Free Traffic Legal Advice

photo 3
https://ibb.co/1f6r6PGc

side 1 of letter

https://ibb.co/39CXvL1Z

I have held off sending in the appeal and will send it in as soon as someone on here says I can!

Thank you for the words already given.

I have to submit the appeal via UKCPS own website.

I have looked carefully at the UKCPS notice, the signage, and the status of the location, and I want to explain why the claim they are making is fundamentally flawed.

The road (Princes Square) where this was issued is part of the railway estate owned by Network Rail. At the time of the alleged event, land forming part of the railway estate was subject to statutory control through railway byelaws and was therefore not “relevant land” for the purposes of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Because of that, UKCPS could not rely on PoFA to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known registered keeper, regardless of the fact that their Notice to Keeper is headed “Postal – PoFA”. Keeper liability simply did not arise on railway land at the time of this incident, and any suggestion otherwise is misleading.

There has since been a legislative change, taking effect from 26 December 2025, which alters the definition of relevant land so that certain railway land may fall within PoFA going forward. However, that change is not retrospective. The applicable law is the law in force on the date of the alleged event. As this incident predates 26 December 2025, the change does not apply here and cannot be relied upon by UKCPS to create keeper liability after the fact.

The signage at the location is also contradictory and incapable of creating clear contractual terms. There is no PPSCoP- or IPC Code of Practice-compliant entrance sign to the station estate or to Princes Square itself. The only identifiable compliant entrance sign is positioned as drivers turn off Princes Square into the station forecourt and is specific to that forecourt area alone, not to the wider station estate or Princes Square roadway. That sign states “Private Land – Pick up & drop off only” and directs drivers to see signage within the pick-up/drop-off area for further terms. It therefore expressly permits stopping for the purpose of picking up or dropping off passengers, which necessarily involves stopping, even if only briefly. This permission cannot be reconciled with the separate repeater signs along Princes Square stating “No Stopping – £100 charge”, which purport to impose an absolute prohibition. Taken together, the signage is fragmented and internally inconsistent, and does not communicate any clear or coherent set of contractual terms to a driver.

Separately and in any event, a “No Stopping” sign is inherently prohibitive in nature. It does not make an offer capable of acceptance. A contract requires an offer and acceptance, and a sign that simply bans an activity does not offer permission to carry it out on terms. Where stopping is forbidden outright, there is nothing a driver can accept and no contractual licence being granted. At most, such signage could give rise to an allegation of trespass, which is a matter solely for the landholder and does not entitle a private parking company to impose a fixed contractual charge.

There is also a basic defect in the Notice to Keeper itself. It does not specify any period of parking. It provides only a single “time of issue”. A single timestamp is not a period. Despite this, the notice claims that the charge relates to “the period of parking specified above”, when no such period exists. That alone defeats any attempt to rely on PoFA, even on land where PoFA might otherwise apply.

The positioning of the signage further undermines their case. The alleged “No Stopping” sign is placed as drivers leave a public highway roundabout and enter Princes Square, and it runs parallel to the direction of travel. That placement does not give a driver a fair opportunity to read, understand, and consider terms before any alleged breach. Terms cannot be accepted if they are not reasonably communicated in advance.

It is also important to be clear about what actually happened. Stopping for a few seconds to check where you are or to look at directions is not the same as waiting or parking. Double yellow lines prohibit waiting, not stopping. The Highway Code makes a clear distinction between the two. Waiting means remaining in place for longer than is needed for the normal flow of traffic. A brief stop to orient yourself, check a sign, or confirm a turning is part of normal and safe driving and is not treated as waiting.

Even where there are double kerb blips, the restriction is only on loading and unloading. It does not create a no-stopping restriction. A genuine no-stopping restriction requires a clearway, a red route, or a specific no-stopping order backed by a Traffic Regulation Order. Without that, the law does not prohibit a momentary stop to check directions.

Private parking companies often try to pretend that any pause equals prohibited stopping, but that is not how road markings work and not how the Highway Code defines these restrictions. A momentary stop to check your location is simply not the kind of behaviour these restrictions are designed to regulate.

