Free Traffic Legal Advice

Don't overthink this. It's only POPLA and their decision is not binding on you if it is not successful.

The “my tenancy is the only contract that matters” point still stands, even if your landlord has signed a contract with UKPC. The landowner/landlord giving UKPC authority to operate on the site is a completely different thing from you, as tenant, agreeing to pay UKPC for using your own bay.

UKPC’s landowner contract only does one thing that matters here. It shows the landowner has authorised UKPC to operate a scheme and issue charges to people who breach whatever terms apply.

It does not create any contractual obligation from you, the tenant, to UKPC; or override or vary the terms of your tenancy; or allow the landlord to “take back” your parking space and turn it into a pay-per-breach trap.

Your legal position is still your right to use that allocated bay and comes from your tenancy and what was agreed (and advertised) when you took the flat. The landlord cannot, by a side contract with UKPC, derogate from that grant by allowing a third party to penalise you for normal use of the space that formed part of the let.

UKPC’s contract with the landowner is, at most, evidence of authority to deal with unauthorised or third-party vehicles. It does not magically make you their “customer” or “contracting party”. So yes, the “my tenancy is the primary contract” line absolutely still holds, even knowing the landlord has signed with UKPC.

Their line: “The parking charges issued by UK Parking Control Limited are based on a contractual agreement between UKPC and the driver, as detailed on the signage…” That might hold water for shoppers in a retail park, or random visitors, without any prior entitlement to park.

You are neither. You already had a pre-existing right to park in that bay, as part of the tenancy deal (“1-bedroom flat + 1 parking space”), no clause in your tenancy that requires a permit or requires compliance with UKPC’s regime or authorises a third party to charge you for using your own space.

In that context. when you park in your own allocated bay, you are exercising your tenancy right, not “accepting an offer” from UKPC’s sign. There is no new consideration, no clear agreement to pay, and no realistic sense in which you would be voluntarily signing up to pay £100+ to park in the space you are already paying rent for.

So your POPLA comment will draw a clear distinction, for a non-resident, the signs might be the only basis for a contract and for a resident with an allocated space, the signs cannot override the tenancy and cannot create a second, contradictory “contract” to pay for using that space.

Simply copy and paste the following into the response webform. DO not try to edit it or change anything:

I make the following submissions in response to UKPC’s evidence.

First, my tenancy agreement is the only contract that governs my occupation of the flat and my use of the facilities that come with it, including the allocated parking space. The property was advertised and let to me as a one-bedroom flat with one parking space. I only ever park in that allocated bay. My tenancy agreement contains no clause requiring me to display a permit, no clause requiring me to comply with any private parking scheme, and no clause authorising a third-party parking company to levy charges against me for using my own space.

Under basic principles of landlord and tenant law, including the Landlord and Tenant Acts, a landlord cannot unilaterally change the terms of a residential tenancy by making a private side agreement with a third party. Any variation of the tenancy terms would require either a specific variation mechanism in the tenancy itself, a new agreement which I sign, or the use of a formal statutory procedure. None of that has happened here. There has been no variation of my tenancy, no fresh agreement, and no statutory process. My tenancy terms therefore remain exactly as originally granted: a flat with a parking space and no obligation to display a permit or to contract with UKPC.

The separate contract between the landowner or managing agent and UKPC does not bind me. I am not a party to it and I have never agreed to it. That contract may authorise UKPC to control and ticket vehicles which have no independent right to be on the land, but it does not and cannot override the rights granted to me by my tenancy. It cannot convert my normal use of my own allocated bay into a breach of some supposed “contract” with UKPC. It is legally incapable of varying my tenancy or imposing new financial obligations on me without my informed agreement.

UKPC claim that there is a contractual agreement between themselves and the driver, based on their signage. That might conceivably apply to a visitor or member of the public with no existing right to park. It does not apply to a tenant who already has a pre-existing right to park granted by a tenancy. When I park in my own allocated bay, I am exercising rights I already hold under my tenancy, not accepting UKPC’s “offer” on a sign. There is no meaningful offer and acceptance here, and no fresh consideration. I am simply using the parking space that formed part of the bargain when I rented the flat. The idea that I chose to enter into a second, inconsistent contract to pay UKPC £100 for the privilege of using what I already pay rent for is not credible.

