking operator assumes a vehicle is parked based on time alone they must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out at Annex B.”

Annex B states “It is important to note that where there is evidence the consideration period has expired the minimum period of
time for the consideration is not relevant however, the operator should retain evidence to show how the consideration period had ended.
The significance of whether the consideration has expired is fundamental as it is the point the driver has accepted the terms and conditions attached to the controlled land in question. A consideration period is not a free period of parking.”

Annex B.1 states “The minimum consideration and grace periods listed in Table B.1 must be applied by parking operators.
NOTE: The consideration period may end earlier than the times prescribed in Annex B where there is evidence that the driver has accepted the terms and conditions applying (whether or not they have chosen to read them), which may for example be evidenced by
the driver parking the vehicle and leaving the premises, paying the applicable parking tariff, or remaining stationary for more than 5 minutes.”

The Keeper has stated above that the NtK actually only specifies one moment in time - that being '21/12/2025 at 11:12:14'.  However, none of the photographs on the website 'https://ukpcappeals.co.uk/Appeal/Review' include a timestamp of '11:12:14'.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that “the consideration period [had] expired”.  In order to evidence any expired consideration period the NtK must provide two time-stamped photos of the car in the exact same position where the time-stamps are a minimum of 5 minutes or 10 minutes apart (dependent on the size of the car park).  Also, there is no evidence that the driver had accepted the terms and conditions i.e. there is no evidence the driver parking the vehicle and left the premises or that the car remained stationary for more than 5 minutes. 


The signage at this location fails on all the above criteria.

Considering the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of the COP and PoFA, it is beyond any doubt that the signage is not sufficient to give adequate notice of the charge and bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist.


No evidence of parking

I have seen examples of these ‘Notice to Keeper’ letters shown to me by friends. It seems to be common practice to include photos of the vehicle entering and leaving the site, together with a time stamp. Whilst evidence of entering and leaving site is not evidence of parking, UKPC have failed to include even this basic information in their notice.

I require full unredacted copies of photographs of the vehicle entering and leaving the site which conform to Section 7.3 of the COP. Without these, we only have UKPC’s word that an infringement has potentially been committed.

No evidence of Landowner authority

The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landowner of the “relevant land” to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landowner’s definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints nor that both the landowner and operator are in full compliance with planning permission granted against a Traffic Management Plan.

Section 14 of the COP  defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner, to prove that they have the right to enforce the charge in court in their own name.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld.

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your 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. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. UKPC 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. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. UKPC have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.