Free Traffic Legal Advice

Have they rebutted or answered all the points raised in the appeal?

Can you please show us their "evidence" especially any photos of the signs at the bay where the driver parked. Also, we need to see their evidence of landowner authority.

Use something like DropBox or Google Drive to show us. Just make sure that it is set to "public".

If that is a disabled bay, where are the signs with the terms and conditions that must be readable by the driver without needing to exit the vehicle as per PPSCoP §4.1 which states:

Quote

4.1 The parking operator must ensure that at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking can be viewed without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, in order for drivers with a disability to be able to make an informed decision on whether to park at the premises.

Here is a POPLA draft you can paste directly into the webform. :

Quote

POPLA Appeal – Parking Charge Notice [xxxxxx] – Vehicle [VRM]
Operator: Initial Parking Ltd
Site: Y Ganolfan Community Centre, LL49 9LU
Date of alleged event: 17/11/2025
Date of Notice to Keeper: 20/11/2025

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. My liability is limited to that of the registered keeper, which is denied. I contend that I am not liable for this Parking Charge Notice and I request that POPLA allow my appeal on the following grounds:

1. No keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 – the Notice to Keeper does not specify a valid “period of parking” as required by Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a)

2. Further non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, including failure to describe the parking charges allegedly due under paragraph 9(2)(d)

3. Failure to comply with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) Section 4.1 – no terms and conditions visible from within the vehicle in the disabled bay

4. Inadequate and unclear signage, especially in relation to disabled bays and Blue Badge holders

5. Failure to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled driver – Equality Act 2010

6. No evidence of the operator’s landowner authority

7. ANPR evidence does not prove any breach of a clearly-stated term and fails to take account of consideration and grace periods, especially for disabled motorists

8. No keeper liability – no valid “period of parking” (PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a))

The operator is attempting to hold me liable as keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”). To do so they must comply fully with all conditions in paragraph 9(2).

Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the Notice to Keeper (“NtK”) to:

“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”.

The Initial Parking NtK does not specify any period of parking. It merely states:

– a “Date of Parking Event: 17/11/2025”
– an “Arrival Time: 17/11/2025 at 13:25:38”
– an “Exit Time: 17/11/2025 at 13:38:19”
– and then labels “Period of Parking: 00h:12m:41s”

These times come solely from ANPR images showing the vehicle passing cameras upon entry and exit. They show nothing more than the total time the vehicle was somewhere within range of the cameras. They do not and cannot show when or for how long the vehicle was actually parked in a bay as opposed to:

• driving in and finding a space
• manoeuvring
• assisting a disabled passenger to alight or board
• reading any signs
• queuing at or walking to a payment machine
• driving out of the car park

The law uses the phrase “period of parking”, not “time on site”. ANPR entry and exit timestamps do not automatically equate to a statutory “period of parking”. The NtK fails to specify any actual span of time during which the vehicle was stationary and parked. It follows that paragraph 9(2)(a) has not been complied with.

Because the NtK does not satisfy paragraph 9(2)(a), keeper liability does not arise. Only the unknown driver could ever be liable. As the operator has not identified the driver and I, as keeper, have chosen not to name them, POPLA must find that I cannot be held liable.

2. Further PoFA non-compliance – paragraph 9(2)(d)

Paragraph 9(2)(d) requires a Notice to Keeper to:

“describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period [of parking], the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable”.

The NtK states only that:

– the “Parking Charge Amount Due” is £100 (£60 if paid within 14 days); and
– “By not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage displayed on site, the Parking Charge is now payable to Initial Parking, as the Creditor.”

This does not describe any “parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period”. There is no description of:

– what, if any, tariff applied at this location;
– the cost of parking for the relevant duration; or
– any unpaid tariff or other “parking charge” due from the driver.

Instead, the NtK jumps straight to the £100 contractual charge allegedly payable on breach. PoFA makes a clear distinction between “parking charges” (the underlying tariff) and the “sum … specified in the notice” claimed from the keeper. By failing to describe the actual parking charges due at the end of the parking period, the NtK does not meet paragraph 9(2)(d).

Again, where an operator seeks to rely on PoFA, they must comply fully with all of paragraph 9(2). They have not done so. Keeper liability does not apply and the appeal must be allowed on this ground alone.