Any permit scheme in this context can only be administrative. A resident’s permit is at most a way of identifying which vehicle belongs to which flat. It is evidence of an existing right to park, not the source of that right. Failing to display a permit for a short period does not extinguish the tenancy right to use the space and does not magically create a new obligation to pay penalties to a third-party contractor. UKPC has produced no clause from my tenancy that says otherwise, because no such clause exists.

Regarding the “relevant land” point, UKPC now say that Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 only requires the relevant land to be specified and does not require the identity of the road or city. That may be correct in the abstract, but it is not what happened in this case. On my Parking Charge Notice, UKPC chose to identify a specific road and address where they allege my car was parked. That address is wrong. I was not parked at the location written on the notice. I was parked in the parking space allocated to my flat at a different address, as shown by UKPC’s own photographs and by the email from my estate agent confirming which bay belongs to my flat.

Schedule 4 requires the notice to “specify the relevant land on which the vehicle was parked”. In my case, the land specified on the notice is not the land where my vehicle was actually parked. UKPC cannot dismiss this as a mere convenience when they themselves chose to give a specific location and got it wrong. If they wish to rely on Schedule 4 to pursue keeper liability, they must at least correctly identify the land on which the car was parked. They have not done so here. The notice is factually inaccurate about where my car was parked and therefore fails to correctly specify the relevant land. That alone is enough to defeat any attempt to hold the keeper liable under PoFA.

I do not dispute that UKPC has some form of contract with the landowner or managing agent, nor that they have signs, equipment or staff on site. That is not the issue in this appeal. The issue is whether UKPC has any lawful right to demand money from me, a tenant, for parking in the space that was let to me with my flat.

UKPC’s paragraph about equipment, signage and personnel “proving” authority entirely misses the point. It is perfectly possible for a landowner to authorise a parking company to manage unauthorised or visitor parking while the tenants’ own rights to use their allocated bays remain governed exclusively by their tenancies. That is exactly the situation here. My tenancy gives me the right to my bay; it has never been varied to require me to pay UKPC anything. The presence of signs and staff does not create a contract between UKPC and me, nor does it amend my tenancy.

UKPC’s statement “I am sure that if the parking operator was not allowed to issue charges on site the landowner would not permit the parking operator to keep its signage on site” is pure speculation and proves nothing. It tells POPLA nothing about the scope of UKPC’s authority in relation to tenants with allocated bays, and nothing about whether my tenancy rights can be overridden. Their own redacted contract does not say that tenants’ contractual rights under their leases or tenancies are displaced, and UKPC has produced no clause from my tenancy that does this either.

UKPC’s reliance on “contract by signage” is also logically one-sided. If I placed a sign in my car window stating that anyone who photographs my vehicle in my allocated bay agrees to pay me £100, no reasonable person or court would treat that as creating a genuine, enforceable contract. The photographer would not have freely accepted those terms, nor intended to enter into such a bargain, merely by performing their usual activity. Yet this is essentially what UKPC claims to have done to me: they say their signs can impose a substantial charge on a tenant already granted the right to park by a tenancy, without any proper negotiation or variation of that tenancy. This highlights how artificial UKPC’s “contract from a sign” theory is in the context of a resident with primacy of contract.

In short: even if UKPC has authority from the landowner to operate a scheme on the site, that authority does not bind me unless my own tenancy incorporates those terms or has been validly varied. It has not. Their generic assertions about signage and “authorisation” do not answer my core point that my tenancy has primacy, and that I never agreed to pay UKPC for using my own allocated space.

To summarise: I am a tenant whose flat was let with a parking space. I park only in that allocated space. My tenancy has never been varied to require me to display a permit or to submit to UKPC’s regime. The landlord’s private contract with UKPC cannot, as a matter of landlord and tenant law, unilaterally change my tenancy or impose new obligations on me. UKPC’s attempt to rely on signage to create a separate contract with me ignores the primacy of my tenancy and the fact that I am simply using what I already pay rent for. In addition, the Parking Charge Notice misidentifies the location and fails to correctly specify the relevant land for the purposes of PoFA.

For all of these reasons, there is no valid contract between me and UKPC for parking in my own bay, and no keeper liability arises. The appeal should be allowed.