The overall position is that this was railway estate land where PoFA did not apply at the relevant time, the entrance signage expressly permits stopping for pick-up and drop-off, the signage relied upon by UKCPS is contradictory and prohibitive and incapable of forming a contract, the Notice to Keeper does not specify a period of parking, and the alleged conduct amounts to nothing more than a brief, lawful stop that forms part of normal driving. You should deal with this strictly as the registered keeper and you should not identify the driver.

So, the advice about the initial appeal still stands. We can make a clearer argument in the secondary appeal to the IAS, although that is not "independent" and is also not likely to be successful for the simple fact that you are now in the middle of a scam. That does not mean we don't try but, realistically, this would be easily defeated if they try to progress it to litigation in the county court as a small claim. There is no way they would let this progress to a hearing as they know they would be spanked.

Their MO is to hope that you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and can be intimidated into paying out of ignorance and fear. That is the truth behind how these bottom-dwelling firms operate. Submit the appeal and come back when they reject with their reasoning.

Hi again

I got the appeal reply back from UKCPS by email today. A three-page letter. Side 1 is their response, side 2 is the automatic blurb and side 3 shows the 4 photos they have supplied and I have already posted in this thread.
I've copied and pasted the wording of their letter below.
 
As expected UKCPS declined my appeal, gave their reasons why and extended the time period for a payment to be made before the amount increases. 

So now I have to appeal to the IAS.  I see your good advice above B789 about this and note this is just a procedural step and not to expect much from it. 

I would be grateful if there is some text you could copy to me to send off my appeal to the IPS please.  I will also emphasise that the stop was for 5 seconds, all of the car doors stayed closed and the vehicle was not waiting or stopped. The fact the vehicle headlights are on and 5 seconds later they are off shows it is likely that it had mechanical failure and stalled for 5 seconds.

----------------------------------------
LETTER - RESPONSE FROM UKCPS TO APPEAL:

UKCPS Ltd
City West Business Park
Building 3
Gelderd Road
Leeds
LS12 6LN

Name
Address

20th January 2026

Current Balance:
£60.00

Parking Charge Reference: X
Vehicle Registration: X
Location: Leeds City Station, LS1 4DY

Issued: 10/12/2025 at 14:54:54

Dear X,

Thank you for your appeal submitted on 27th December 2025. After reviewing your comments, and carefully considering the evidence collected at the time the Parking Charge was issued, we regret to inform you that your appeal has been unsuccessful. The reasons for our decision are detailed below:
The area where the vehicle stopped is designated as private land where parking, stopping, or waiting is strictly prohibited at all times.

At the time of the event, the vehicle was parked, stopped or waiting in this area, and as a result, the driver contractually agrees to pay a parking charge.

Attached, you will find photographic evidence showing the vehicle parked at the location mentioned above.

We have extended the opportunity for you to pay the reduced amount of, £60.00, until 05/02/2026, after this date, the full amount of £100.00 will be due.

Regards,
Appeals Team





PAGE 2 OF UKCPS RESPONSE:

Payment options are available as follows:

Online: Visit ukcps.ec6pay.com
By Phone: Make payments using Debit/Credit card by calling 0333 023 0121
By Mail: Send a Cheque/Postal order payable to UKCPS Ltd to the address provided at the top of this
correspondence
Alternatively, you can make payment by scanning the QR code provided
Payments received which are not accompanied by this information will be cashed but the creditor will be unable to allocate the payment to the correct Parking Charge. The Parking Charge will therefore remain unpaid and enforcement action may be taken. This will result in additional cost being incurred.


Independent Appeals Service

If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (''IAS''). In order to appeal, you will need your Parking Charge Reference and your vehicle registration. Appeals must be submitted to the IAS within 28 days of the date of this response. Please  note if you make an appeal with the IAS then the discounted rate is no longer available.
Please visit their website www.theias.org


Complaints

If you wish to complain, you MUST complain to us directly in the first instance by writing to us at the address at the top of this letter. If you are not satisfied with our response, then you may refer your complaint to the IPC.
Further details can be found at www.theIPC.info


UKCPS Ltd Registered Company Number 5090613; Registered in England and Wales
Due to data protection, we regret there is no public access to the registered office.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for you help with this.