Free Traffic Legal Advice

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) only shows entry/exit, not period of parking. SO you can argue no Keeper liability.

There are several other points that can be argued but I'm not wasting time on an initial appeal that will be rejected anyway, no matter what. You can argue a load of points later with POPLA. For now, simply appeal with the following, ONLY as the Keeper. Do not identify the driver:

I am the registered keeper and I dispute your parking charge.

Your Notice to Keeper fails to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 because it does not specify a period of parking and does not properly describe the terms allegedly breached. You therefore cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the keeper.

Further, the driver is disabled and a Blue Badge holder. Your unclear signage regarding disabled bays and any payment requirements, together with the very short stay of around 12 minutes, amounts to a failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.

Please cancel this charge or issue a POPLA verification code. I do not consent to my personal data being used for any purpose other than considering this appeal.

Come back when that is rejected.

In the intervening time, if you're able to acquire photos of the signage (and any lack thereof!) this would be useful.

I haven`t been able to obtain the signage but have sent the centre an email. hopefully they can send this over.

No, it’s not the same – and it’s still a valid PoFA point.

What they’ve put there is just ANPR “time on site” (i.e. the difference between the camera’s entry and exit timestamps), then relabelled as “period of parking”. ANPR only records when a vehicle passes the cameras, not when it is actually stationary in a bay. The Protection of Freedoms Act talks about a “period of parking”, which by definition excludes the time spent:

• driving in and finding a space
• reading any signs / deciding whether to stay
• queuing or manoeuvring to leave

So, from a strict PoFA Schedule 4 point of view, they have still only evidenced and described entry/exit and a derived duration, not a true “period of parking” as required.

Some POPLA assessors gloss over that and accept this wording, others don’t – but it is absolutely still worth running as a keeper-liability point and there is no need to change the appeal wording I suggested.

Below is what they replied with. I have edited the details.

If that is a disabled bay, where are the signs with the terms and conditions that must be readable by the driver without needing to exit the vehicle as per PPSCoP §4.1 which states:

Quote

4.1 The parking operator must ensure that at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking can be viewed without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, in order for drivers with a disability to be able to make an informed decision on whether to park at the premises.

Here is a POPLA draft you can paste directly into the webform. :

Quote

POPLA Appeal – Parking Charge Notice [xxxxxx] – Vehicle [VRM]
Operator: Initial Parking Ltd
Site: Y Ganolfan Community Centre, LL49 9LU
Date of alleged event: 17/11/2025
Date of Notice to Keeper: 20/11/2025

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. My liability is limited to that of the registered keeper, which is denied. I contend that I am not liable for this Parking Charge Notice and I request that POPLA allow my appeal on the following grounds:

1. No keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 – the Notice to Keeper does not specify a valid “period of parking” as required by Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a)

2. Further non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, including failure to describe the parking charges allegedly due under paragraph 9(2)(d)

3. Failure to comply with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) Section 4.1 – no terms and conditions visible from within the vehicle in the disabled bay

4. Inadequate and unclear signage, especially in relation to disabled bays and Blue Badge holders

5. Failure to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled driver – Equality Act 2010

6. No evidence of the operator’s landowner authority

7. ANPR evidence does not prove any breach of a clearly-stated term and fails to take account of consideration and grace periods, especially for disabled motorists

8. No keeper liability – no valid “period of parking” (PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a))

The operator is attempting to hold me liable as keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”). To do so they must comply fully with all conditions in paragraph 9(2).

Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the Notice to Keeper (“NtK”) to:

“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”.

