Free Traffic Legal Advice

Irrespective of whether an NtD was issued, the NtK must still, under paragraph 8(2)(i) specify the date on which the notice is sent.

In this instance, the stated date is the same as the contravention date?

That's a good catch, which will be helpful IF APCOA issue proceedings and pursue OP as the keeper, but I think it's too late to appeal now.

Thanks for the reply.

1. Picture of serial number in bottom left of front of letter here: https://ibb.co/wFTTMVk0

2. It doesn't have an (obvious) sent or generated date, it just says "Date of Issue of this charge": 26/05/2026, presumably the date they ticketed the car but I don't know as I am just the registered keeper. I've only just received the letter on Friday 3rd July.

3. How long is the relevant period? I'd expect @jfollows to have picked up on that if it were relevant? 56 days is what ChatGPT is telling me?

Thanks, it seems they've changed them; probably because they realised people were getting wise to them backdating them!

Surely you know whether or not there was a windscreen ticket?

But if there was, then that could explain the delay. It would also mean my previous point is not relevant.

I wouldn't be including that bit!!

Parking Charge Notice Number -

To whom it may concern,

I have recently received your previous communication relating to the above parking charge and have duly noted its contents.

In this instance I have no further representation to make.

My understanding (after taking legal advice) is that there is no legal requirement to provide the information which you are asking for.

At present there is no existing route to liability in this matter and providing further information would potentially create a route to liability - as such I am simply exercising my legal right to say nothing in a situation where the law does not require me to provide the details which you are requesting.

I would also point out that there is no method by which your company could have formed a contract with the driver in the circumstances which you appear to be claiming.

I feel that this sets out my position in this matter and I am sorry that I cannot help you further.


Best wishes,

xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx

I have found this thread (archived link) on Reddit, pertaining to 'Forbidding Signs'.

Guess whose signage it is?

In court, I claimed that as the sign was an absolute prohibition on parking no contract for parking could be entered into, in order to enter into a contract the sign needs to OFFER parking for £100, it can't say "no parking, but if you park here you pay £100 for parking". It's called a "forbidding contract" and it's a legal nonsense ... the judge agreed with me and [threw] the case out,

And a starter for ten in terms of a relevant judgment from a different case, involving a different but similar sign.
https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/UKPC-v-MASTERSON-Judgment.pdf

So I would say the argument here is twofold; firstly, that the signage was not adequate but secondly, and most importantly, the signs are not an offer, and therefore there was no acceptance, and therefore there was no contract even if the place had been littered with them.

Fixing links for OP:

Letter of Claim:
Link
Link


And the final demand letter a few weeks earlier:
Link


There were these documents that accompanied the letter of claim:
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link

And reply forms:
Link
Link
Link

i've added a photo of the signage posted by UKCPS to original post, however it's not clear what it says from their image.

The photo of the signage doesn't work, please can you try again?

However you uploaded the letters worked, so maybe do the same?

I can't see that you've uploaded any of their documentation, but on the face of what you say they say, I think that is a good appeal and the POPLA assessor should decide it in your favour.