Free Traffic Legal Advice

Store Manager
Lidl [Store Location]
[Store Address]
[City, Postcode]

Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Parking Charge Issued to a Blue Badge Holder

Dear Store Manager,

I am writing as the registered keeper of a vehicle that was issued an unjust parking charge notice (PCN) by your appointed parking management company, UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC), for an alleged contravention at your store’s car park on 29th November 2024. The driver of the vehicle, a regular patron of Lidl, utilised one of the accessible parking spaces during this visit.

The driver holds a valid Blue Badge, which was displayed at the start of the visit. However, upon returning to the vehicle, it was discovered that the Blue Badge had fallen to the floor. This may have occurred due to the boot being opened to retrieve shopping bags, causing a draft through the vehicle while the front door was open. Despite this unfortunate circumstance, the driver was fully entitled to use the accessible parking space as a Blue Badge holder. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the Blue Badge for your reference.

I wish to bring to your attention that under the Equality Act 2010, businesses and service providers, including Lidl and its agents, have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to ensure that disabled customers are not placed at a disadvantage. The failure to display a badge does not negate the fact that the driver is a disabled individual with a lawful right to use accessible parking spaces. The driver's disability does not cease to exist simply because a badge temporarily fell out of view.

UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC) is an unregulated private parking company, and their PCN is simply a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver. However, the issuance of this charge is an insult to a genuine customer of Lidl who was entitled to use the space provided.

Additionally, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by UKPC fails to comply with all the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The NtK does not specify a period of parking, as required by PoFA, but instead only shows a single moment in time. This fundamental flaw in the NtK renders it non-compliant and unenforceable against the registered keeper. The Brennan v Premier Parking appeal case confirmed that a period of parking must be recorded, and a single timestamp is insufficient to demonstrate a parking contravention.

Your appointed parking management company has issued a parking charge of £100 for an alleged breach of terms and conditions. This charge is both disproportionate and unjustified, particularly given the context. By allowing such a charge to be pursued against a disabled patron, Lidl risks being in breach of its legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010.

As the registered keeper, I respectfully request that Lidl intervenes with its parking management company to ensure that this charge is cancelled immediately. Furthermore, I would appreciate it if you could review your current parking enforcement practices to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. It is imperative that Lidl ensures its agents act in accordance with equality legislation and do not penalise disabled individuals unfairly.

I trust that Lidl values its customers and will take swift action to resolve this matter. Please confirm receipt of this letter and provide an update on the steps being taken to cancel the parking charge.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]

Enclosures: Copy of Blue Badge

Subject: Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice [PCN Reference Number]

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing as the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced in the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN). I wish to appeal this charge on the following grounds:

1. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC) fails to comply with the requirements of PoFA to hold the registered keeper liable. Specifically, the NtK does not specify a period of parking, only a single moment in time. This is a fundamental requirement under Schedule 4 of PoFA, which clearly states that a period of parking must be identified. Without this, the NtK is non-compliant, and liability cannot be transferred to the registered keeper.

The importance of specifying a period of parking is supported by persuasive appeals case law. In Brennan v Premier Parking Logistics (2023), it was confirmed that a single timestamp does not constitute a period of parking and is insufficient to demonstrate a contravention. The court in that case ruled that a lack of a specified period rendered the NtK non-compliant with PoFA.

2. Inadequate and Non-Compliant Signage

The signage at the location fails to comply with the standards set out in the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The terms and conditions, including the parking charge amount, must be clearly visible and legible to drivers before they park. However, at this location, the signage is unclear, with important terms hidden in small print that would not be easily noticed by drivers.

In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of prominent signage to establish a contractual agreement. In this case, the court ruled that clear and prominent signage was essential to forming a contract with a driver. The failure of UKPC's signage to meet these standards means that no contract could have been formed, and the parking charge is unenforceable.