The Initial Parking NtK does not specify any period of parking. It merely states:

– a “Date of Parking Event: 17/11/2025”
– an “Arrival Time: 17/11/2025 at 13:25:38”
– an “Exit Time: 17/11/2025 at 13:38:19”
– and then labels “Period of Parking: 00h:12m:41s”

These times come solely from ANPR images showing the vehicle passing cameras upon entry and exit. They show nothing more than the total time the vehicle was somewhere within range of the cameras. They do not and cannot show when or for how long the vehicle was actually parked in a bay as opposed to:

• driving in and finding a space
• manoeuvring
• assisting a disabled passenger to alight or board
• reading any signs
• queuing at or walking to a payment machine
• driving out of the car park

The law uses the phrase “period of parking”, not “time on site”. ANPR entry and exit timestamps do not automatically equate to a statutory “period of parking”. The NtK fails to specify any actual span of time during which the vehicle was stationary and parked. It follows that paragraph 9(2)(a) has not been complied with.

Because the NtK does not satisfy paragraph 9(2)(a), keeper liability does not arise. Only the unknown driver could ever be liable. As the operator has not identified the driver and I, as keeper, have chosen not to name them, POPLA must find that I cannot be held liable.

2. Further PoFA non-compliance – paragraph 9(2)(d)

Paragraph 9(2)(d) requires a Notice to Keeper to:

“describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period [of parking], the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable”.

The NtK states only that:

– the “Parking Charge Amount Due” is £100 (£60 if paid within 14 days); and
– “By not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage displayed on site, the Parking Charge is now payable to Initial Parking, as the Creditor.”

This does not describe any “parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period”. There is no description of:

– what, if any, tariff applied at this location;
– the cost of parking for the relevant duration; or
– any unpaid tariff or other “parking charge” due from the driver.

Instead, the NtK jumps straight to the £100 contractual charge allegedly payable on breach. PoFA makes a clear distinction between “parking charges” (the underlying tariff) and the “sum … specified in the notice” claimed from the keeper. By failing to describe the actual parking charges due at the end of the parking period, the NtK does not meet paragraph 9(2)(d).

Again, where an operator seeks to rely on PoFA, they must comply fully with all of paragraph 9(2). They have not done so. Keeper liability does not apply and the appeal must be allowed on this ground alone.

3. Failure to comply with PPSCoP Section 4.1 – no terms and conditions visible from within the vehicle in the disabled bay

The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) is binding on BPA members and sets out mandatory requirements. Section 4.1 states:

“The parking operator must ensure that at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking can be viewed without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, in order for drivers with a disability to be able to make an informed decision on whether to park at the premises.”

In this case:

– the driver is disabled and a Blue Badge holder;
– the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay; and
– there was no sign containing the full terms and conditions visible from inside the vehicle in that bay.

The driver saw a sign relating to the disabled bay and a Blue Badge symbol and understood this to indicate that Blue Badge holders could use that bay. However, there was no large, legible sign facing the bay, at eye level, setting out the full parking terms, including any requirement for Blue Badge holders to pay a tariff and any risk of a £100 charge.

Any tariff and penalty terms that the operator relies on appear to be buried on separate general tariff signs elsewhere in the car park. Those signs:

– could not be read from inside the disabled bay; and
– would have required the disabled driver to exit the vehicle, move around the site and search for the small print.

That is the exact scenario PPSCoP 4.1 is designed to prevent. Initial Parking have failed to provide a single sign with the relevant terms which can be read from within the vehicle by a disabled driver considering whether to park. As a result, a Blue Badge holder was not able to make an informed decision before parking, and any alleged contract is fundamentally flawed.

A £100 charge arising from a set of terms that were not presented in compliance with PPSCoP 4.1 should not be enforced, and this appeal should be allowed on this ground.

4. Inadequate and unclear signage, especially in relation to disabled bays

Separately from PPSCoP 4.1, the signage at this site is generally inadequate and unclear.

The driver reports that this is a small car park and that no clear or legible signage was visible prior to entering. Upon parking, the driver saw signage relating to the disabled bay and reasonably believed that a Blue Badge holder could park there. There was nothing obvious to indicate that Blue Badge holders were required to pay the normal tariff or that a £100 charge would be issued after a stay of around 12 minutes without payment.

