Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello helpful people,

I as keeper of the said vehicle recieved the following PCN from Bridgepam by post:


Thereafter, I appealed as the keeper with the following text:

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.
The photos you have shared span over a duration of less than 2 minutes and visibly show that the vehicle's hazard lights flashing indicating it was a mere stop rather than parking. Less than 2 minutes is too less for the driver to be assumed to have agreed to the contractual terms displayed near by.
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.
Besides other shortfalls, as an example, your NTK fails to "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" so it is not complaint with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, paragraph 9, clause 2(e).
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. BridgePam 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. You have no hope should you be so stupid as to try and litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

They first sent me an email asking me to confirm the identity of the driver and following my refusal along above lines have reject my appeal as per below letter:



Venue signage:



Now I need to appeal this on POPLA, which likely gets rejected but I need some help in selecting correct option on the website (it is allowing to select multiple options and then it's trying to trick me to select sentences starting with "I.. " to imply driver identity possibly.




Please advise what options I should select here and what text I should use in my draft appeal to POPLA. Many thanks in advance as always

I the keeper of the vehicle received an NtK from NPC back in November. I appealed it to NPC as keeper which they rejected. Subsequently, I appealed their rejection to IAS whose rejection has come in today. (Was awaiting adjudication with ias since 8th December)

So next step is to ignore all NPC or debt collector letters? Till I get a "Letter of Claim" or is there something else I should do right now in the meantime.

I am attaching relevant bits here for context.
Many thanks in advance, for all advice as always.

Original NTK:



Venue Signage:



My appeal text to NPC after initial PCN is as follows:

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.

Besides, other shortfalls, as an example, your NTK fails to "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" so it is not complaint with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, paragraph 9, clause 2(e).

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. NPC 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. NPC have no hope should you be so stupid as to try and litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

My appeal text to IAS, sent 6th December:

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.

The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to provide the following:

1. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font size, positioning, and the communication of key terms.

2. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.

In particular, Section 14.1(a)-(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:

• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator's obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.

These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.

3. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace period as defined by the PPSCoP.

4. Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders keeper liability unenforceable. Besides other shortfalls, as an example, the NTK fails to "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" so is not complaint with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, paragraph 9, clause 2(e). Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There has been no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. NPC 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.

5. Strict proof that the NtK was posted in time for it to have been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)

6. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers”. Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that keeper liability under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions are met.

If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.

In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles.

Adjudicator's Decision

The adjudicator made their decision on 22/01/2026 13:59:03.

The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator fails to establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law then it is likely that an Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision.

The NTK has been sent to the Keeper within the 14-day time frame as required by POFA and, therefore, the Operator has complied.

The Appellant accepts that he was the keeper of this vehicle but is not willing to name the driver. In the case of ELLIOTT v LOAKE in 1982 the principle was established that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the driver of that vehicle at the time of an incident such as arises in this Appeal. The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that he/she was not the driver at the time of the incident. In this case such evidence has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that he/she was not the driver and therefore this the Appellant is presumed to be the Driver.

A number of images have been provided to me by the Parking Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site as well as the contravention images showing where the Appellant's vehicle was parked on this occasion. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site, specifically, the signage is clearly located along the road at which the Driver is parked. I am satisfied the Driver was parked in breach of the terms, namely without holding a valid permit as required.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

A driving test appointment secured for Mid October (back in March) was SOLD by Driving Instructor to someone else without consent or information.

The instructor insisted on being sent appointment confirmation email multiple times on the pretext of noting this on his diary (the idea was to use his car for the test itself) and already had license details/address etc. The DVSA confirmed that the appointment was changed TWICE on phone by an instructor who had all the details of the applicant and was swapped with another learner's appointment.

The instructor probably made between £500-£1000 doing this stunt from other learners and shamelessly continues to pretend nothing has happened.

It's definitely GDPR violation and I am sure some other laws. 

What recourse does the defrauded person have here?

