Free Traffic Legal Advice

Your links don't seem to be working?

As this is APCOA, as noted, it can probably be ignored and will eventually go away. But in the interests of completeness and for future readers:

The other appeal points are inadequate signage/disproportionate charge/good faith attempt to pay.

Whilst all of these can be argued if the circumstances merit, an appeal that raises all three is likely to contradict itself unless presented well. If one is seeking to advance the argument that the signage was inadequate to the extent that it wasn't seen by the driver, a reader of the appeal might wonder how the driver became aware of the need to pay (which he must have done if another appeal point was that he made a good faith attempt to pay). I've seen arguments made at some airport drop off set ups that the signage is placed such that you're already committed to entering the chargeable area by the time you've seen the signs.

The OP posted:

Car still had a few leftover snacks and 'the car occupants' spotted a nice fountain/pond/park opposite to this car park so basically 'the car' ended up being parked in this car park while car occupants briefly explored this pond area and sat on a bench for a bit.

So, they're aware of the incident and the car park involved. They can do some leg work to see if the camera shots show entry and exit to the car park specified.

I pulled into a petrol station because I couldn’t drive my car anymore. At the time I thought it was just a flat tyre or a puncture since I had gone to 2 other petrol stations to pump my tyres and both air machines was not working. However the tyre ended up being much worse. Before I realised it was worse I spoke to the woman at the cashier. I explained the situation to her and asked if it's ok for me to go to Lidl or any of the nearby shops to see if they have a pump to allow me to pump my tyre, just so I could make it to a local tyre shop. She said that would be ok.

I was unsuccessful in finding a pump went back to the car and waited for my tyre to be changed.


The creditor: UKP (UK Parking Enforcement)
Amount Payable: £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days
Contravention Date & Time: 21/08/2026 20:57
Issue Reason: LEFT PREMISES

https://ibb.co/1GkBh9Pg
https://ibb.co/d0tLH8bP
https://ibb.co/W4G0JP9b

Here is an updated draft response based on the suggestions by tincombe, let me know if you have any more suggestions, thank you

Dear Parking Enforcement Team,

I am writing to make formal representations against the issuance of the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
The alleged contravention occurred on Sunday 26th July. The bay in question is situated within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) and surrounded by general parking restrictions that explicitly operate Monday to Friday only. In the absence of any localized signage to the contrary, a reasonable motorist would naturally conclude that parking restrictions do not apply on a Sunday.

While the roadway features a "Car Club Only" marking, the council’s own photographic evidence conclusively demonstrates that the mandatory accompanying upright sign is entirely absent. The council’s photos clearly document an empty upright socket/post where the restriction plate should be.

The council's position stated during the informal challenge—that road markings alone are sufficient to enforce a "Car Club Only" permit bay—is a material misdirection in law for the following reasons:

Failure of Statutory Duty to Sign:
Under Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, a local authority is under a strict statutory duty to place and maintain traffic signs that provide adequate information as to the effect of an order. A bare, empty socket provides zero information to a motorist.

Mandatory Co-Dependence:
Under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016 (Schedule 7, Part 4, Diagram 1028.4), a specialized permit bay relies on a co-dependent relationship with an upright sign face to legally communicate a restriction.

Misapplication of TSM Guidance:
The council cannot rely on Paragraph 13.6.5 of Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) to omit the sign. Paragraph 13.6.5 only applies to basic, self-explanatory restrictions. As a permit-holder bay governed by Schedule 4 of the TSRGD, this location is strictly bound by Paragraph 13.9.1 of TSM Chapter 3, which explicitly mandates that the upright sign is the mechanism required to indicate a permit restriction.Without the physical upright plate, a motorist has no way of knowing the operational hours of the bay, nor which specific Car Club operator permits are valid.

Because the mandatory physical sign panel was missing at the time of the alleged contravention, the restriction was completely invalid and legally unenforceable.

Should the council choose to reject these formal representations despite its own photographic evidence of a missing sign, I will have no hesitation in escalating this matter to the London Tribunals independent adjudicator. In that event, I will also make a formal application for costs on the grounds of vexatious and wholly unreasonable conduct by the authority.

Please confirm the cancellation of this PCN at your earliest convenience.