Initial Parking’s rejection letter refers to their “very large, BPA approved signs” and claims that they state “These tariffs do apply to Blue Badge holders”. If this wording exists, it appears to be buried in the main body of a general tariff sign, not on a dedicated disabled-bay sign. If a Blue Badge holder must pay to avoid a £100 charge, that is a core term which must be displayed prominently and unambiguously at or next to the disabled bay.

I put Initial Parking to strict proof, by way of dated, contemporaneous photographs and a site plan, that:

– a compliant entrance sign was present and clearly visible to a driver entering the car park;
– there was a clear, prominent sign adjacent to or immediately facing the disabled bay explaining that tariffs apply to Blue Badge holders and that failure to pay would result in a £100 charge; and
– the text on such signs was of sufficient size and contrast to be read by a disabled driver or passenger without needing to search for small print across the site.

In the absence of such evidence, POPLA should conclude that the alleged contractual terms were not adequately communicated and cannot be enforced.

5. Failure to make reasonable adjustments – Equality Act 2010

The driver is a disabled person and holds a Blue Badge. The badge is issued only to those whose mobility and daily activities are substantially and long-term impaired. The Equality Act 2010 requires service providers, including car park operators, to make reasonable adjustments so that disabled people are not placed at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled people.

Reasonable adjustments in a car park context include:

– clearer and more prominent signage at disabled bays in larger, more legible text;
– ensuring that key terms (such as whether Blue Badge holders must pay and any risk of a large charge) are made immediately obvious to disabled drivers;
– allowing longer consideration and payment times to account for slower mobility, use of walking aids, or difficulty reading signs and using machines or apps.

In this case, Initial Parking appears to have a blanket policy that “These tariffs do apply to Blue Badge holders” but has failed to communicate this clearly at the point of parking in the disabled bay. A disabled driver who parks for about 12 minutes in a disabled bay, believing in good faith that a Blue Badge entitles them to park, should not be penalised with a £100 charge where the operator has not provided clear, accessible information or reasonable adjustments.

Although POPLA cannot make a binding finding of discrimination, it can and should recognise that a charge which would be contrary to the Equality Act is not “fair” or “reasonable” and should not be upheld.

6. No evidence of landowner authority

Initial Parking is put to strict proof that it has a fully executed, contemporaneous contract with the landowner (Y Ganolfan Community Centre or its lawful managing agent) granting it authority to:

– manage parking on the land;
– issue Parking Charge Notices; and
– pursue payment and legal action in its own name.

A generic, redacted contract or a short witness statement will not be sufficient. POPLA and the courts require evidence that the operator has standing to offer parking contracts and recover charges for the specific site and period in question.

In the absence of such evidence, the operator has no standing to enforce charges and the appeal must be allowed.

7. ANPR evidence, consideration and grace periods

The operator relies solely on ANPR entry and exit times to assert a contravention. Even if the NtK were otherwise PoFA-compliant (which is denied), the ANPR evidence does not establish:

– when the vehicle was actually parked in a bay;
– how long it remained stationary;
– what the driver was doing (reading signs, assisting a disabled passenger, deciding whether to stay, or choosing to leave); or
– that any applicable consideration or grace periods were exceeded.

The total time between ANPR images is only 12 minutes 41 seconds. For a disabled Blue Badge holder, that period could easily be taken up by:

– entering and finding an appropriate disabled bay;
– assisting the disabled driver or passenger to alight;
– attempting to read any signs that might apply to the bay; and
– deciding to leave once the situation is unclear.

The PPSCoP requires operators to allow a consideration period at the start and a grace period at the end of parking. Disabled motorists may reasonably require longer periods to perform the same tasks as non-disabled motorists. Initial Parking has produced no evidence of the actual time spent parked, nor that any fair and reasonable observation, consideration and grace periods were exceeded.

On the balance of probabilities, a total “time on site” of around 12 minutes for a disabled Blue Badge holder is consistent with genuine attempts to understand unclear signage and then leave, rather than any deliberate attempt to avoid payment.

