Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello everyone, I would appreciate any help on this.

I as the registered keeper has received the NTK as titled. Here’s the background.

On 5th April, the driver parked and paid for 3 hours. The driver completed their business but has exceeded the duration and left without paying additional hours.

On the 8th, I received the attached NTK. There’s a few points to note, not too sure the relevance:
1. The driver paid parking 3 hours; the parking duration is 3:30.
2. The parking according to google Maps, is in OL1 1HP and OL1 1HY. But the PCN stated the location as OL11PU, which couldnt be found on Google Maps. Streetcheck says the postcode was terminated in 2008. 

I hope people can advise me on this. Thanks in advance!

I also attached the parking receipt/stub, for reference, in case it’s of any use.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Thank you very much, will use your reply to appeal. Have a great day!

Of course you do a POPLA appeal. I just prepared one for someone here:

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/highview-parking-exceeded-maximum-stay-new-street-retail-park-ashford-kent/msg68416/#new

Have a look and take what you can from that and adapt it to your own situation and the following:

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the following grounds:

1. The Notice to Keeper Fails to Identify the Relevant Land – No Keeper Liability Under PoFA 2012

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) allows a parking operator to hold a vehicle’s registered keeper liable only if the Notice to Keeper (NtK) strictly complies with the requirements set out in Paragraph 9.

Paragraph 9(2)(a) states that the notice must:
"specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates."

The NtK issued by Initial Parking merely states “Ascroft Street, OL1 1PU” as the location. However, OL1 1PU is not recognised by the Royal Mail Postcode Finder and does not correspond to any verifiable site. There are no known parking sites associated with this postcode, and the location cannot be confirmed.

As a result, the NtK fails to specify “the relevant land” as required under PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(a), and Initial Parking has not met the conditions required to transfer liability to the keeper.

2. No Period of Parking Specified – Breach of PoFA 2012 Paragraph 9(2)(a)

PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(a) also requires the NtK to specify the “period of parking” to which the notice relates. ANPR time stamps showing entry and exit times do not constitute a period of parking. They show only two instants in time and do not prove that the vehicle was parked for the full duration.

This was confirmed in the judgment of Brennan v Premier Parking Logistics (Walsall County Court, 31 October 2018), where the court ruled that a period of parking must be shown and that entry/exit images alone are insufficient.

The NtK fails to meet this requirement and is therefore non-compliant with PoFA, meaning keeper liability does not apply.

3. Consideration Period Not Allowed – Breach of the Private Parking Code of Practice

Section 5.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, Version 1.1 (17 February 2025), states:

"Drivers must be allowed a consideration period of at least 5 minutes to enable them to decide whether they wish to stay or go."

If the PCN was issued for failing to pay on entry, the operator must show that the driver was given at least 5 minutes to consider the terms. There is no evidence that this was done.

Issuing a charge before the minimum consideration period has elapsed is a breach of the Code and renders the charge unenforceable.

4. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed

Initial Parking has not provided evidence that the signage at the alleged site was adequate to form a contract. Section 6 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires that signage must be prominent, legible, and contain the core terms including the parking charge amount.

Unless the operator provides dated photographs of signage visible from all parking locations and the entrance, it cannot demonstrate that the terms were seen and accepted. In the absence of clear signage, no contract was formed, and no charge is due.

5. Poorly Drafted Rejection Letter – Undermines Credibility

The rejection letter from Initial Parking is written in poor and unclear English, containing confusing instructions and contradictory statements, such as:

"Your options 1) Pay the PCN at the reduced amount of £60.00 by 14 days. After this time the opportunity to pay at the reduced amount will no longer be available and the amount outstanding will rise to the full amount of £100.00. This will need to be paid by 14 days."

This statement is self-contradictory and makes no logical sense. The fact that the operator cannot produce a coherent rejection letter seriously undermines its credibility and raises concerns over the reliability and accuracy of its procedures and evidence.

6. Misstated Timeframes – Contradiction of PoFA 2012 Paragraph 9(2)(f) and the Code of Practice

Paragraph 9(2)(f) of PoFA requires that the NtK invites the keeper to pay or identify the driver “within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given.” Under Paragraph 9(6), a notice sent by post is deemed given two working days after posting.

However, the NtK in this case demands payment “within 28 days of the date of issue,” which contradicts PoFA. On the reverse, it also states that appeals must be made “within 28 days from the date of the initial correspondence,” further contradicting the statutory timing.

In addition, Section 9.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (Version 1.1) states:

“The operator must not issue a reminder or take any further enforcement or recovery action, including the sending of a Notice to Keeper or passing details to a debt recovery company, until a period of at least 28 days has passed from the date the Parking Charge Notice is received by the keeper.”

By demanding action within 28 days of issue rather than 28 days from receipt, Initial Parking misrepresents the legal position and fails to comply with both PoFA and the Code. This misdirection invalidates the notice for the purposes of establishing keeper liability.

This appeal is made on the above grounds and I respectfully request that POPLA allows the appeal and instructs Initial Parking to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

Hi I just want to update the parking charge has been withdrawn. Thanks very much for the help!