Additionally, the failure to adequately bring the charge amount to the driver’s attention is a breach of Schedule 4 of PoFA and the PPSCoP. The charge must be prominently displayed to avoid allegations of entrapment or unfair practices. The BPA Code of Practice also requires that parking charges must not be hidden in terms and conditions but should be clearly brought to the attention of drivers. The signage at this location falls far short of these requirements.

3. Equality Act 2010 – Discrimination Against a Disabled Driver

The driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention is a Blue Badge holder and fully entitled to use the accessible parking space. The Blue Badge was displayed during the visit but was later found to have fallen to the floor. Under the Equality Act 2010, service providers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals to ensure they are not placed at a disadvantage.

Penalising a disabled customer for circumstances beyond their control, such as a badge falling to the floor, is both unreasonable and discriminatory.[/indent]

4. Misapplication of Keeper Liability and Driver Assumptions

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver. In VCS v Edward (2023), the court reinforced that there is no presumption in law that the registered keeper is the driver. Parking operators must provide evidence of the driver’s identity to pursue a claim against them. Without such evidence, the claim must fail.

This case is relevant because in VCS v Edward, the judge made it clear that operators cannot simply assume the keeper was the driver and must prove who was driving at the time of the alleged contravention.

5. No Realistic Prospect of Success at POPLA

Given the numerous failings outlined above, it is clear that UKPC has no realistic prospect of defending this charge at POPLA. The NtK is non-compliant with PoFA, the signage does not meet the required standards, and the circumstances of the alleged contravention are covered under the Equality Act 2010.

UKPC is urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN immediately. Pursuing this charge further would be unreasonable and may be viewed as harassment, given the lack of a legal basis to enforce it.

Please confirm receipt of this appeal and advise of the outcome within the stipulated deadlines.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
Registered Keeper

Hyundai Finance Contract Hire
Number One
Great Exhibition Way
Kirkstall Forge
Leeds
LS5 3BF.

By email to: contactus@hyundaifinancecontracthire.co.uk

[Date]

Subject: Unauthorised Payment of Private Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and Breach of Consumer Rights

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to express my utter dismay and disappointment regarding your recent decision to pay a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by GXS Services Ltd, an unregulated private parking company, on my behalf, without prior consultation or authorisation. Your actions in this matter demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of private parking charges and a glaring failure to follow a proper process as outlined in both your own policies and the Hire Agreement.

The charge in question is a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued as a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK), not a statutory "fine" or traffic "offence". It is a civil matter, issued by an unregulated private company under contract law, and as such, it was neither your responsibility nor within your authority to pay it on my behalf without first transferring liability to me as the Hirer. The correct procedure would have been to transfer liability to the Hirer, as allowed under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The NtK even explains how to do this if the vehicle is hired under an agreement. Instead, HCF chose to pay the charge outright and then invoice me for it, along with an arbitrary administration fee of £30.

Your own policy document states:

"All traffic offences and fines are your responsibility and should be paid immediately. If you fail to pay any fines, Hyundai Finance Contract Hire may pay them on your behalf and recharge you along with an administration charge. Where possible we will transfer liability for any fines or penalties direct to you."

Private parking charges do not fall under the definition of traffic offences or fines. They are not issued by an authority, and they carry no legal standing as penalties. Your failure to distinguish between statutory fines and civil parking charges is a glaring oversight, one that has caused unnecessary financial and procedural complications.

Furthermore, your own Hire Agreement states under Clause 5.1.5 that I am responsible for paying:

"...all licence fees, charges (including congestion charges, tolls etc), taxes and other sums due relating to the vehicle or its use. We may pay the amount of such charges for you. You will then repay that amount to us on demand together with such sum as we consider reasonable to cover our administration costs connected with the charge."

The ambiguity of the term "charges" notwithstanding, it is clear from the context that the clause refers to statutory charges and sums due to public authorities (such as congestion charges and tolls), not civil invoices from private companies. Applying this clause to a private parking charge demonstrates a lack of comprehension of its intended scope.