Conclusion

For the reasons set out above:

– the operator has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, so keeper liability does not arise;
– the operator has failed to comply with PPSCoP Section 4.1, because no sign containing the terms and conditions was visible from within the vehicle in the disabled bay;
– the signage, particularly in relation to disabled bays and Blue Badge holders, was inadequate and unclear;
– the operator has not demonstrated any reasonable adjustments as required by the Equality Act 2010;
– no evidence has been provided of sufficient landowner authority; and
– the ANPR evidence does not show any breach of a clearly-communicated term, particularly once consideration and grace periods for a disabled motorist are taken into account.

I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and direct Initial Parking Ltd to cancel this Parking Charge Notice.

Thank you for this - I have submitted this to POPla - let`s see what they come up with.

Have they rebutted or answered all the points raised in the appeal?

Can you please show us their "evidence" especially any photos of the signs at the bay where the driver parked. Also, we need to see their evidence of landowner authority.

Use something like DropBox or Google Drive to show us. Just make sure that it is set to "public".

You can copy and paste the following as your response to the operators evidence:

The operator has failed to rebut the substantive points raised in the original appeal and has not discharged the burden of proof required to establish keeper liability, standing to operate, or compliance with the applicable Codes of Practice. The evidence provided does not cure the defects identified in the appeal and, in several respects, reinforces them.

Keeper liability under PoFA has not been established. The original appeal challenged PoFA compliance, including the absence of a properly specified period of parking and the status of the land as relevant land. The operator’s evidence does not meaningfully address these challenges.

The Notice to Keeper relies solely on ANPR entry and exit timestamps and labels the difference between those timestamps as a parking duration. The operator does not explain how this constitutes a “period of parking” as required by PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a). ANPR timestamps show only when a vehicle passed cameras at the site boundary. They do not identify when the vehicle was stationary, how long it was actually parked, or how much of the time was spent entering, manoeuvring, considering the terms, assisting a disabled occupant, or exiting. The operator has not provided any evidence of an actual period of parking. This point was raised in the original appeal and has not been rebutted. In the absence of a properly specified period of parking, PoFA compliance is not established and keeper liability cannot arise.

Further, the operator has not proved that the land is “relevant land” for the purposes of PoFA Schedule 4. Under paragraph 3(1)(b), land is not relevant land if it is a parking place provided or controlled by a traffic authority. Paragraph 3(2)(f) expressly includes a parish or community council within the definition of a traffic authority. This location is a community facility operated for public/community use. The operator has produced no reliable evidence identifying the true landowner or controller of the parking land and no evidence excluding parish or community council provision or control. In the absence of strict proof that the parking place is not provided or controlled by a traffic authority, PoFA keeper liability cannot be assumed or applied.

Even if PoFA were capable of applying, the operator has failed to demonstrate the necessary standing to operate and enforce parking charges. The operator relies on a single “Contract for Parking Enforcement”, a blurred Google satellite/Street View style plan, and a separate signage key as its entire evidence of landowner authority. This does not satisfy the mandatory requirements of section 14.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, which is in force in respect of landowner relationships. In other words, the operator has not shown that it obtained the written confirmation required by the operative Code before issuing parking charges.

Section 14.1(a) requires written confirmation of the identity of the landowner. The agreement merely names “Y Ganolfan Community Centre” and does not properly identify the landowner as a legal entity, does not provide a registered address, and does not evidence that the signatory has authority to bind the landowner.

Section 14.1(b) requires a boundary map of the land to be managed. What the operator provides is not a boundary map. It is a blurred aerial image with coloured dots and a separate key. There is no defined boundary line, no scale, no clear orientation, and no reliable way to determine what land is actually controlled. The key contains symbols and sign types that are not all identifiable on the plan, making correlation impossible. This is a fundamental failure, particularly where ANPR is used and the precise boundary of controlled land is critical.

Section 14.1(c) requires written confirmation of any byelaws that may apply. The operator’s documents are silent on byelaws. This omission is material, because where byelaws apply they can take precedence and may prohibit the issuing of parking charges unless properly addressed.