Popla decision received, my appeal was rejected even after the information that was provided (which you kindly helped me with).  Please can you let me know my next course of action, just continue to ignore requests for payment?  I'm fully committed to my decision not to pay as I whole-heartedly disagree with their decision.

Full response copied below, redacted personal info:
--
Decision - Unsuccessful
Assessor Name - XXXX
Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle was parked in a permit area without displaying a permit.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal • They had been renting at XXX – the address on the PCN has a postcode for a different road (XXX) at which there is no number XX • They parked the car in their designated bay whilst sorting tax and insurance details • They were aware of the need for a permit but could not get one immediately (it was a Saturday) • The spoke with ‘Property management company’ and their estate agent on the following Monday when offices were open – messages were left • They had handed in their notice for the property at this point also • They believed they had shown the operator they had a right to park here, with the permit absence explained by mitigating circumstances • They do not disagree they parked in a permit controlled parking area without displaying a permit After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant remarks the tenancy agreement allows parking and does not specify a requirement to display a permit. The appellant remarks a court would not find the £100 parking charge enforceable. The appellant has provided evidence to support their appeal. • Email chain with agent and statement about tenancy • V5 image • Image of the PCN The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.
Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The operator has provided documentary evidence to demonstrate the landowner has entered into a contract with them giving them authority to manage and enforce parking terms. A signage plan has also been submitted to demonstrate the private land upon which the alleged parking breach took place is within their controlled parking area. Whilst I do not doubt that the appellant was a tenant/resident of XXXX on the day of this parking event, I do not conclude there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate a tenancy agreement they have with the property agent exempts them from the parking terms enforced on the land surrounding the residential property. If the appellant believed it the terms of the tenancy agreement that authorised parking, it is unclear why they says they were aware of the need to obtain a separate permit to park. Parking operators are required to source details about the registered keeper from the DVLA only. I note the appellant has raised that the PCN was sent to XXX with a postcode listed for a different road. The appellant has sent a copy of their V5 to show when they acquired the vehicle, and notably this has the postcode XXX which is the same as the one used on the PCN and on the balance of probability sourced from the DVLA. I cannot fault the operator for using postcode that the DVLA held and V5 documents show to be the one associated with the appellant’s address at the time. The appellant evidently received the PCN and was able to appeal to the parking operator and subsequently appeal to POPLA. The postcode on the PCN would have no bearing one whether the vehicle parked compliantly and in line with listed terms and conditions on the 1st of October 2025. The terms of use communicated on signage placed by the operator at the site says that vehicles parked in numbered bays (the non-visitor bays) “Must be parked within designated bay with a valid permit displayed”. Notice is also given then failure to comply with the terms of use will result in a PCN for £100. The operator has submitted a series of time and date stamped images of the appellant vehicle parked in bay 17 within their controlled parking area. The operator has also sent digital images to show what a valid parking permit looks like. There is no valid parking permit seen visible in the appellant’s vehicle. The wardens photographs show the vehicle parked in close proximity to the operator’s terms of use signage. The appellant has explained how they came to own the vehicle at short notice and that it was not immediately possible to obtain a valid parking permit to display in the vehicle using bay 17. The appellant could have parked elsewhere until a permit was obtained to avoid receipt of a PCN. I cannot hold the operator ‘UK Parking Control Ltd’ at fault for any delayed responses from third parties such as ‘*Property Management Company*’ or the agent. I acknowledge the appellant states a court would not consider the £100 parking charge enforceable. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage itself. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the legibility of the signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it. After considering the evidence from both parties, I conclude the appellant parked in a permit area without displaying a valid permit and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.

I can’t read your attachment, but it probably doesn’t matter.

Don’t pay, and then ignore letters from debt collectors and come back when you get a formal Letter of Claim.

They won’t take it to court, because they’d lose. Until now the only assessment has been by a compromised collection of people who only want your money. But you will need to follow the process, for which you will get advice here. Their tactics are to frighten you into paying.

Being “screwed further down the line” means paying £0, but if that worries you then by all means pay up now. Just let us know if you do, so we can stop helping you.

It’s an incestuous system in which the “independent” assessors are in the pay of the parking companies. Neither POPLA nor the IAS do the “right thing” because their paymasters are the parking companies, not their victims.

The only way in which your credit rating is affected negatively is if you lose in court and don’t pay within one month. Neither is likely to happen provided you stay on the ball and note any deadlines.