Have you tried contacting Lidl to ask them to get the PCN cancelled? Were you a customer and do you have any receipts for purchases that day?
Don't try the customer services bods, they are usually clueless. If the store manager is not forthcoming go to the top of the management food chain and make a complaint there. Do you think it is fair that you should be penalised by an unregulated private parking company by being invoiced for £100 whilst being a patron of their store?
You can show a copy of your blue badge as evidence of eligibility to use the accessible bay.
Here is a suggested letter to the store manager or even the Lidl CEO:
Store Manager
Lidl [Store Location]
[Store Address]
[City, Postcode]
Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Parking Charge Issued to a Blue Badge Holder
Dear Store Manager,
I am writing as the registered keeper of a vehicle that was issued an unjust parking charge notice (PCN) by your appointed parking management company, UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC), for an alleged contravention at your store’s car park on 29th November 2024. The driver of the vehicle, a regular patron of Lidl, utilised one of the accessible parking spaces during this visit.
The driver holds a valid Blue Badge, which was displayed at the start of the visit. However, upon returning to the vehicle, it was discovered that the Blue Badge had fallen to the floor. This may have occurred due to the boot being opened to retrieve shopping bags, causing a draft through the vehicle while the front door was open. Despite this unfortunate circumstance, the driver was fully entitled to use the accessible parking space as a Blue Badge holder. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the Blue Badge for your reference.
I wish to bring to your attention that under the Equality Act 2010, businesses and service providers, including Lidl and its agents, have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to ensure that disabled customers are not placed at a disadvantage. The failure to display a badge does not negate the fact that the driver is a disabled individual with a lawful right to use accessible parking spaces. The driver's disability does not cease to exist simply because a badge temporarily fell out of view.
UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC) is an unregulated private parking company, and their PCN is simply a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver. However, the issuance of this charge is an insult to a genuine customer of Lidl who was entitled to use the space provided.
Additionally, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by UKPC fails to comply with all the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The NtK does not specify a period of parking, as required by PoFA, but instead only shows a single moment in time. This fundamental flaw in the NtK renders it non-compliant and unenforceable against the registered keeper. The Brennan v Premier Parking appeal case confirmed that a period of parking must be recorded, and a single timestamp is insufficient to demonstrate a parking contravention.
Your appointed parking management company has issued a parking charge of £100 for an alleged breach of terms and conditions. This charge is both disproportionate and unjustified, particularly given the context. By allowing such a charge to be pursued against a disabled patron, Lidl risks being in breach of its legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
As the registered keeper, I respectfully request that Lidl intervenes with its parking management company to ensure that this charge is cancelled immediately. Furthermore, I would appreciate it if you could review your current parking enforcement practices to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. It is imperative that Lidl ensures its agents act in accordance with equality legislation and do not penalise disabled individuals unfairly.
I trust that Lidl values its customers and will take swift action to resolve this matter. Please confirm receipt of this letter and provide an update on the steps being taken to cancel the parking charge.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
Enclosures: Copy of Blue Badge
UKPC have no idea of the drivers identity and their Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA 2012 which means that as long as the driver is not identified, inadvertently or otherwise, they cannot transfer liability to the Keeper. There is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company. So, always appeal as the Keeper and refer to the driver in the third person.
Here is a suggested appeal (only as the Keeper) to UKPC.
Subject: Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice [PCN Reference Number]
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing as the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced in the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN). I wish to appeal this charge on the following grounds:
1. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC) fails to comply with the requirements of PoFA to hold the registered keeper liable. Specifically, the NtK does not specify a period of parking, only a single moment in time. This is a fundamental requirement under Schedule 4 of PoFA, which clearly states that a period of parking must be identified. Without this, the NtK is non-compliant, and liability cannot be transferred to the registered keeper.
The importance of specifying a period of parking is supported by persuasive appeals case law. In Brennan v Premier Parking Logistics (2023), it was confirmed that a single timestamp does not constitute a period of parking and is insufficient to demonstrate a contravention. The court in that case ruled that a lack of a specified period rendered the NtK non-compliant with PoFA.
2. Inadequate and Non-Compliant Signage
The signage at the location fails to comply with the standards set out in the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The terms and conditions, including the parking charge amount, must be clearly visible and legible to drivers before they park. However, at this location, the signage is unclear, with important terms hidden in small print that would not be easily noticed by drivers.
In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of prominent signage to establish a contractual agreement. In this case, the court ruled that clear and prominent signage was essential to forming a contract with a driver. The failure of UKPC's signage to meet these standards means that no contract could have been formed, and the parking charge is unenforceable.
Additionally, the failure to adequately bring the charge amount to the driver’s attention is a breach of Schedule 4 of PoFA and the PPSCoP. The charge must be prominently displayed to avoid allegations of entrapment or unfair practices. The BPA Code of Practice also requires that parking charges must not be hidden in terms and conditions but should be clearly brought to the attention of drivers. The signage at this location falls far short of these requirements.
3. Equality Act 2010 – Discrimination Against a Disabled Driver
The driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention is a Blue Badge holder and fully entitled to use the accessible parking space. The Blue Badge was displayed during the visit but was later found to have fallen to the floor. Under the Equality Act 2010, service providers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals to ensure they are not placed at a disadvantage.
Penalising a disabled customer for circumstances beyond their control, such as a badge falling to the floor, is both unreasonable and discriminatory.[/indent]
4. Misapplication of Keeper Liability and Driver Assumptions
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver. In VCS v Edward (2023), the court reinforced that there is no presumption in law that the registered keeper is the driver. Parking operators must provide evidence of the driver’s identity to pursue a claim against them. Without such evidence, the claim must fail.
This case is relevant because in VCS v Edward, the judge made it clear that operators cannot simply assume the keeper was the driver and must prove who was driving at the time of the alleged contravention.
5. No Realistic Prospect of Success at POPLA
Given the numerous failings outlined above, it is clear that UKPC has no realistic prospect of defending this charge at POPLA. The NtK is non-compliant with PoFA, the signage does not meet the required standards, and the circumstances of the alleged contravention are covered under the Equality Act 2010.
UKPC is urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN immediately. Pursuing this charge further would be unreasonable and may be viewed as harassment, given the lack of a legal basis to enforce it.
Please confirm receipt of this appeal and advise of the outcome within the stipulated deadlines.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
Registered Keeper
Useful x 1
View List
Agree x 1
View List