Section 14.1(d) requires written confirmation of the permission granted to the operator and the duration of that permission. The agreement contains no start date, end date, duration, renewal term, or termination provisions. Signatures dated on different dates in 2023 do not establish continuing authority at the material time without a stated duration. POPLA cannot assume indefinite permission where the Code requires it to be stated.

Section 14.1(e) requires written confirmation of the parking terms and conditions to be applied, including tariffs, free parking periods, and exemptions. The agreement does not set out the parking terms and conditions. It merely states the parking charge amounts and includes brief restrictions such as “No concessions for Blue Badge Holders”. It does not confirm tariffs, free periods, payment windows, exemptions, or the contractual terms allegedly offered to motorists. This is precisely the information the Code requires and it is absent.

Section 14.1(f) is only partially addressed, with a vague reference to “ANPR linked with P&D Machines” and no clear confirmation of the means by which parking charges are issued. Sections 14.1(g) to (j) are not addressed at all. There is no allocation of responsibility for obtaining relevant consents, no proper statement of obligations under which the operator is working in compliance with the Code and ATA membership, no notification of documentation to be supplied to authorised bodies on request, and no confirmation of the operator’s approach to handling appeals. Those matters are explicitly required by section 14.1 before a parking charge can be issued.

Accordingly, on the operator’s own evidence, the mandatory landowner relationship requirements in PPSCoP section 14.1 have not been met. The operator has failed to prove standing to issue or enforce parking charges.

The operator has also failed to rebut the signage challenges raised in the original appeal. Signage is assessed against the British Parking Association Code of Practice v9, which was the applicable signage Code at the material time.

At the entrance, the operator relies on a single pole-mounted sign of typical overall dimensions, split into two unequal bilingual sections with the English section being smaller. This design compresses the English content into dense, multi-line text. Appendix B of BPA CoP v9 requires entrance signage to be readable on approach and sets minimum capital letter heights for primary (“Group 1”) entrance text by reference to approach speed. The operator’s own photograph shows no English headline text displayed in capitals anywhere close to the scale contemplated by the BPA guidance for a turn-in from a main road. The operator has not rebutted the keeper’s challenge that the English text is not readable on entry. Instead it relies on assertion (“very large signs”), which does not address legibility, prominence, or letter height.

At the disabled bay, the failure is more serious and remains unrebutted. The original appeal stated that there are no terms and conditions signs visible from within the disabled bay. The operator has not produced any photograph taken from the disabled bay or from a driver’s eye-level position within that bay. The only sign adjacent to the bay is a small notice stating that tariffs apply to Blue Badge holders. It does not contain the parking terms, payment methods, tariffs, or the £100 charge. It is a partial advisory notice, not contractual terms, and it is not visible to a driver who parks normally by driving forward into the bay. The operator’s evidence does not contradict the keeper’s account; it avoids the bay-level visibility point entirely.

The operator has also failed to rebut the Equality Act and BPA CoP v9 Section 19 points raised in the original appeal. Simply stating that “tariffs do apply to Blue Badge holders” does not demonstrate that reasonable adjustments were made or that key information was accessible to disabled motorists. Nor has the operator explained how a disabled driver could reasonably read and understand the terms before parking, particularly given the absence of any terms sign visible from the disabled bay.

Finally, the operator has not rebutted the consideration period point arising from the very short stay. It relies on generic statements about leaving within 10 minutes and “grace periods” but provides no evidence of how any consideration period was applied, when it began, when it ended, or how it was assessed for a disabled motorist. Repeating a policy statement does not rebut a factual challenge.

In summary, the operator has not rebutted the key points raised in the appeal. It has not established PoFA compliance, has not proved that the land is relevant land for PoFA purposes, has failed to prove standing and written landowner authority under the operative PPSCoP section 14.1 requirements, and has not demonstrated compliant signage or accessibility under BPA Code of Practice v9. On the operator’s own evidence, keeper liability cannot arise and the appeal must be allowed.