3. Failure to comply with PPSCoP Section 4.1 – no terms and conditions visible from within the vehicle in the disabled bay

The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) is binding on BPA members and sets out mandatory requirements. Section 4.1 states:

“The parking operator must ensure that at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking can be viewed without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, in order for drivers with a disability to be able to make an informed decision on whether to park at the premises.”

In this case:

– the driver is disabled and a Blue Badge holder;
– the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay; and
– there was no sign containing the full terms and conditions visible from inside the vehicle in that bay.

The driver saw a sign relating to the disabled bay and a Blue Badge symbol and understood this to indicate that Blue Badge holders could use that bay. However, there was no large, legible sign facing the bay, at eye level, setting out the full parking terms, including any requirement for Blue Badge holders to pay a tariff and any risk of a £100 charge.

Any tariff and penalty terms that the operator relies on appear to be buried on separate general tariff signs elsewhere in the car park. Those signs:

– could not be read from inside the disabled bay; and
– would have required the disabled driver to exit the vehicle, move around the site and search for the small print.

That is the exact scenario PPSCoP 4.1 is designed to prevent. Initial Parking have failed to provide a single sign with the relevant terms which can be read from within the vehicle by a disabled driver considering whether to park. As a result, a Blue Badge holder was not able to make an informed decision before parking, and any alleged contract is fundamentally flawed.

A £100 charge arising from a set of terms that were not presented in compliance with PPSCoP 4.1 should not be enforced, and this appeal should be allowed on this ground.

4. Inadequate and unclear signage, especially in relation to disabled bays

Separately from PPSCoP 4.1, the signage at this site is generally inadequate and unclear.

The driver reports that this is a small car park and that no clear or legible signage was visible prior to entering. Upon parking, the driver saw signage relating to the disabled bay and reasonably believed that a Blue Badge holder could park there. There was nothing obvious to indicate that Blue Badge holders were required to pay the normal tariff or that a £100 charge would be issued after a stay of around 12 minutes without payment.

Initial Parking’s rejection letter refers to their “very large, BPA approved signs” and claims that they state “These tariffs do apply to Blue Badge holders”. If this wording exists, it appears to be buried in the main body of a general tariff sign, not on a dedicated disabled-bay sign. If a Blue Badge holder must pay to avoid a £100 charge, that is a core term which must be displayed prominently and unambiguously at or next to the disabled bay.

I put Initial Parking to strict proof, by way of dated, contemporaneous photographs and a site plan, that:

– a compliant entrance sign was present and clearly visible to a driver entering the car park;
– there was a clear, prominent sign adjacent to or immediately facing the disabled bay explaining that tariffs apply to Blue Badge holders and that failure to pay would result in a £100 charge; and
– the text on such signs was of sufficient size and contrast to be read by a disabled driver or passenger without needing to search for small print across the site.

In the absence of such evidence, POPLA should conclude that the alleged contractual terms were not adequately communicated and cannot be enforced.

5. Failure to make reasonable adjustments – Equality Act 2010

The driver is a disabled person and holds a Blue Badge. The badge is issued only to those whose mobility and daily activities are substantially and long-term impaired. The Equality Act 2010 requires service providers, including car park operators, to make reasonable adjustments so that disabled people are not placed at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled people.

Reasonable adjustments in a car park context include:

– clearer and more prominent signage at disabled bays in larger, more legible text;
– ensuring that key terms (such as whether Blue Badge holders must pay and any risk of a large charge) are made immediately obvious to disabled drivers;
– allowing longer consideration and payment times to account for slower mobility, use of walking aids, or difficulty reading signs and using machines or apps.

In this case, Initial Parking appears to have a blanket policy that “These tariffs do apply to Blue Badge holders” but has failed to communicate this clearly at the point of parking in the disabled bay. A disabled driver who parks for about 12 minutes in a disabled bay, believing in good faith that a Blue Badge entitles them to park, should not be penalised with a £100 charge where the operator has not provided clear, accessible information or reasonable adjustments.

Although POPLA cannot make a binding finding of discrimination, it can and should recognise that a charge which would be contrary to the Equality Act is not “fair” or “reasonable” and should not be upheld.

6. No evidence of landowner authority

Initial Parking is put to strict proof that it has a fully executed, contemporaneous contract with the landowner (Y Ganolfan Community Centre or its lawful managing agent) granting it authority to:

– manage parking on the land;
– issue Parking Charge Notices; and
– pursue payment and legal action in its own name.

