Free Traffic Legal Advice

The driver entered the car park twice. The first occasion they drove straight through the car park as they weren't sure they were at the right location. They drove around the block and then back into the car park where they parked, collected some items, returned to the vehicle and left.

On 7th April, I, the registered keeper, received a PCN through the post. I wonder if the time of entry is perhaps the time the driver first entered the car park? Is the NtK fully complaint with PoFA 2012, or could it be appealed on these grounds?

To clarify, the driver is unsure whether the entry time recorded on the Notice to Keeper relates to the first pass through the car park, when the vehicle briefly entered and exited while locating the correct site. The exit time corresponds to the final departure from the site after the second visit, during which the vehicle was parked.

Would it be relevant to any appeal to understand how ANPR systems typically handle multiple entries within a short period, and whether this could result in two separate visits being recorded as a single continuous stay?

Hi Based on the 14-day rule (Incident: 18 March, Received: 7 April) and the 13-minute stay shown on the NtK, I’ve drafted the following appeal. I'm focusing on PoFA non-compliance, the 'Double Dip' technical error, and the lack of a defined 'period of parking' (citing Burgess). Does this look airtight before I submit?

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Parking Charge Notice number []
I am appealing this notice on the following grounds:

1. Late Delivery and Lack of Keeper Liability (PoFA 2012)
The alleged incident occurred on 18 March 2026. Under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, a Notice to Keeper must be delivered within 14 days of the incident (by 1 April 2026). This notice was not received until 7 April 2026. Because you have failed to comply with the mandatory notice period required by the Act to transfer liability from the driver, there is no lawful basis to hold me, the Registered Keeper, liable for this charge. As the requirements of the Act have not been met, I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver and I decline to do so."

2. Failure to Identify the "Period of Parking"
Your notice identifies ANPR camera timestamps for entry and exit. However, it fails to specify the actual "period of parking" as strictly required by PoFA 2012, Paragraph 9(2)(a). I rely upon the persuasive authority of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Burgess [Case No: C8DP11F0], which established that ANPR timestamps recording times of entry and exit are not evidence of a "period of parking."

3. ANPR Technical Failure (Double Dipping)
Your ANPR system has suffered from a well-documented "double-dipping" error. The vehicle entered and exited the site on two separate occasions within a short timeframe. Your system has paired the initial entry of the day with the final departure, failing to record the intermediate exit and re-entry. I require you to check your full image logs for this VRM to identify the "orphan" records that prove the vehicle was not on site for a continuous period.

4. Mandatory Grace and Consideration Periods
Even if your flawed ANPR data were accurate, your evidence shows an entry at 14:24 and an exit at 14:37—a total duration of only 13 minutes. Per the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, a motorist must be allowed a "Consideration Period" to read signs and a "Grace Period" to leave the site. A 13-minute stay is entirely consumed by these mandatory periods, meaning no "period of parking" in breach of terms occurred.

Conclusion
As you have failed to meet the statutory requirements of PoFA 2012 to transfer liability to the Keeper, and your own evidence proves no parking contract was breached, I require you to cancel this PCN immediately and confirm in writing that my data has been removed from your systems.

Thanks, DWMB2. That makes sense regarding grace and consideration periods.

Regarding the 'double dip,' the driver is certain they exited and re-entered, and is certain that it is in close proximity to the times shown on the NtK. They think, but aren't certain, that the "From" time represents their first entry to the car park, the "To" time certainly represents the time that they exited the car park for the final time. Is it worth framing as a challenge to their logs? Even if they don't accept the double dip, I'm hoping the 13-minute total duration is too short to be considered 'parking' anyway.

I've reordered the points to lead with the 'Double Dip' and 'Consideration Period' as you suggested. Revised draft below—any further thoughts?


Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Parking Charge Notice number []

I am appealing this notice on the following grounds:

1. ANPR Technical Failure (Potential Double Dip)
The vehicle entered and exited the site on two separate occasions within a short timeframe. It appears your ANPR system has suffered from a 'double-dipping' error, incorrectly pairing the first entry with the final departure and failing to record the intermediate exit and re-entry. I require you to check your full image logs (including 'orphan' records) for this VRM to verify the two separate visits.

2. Mandatory Consideration Period / No "Period of Parking"
Even if your ANPR data were accurate, your evidence shows a total duration of stay of only 13 minutes. Per the BPA Code of Practice, a motorist must be allowed a 'Consideration Period' to enter a site, find a space, and read the signage to decide whether to accept the terms of the contract. A 13-minute stay—which includes the time taken to drive from the boundary cameras to a bay and back again—is entirely consumed by a reasonable consideration period. No contract was entered into; the driver simply observed the terms and left the site. I rely upon Excel Parking Services Ltd v Burgess [Case No: C8DP11F0] regarding the distinction between "time on site" and "period of parking."

3. Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4
The Notice to Keeper fails to satisfy the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Failure to specify the "Period of Parking": As established in Excel v Burgess, camera timestamps of entry and exit do not satisfy the requirement of Paragraph 9(2)(a) to specify the period the vehicle was actually parked.

Late Delivery: While the notice is dated 24 March, actual delivery to the Keeper occurred on 7 April, 20 days after the incident. As this exceeds the 14-day limit for Keeper liability, the Creditor has no legal right to recover this charge from the Keeper.