Thinking to email a formal complaint to instructorconduct@dvsa.gov.uk at a minimum but not sure what that achieves. Would ideally want his name struck off the "Approved driving instructors" list. Can past payments (of more than £1000 cumulatively through the course of this year) be claimed at all in some form? Police complaint worth it?

Would appreciate guidance, many thanks.

I have received the following £60 (£100 if not paid soon) parking charge in mail as the Hirer of the said vehicle.
The notice was initially sent to the Keeper (the leasing company) who have passed on my details to NPC as I have this vehicle on lease.

Please advise what options I have as the Hirer, in the notice they haven't asked me to share the details of the driver. Can I challenge it as the Hirer and refuse revealing Driver's identity?

Some additional detail, I have been verbally told by a resident that parking for up to 20 minutes is allowed in the area. At the time of the alleged contravention (Parking on the Pavement), hazard lights of the vehicle were blinking (even seen on the pictures they attached online) which confirms that the car wasn't left unattended/parked. The vehicle wasn't there for more than 5 minutes total within which these pictures were taken.


Notice to Hirer Front:




Notice to Hirer Back:




Venue Signage:




Online 1:





Online 2:




Many thanks in advance.

Hello good samaritans,

I have recieved an NIP today, please see below:

Front:

Back:


Bit of background:
1. I drive a leased vehicle and my details must have been shared by keeper.
2. I got a previous speeding notice (caught by camera on 30th April, completed speed awarenss course on 8th July, 2024).

It's interesting that this fresh alleged on the same vehicle occured just 1 day BEFORE I completed the speed awareness course. I don't know if this is relevant but thought I should share. I had got a similar letter last time where I filled the form and subsequently logged into ndors.org

I can still access my account on ndors.org, it doens't YET show this new offense. I wasn't aware of this forum when I got the letter last time but thought to post here before doing anything at all this time. Please advise what's my best course of action here.

I had two different ParkingEye PCNs for parking at the same location Morrisons (tried getting the 2nd PCN cancelled with them but they say they can't do anything and I need to contact ParkingEye directly, of course that's impossible)

First incident happened on 16th March.

Parking Signage said "Overnight Parking Tariffs Apply" but then also says "Upto 9 hours". This was confusing as "overnight" parking would almost always exceed 9 hours.

I went to PayByPhone App (which I used regularly), so I can select hours and minutes and pay accordingly, instead of hours it showed me the option to select number of days with NO mention of any "9 hours" limit. It was asking £15.20 which seemed excessive by any measure for 3 hours I spent there. It was also allowing to select multiple "days" which didn't make sense given the 9 hour limit and I concluded this was some BUG.

So, I thought I would try the machine on the venue before leaving. The parking machine was "out of service" and asked to used another machine while there was NO other machine. I ultimately had to leave without paying.


I drive a Leased EV, which means PCNs send to me take much longer to reach me.
So, I ended up parking again on the same venue on 1st April, and the machine was still out of order. I left without paying again and the very next day PCN for the first one arrived by post.

I appealled this but seems no real person read it, and they auto-rejected so I appealed on POPLA.

While waiting for POPLA decision I got 2nd PCN, I appealled again but again of course auto-rejected. This time I dindn't appeal to POPLA and paid £60 instead (thought to reduce damage)

POPLA desicion finally arrived where they agreed that parking machine was indeed "out of service" but didn't see it reason enough to reject PCN. Also, they agreed with PayByPhone being misleading but that didn't mean anything to them either. Please see attached their decision.

Now I have recieved FINAL notice (attached) despite paying £60 for already and despite having acknowledgement from POPLA that parking machine was out of order. I am in no mood to pay another £100 to get to a total of £160 to this company for a few hours of parking at the premise.

***UNABLE TO UPLOAD ANY ATTACHMENTS, The upload folder is full. Please try a smaller file and/or contact an administrator.***
Final Notice is asking me to pay within 14 days or they would raise it Debt recovery or court proceedings etc.  Please advise next steps.