A generic, redacted contract or a short witness statement will not be sufficient. POPLA and the courts require evidence that the operator has standing to offer parking contracts and recover charges for the specific site and period in question.

In the absence of such evidence, the operator has no standing to enforce charges and the appeal must be allowed.

7. ANPR evidence, consideration and grace periods

The operator relies solely on ANPR entry and exit times to assert a contravention. Even if the NtK were otherwise PoFA-compliant (which is denied), the ANPR evidence does not establish:

– when the vehicle was actually parked in a bay;
– how long it remained stationary;
– what the driver was doing (reading signs, assisting a disabled passenger, deciding whether to stay, or choosing to leave); or
– that any applicable consideration or grace periods were exceeded.

The total time between ANPR images is only 12 minutes 41 seconds. For a disabled Blue Badge holder, that period could easily be taken up by:

– entering and finding an appropriate disabled bay;
– assisting the disabled driver or passenger to alight;
– attempting to read any signs that might apply to the bay; and
– deciding to leave once the situation is unclear.

The PPSCoP requires operators to allow a consideration period at the start and a grace period at the end of parking. Disabled motorists may reasonably require longer periods to perform the same tasks as non-disabled motorists. Initial Parking has produced no evidence of the actual time spent parked, nor that any fair and reasonable observation, consideration and grace periods were exceeded.

On the balance of probabilities, a total “time on site” of around 12 minutes for a disabled Blue Badge holder is consistent with genuine attempts to understand unclear signage and then leave, rather than any deliberate attempt to avoid payment.

Conclusion

For the reasons set out above:

– the operator has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, so keeper liability does not arise;
– the operator has failed to comply with PPSCoP Section 4.1, because no sign containing the terms and conditions was visible from within the vehicle in the disabled bay;
– the signage, particularly in relation to disabled bays and Blue Badge holders, was inadequate and unclear;
– the operator has not demonstrated any reasonable adjustments as required by the Equality Act 2010;
– no evidence has been provided of sufficient landowner authority; and
– the ANPR evidence does not show any breach of a clearly-communicated term, particularly once consideration and grace periods for a disabled motorist are taken into account.

I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and direct Initial Parking Ltd to cancel this Parking Charge Notice.

No, it’s not the same – and it’s still a valid PoFA point.

What they’ve put there is just ANPR “time on site” (i.e. the difference between the camera’s entry and exit timestamps), then relabelled as “period of parking”. ANPR only records when a vehicle passes the cameras, not when it is actually stationary in a bay. The Protection of Freedoms Act talks about a “period of parking”, which by definition excludes the time spent:

• driving in and finding a space
• reading any signs / deciding whether to stay
• queuing or manoeuvring to leave

So, from a strict PoFA Schedule 4 point of view, they have still only evidenced and described entry/exit and a derived duration, not a true “period of parking” as required.

Some POPLA assessors gloss over that and accept this wording, others don’t – but it is absolutely still worth running as a keeper-liability point and there is no need to change the appeal wording I suggested.

In the intervening time, if you're able to acquire photos of the signage (and any lack thereof!) this would be useful.

As long as the driver has not been identified, they cannot hold the Hirer liable. They have no idea who the driver is unless the Hirer blabs it to them, inadvertently or otherwise.

Did you appeal? If you did, did you identify the driver by saying things like "I did this or that" instead of "the driver did this or that"?

Besides the fact they the Notice to Hirer (NtH) is not PoFA compliant with paras 13/14, the location is not relevant land as it is covered buy statutory byelaws. As long as the driver has not been identified, this will go nowhere.

As already mentioned above, because ParkingEye are using DSCB Legal, they know they don't have a chance if this ever went in front of a judge. If DCB Legal do issue the claim, you will defend using the template defence we provide and I can guarantee that it will eventually be discontinued. They only go this far because they hope you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and can be intimidated into paying out of ignorance and fear.

Why on earth would you phone and try to reason with a shady, unregulated private parking company. I'm sure their customer service team—likely one bloke in a shed with a headset—will be thrilled to help. That’s if you even get through, of course. More likely, you’ll be treated to an eternal hold loop or a conversation with someone whose grasp of logic rivals that of a trifle.

Honestly, expecting a fair outcome from them is like writing a heartfelt letter to a snail and waiting for a reply. Save yourself the headache—literally—and just wait for the Letter of Claim. At least then you’re dealing with a process that vaguely resembles something legal.