Had you followed the correct process and transferred liability to the Hirer, this matter would have ended there, as your involvement would no longer have been necessary. Your decision to bypass this straightforward solution and instead pay the charge unilaterally is both senseless and unjustifiable.

Moreover, your actions deprived me of the opportunity to challenge the PCN through the appropriate channels. Unregulated private parking companies frequently issue charges that are unenforceable, based on unclear or inadequate signage, or issued in error. By paying the charge without my consent, you have denied me the right to appeal, thereby undermining my consumer rights and exposing me to a financial burden that I may not have been liable for had I been given the opportunity to contest the charge.

I do not accept liability for your mishandling of this matter. Your unilateral payment of the charge constitutes a breach of both the Hire Agreement and your obligations under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Specifically:

1. Unfair Terms: The terms of the Hire Agreement are ambiguous and do not clearly give you the right to pay private parking charges without consultation.

2. Failure to Provide Adequate Notice: You failed to inform me of the PCN in a timely manner, denying me the right to challenge or mitigate the alleged contravention.

3. Unjust Enrichment: By charging me an administration fee for your own procedural failings, you have sought to profit from your mistake.

If you proceed with debiting my account for this unauthorised payment and administration fee, I will have no hesitation in taking further action to recover the funds and seek compensation for your procedural failings. This may include lodging a formal complaint with relevant consumer bodies, such as the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (BVRLA), and pursuing legal action if necessary.

To rectify this situation, I demand the following:

1. Immediate cancellation of any charges related to this PCN, including the administration fee.

2. Confirmation that you will transfer liability for any future PCNs to the Hirer, as per your stated policy.

3. Assurance that you will review your procedures to prevent such mishandling from occurring again.

I expect a written response within 14 days of the date of this letter. Failure to respond satisfactorily will result in further action.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd

Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant

---

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not disclose any valid cause of action.

Preliminary Matter

2. The Defendant respectfully submits that the Particulars of Claim (PoC) fail to comply with the mandatory requirements of CPR 16.4(1)(a), which states that the PoC must include a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies. The PoC are so deficient in particulars that they fail to disclose a cause of action, making it impossible for the Defendant to plead properly.

3. Specifically, the PoC lack:

(a) The specific terms of the alleged contract that were purportedly breached;

(b) The precise signage locations, alleged terms and conditions displayed thereon, or details of how the alleged breach occurred;

(c) Attachment or details of the contract relied upon, contrary to CPR PD 16.7.5;

(d) Particularity as to the alleged breach, including its nature, time, and location;

(e) An explanation of how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) Clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. In light of the above, the Defendant respectfully requests that the court strikes out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) on the basis that:

• The statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim; and

• The statement of case is an abuse of process.

5. The Defendant cites the cases of CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] and CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30], which are persuasive appellate decisions. In these cases, claims were struck out due to identical failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). Transcripts of these decisions are attached to this Defence.

Alternative Submission

6. The Defendant submits that the correct course of action is for the court to strike out the claim due to the Claimant's clear and material failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). The rules exist to ensure fairness, and the Claimant's non-compliance cannot be excused. The Defendant asserts that "rules are rules," and the Claimant has failed to follow them.

7. However, in the unlikely event that the court does not agree with the persuasive nature of the cited appellate decisions, the Defendant submits the following alternative:

• The court should make an order requiring the Claimant to provide the following further and better particulars:

(a) Set out the specific terms of the alleged contract that were purportedly breached;

(b) Specify the precise signage locations, alleged terms and conditions displayed thereon, or details of how the alleged breach occurred;

(c) Provide attachment or details of the contract relied upon, as required by CPR PD 16.7.5;

(d) Provide particularity as to the alleged breach, including its nature, time, and location;

(e) Explain how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) Clarify whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

8. Without such particulars, the Defendant is unable to properly respond to the claim, resulting in unfairness and prejudice.

Draft Order

9. A draft order is appended to this defence, which the Defendant requests the court to consider adopting should the claim not be struck out at this stage.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:


Date:

Does this make their NtKs PoFA compliant ?