Free Traffic Legal Advice

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, I received this NTK as you can see attached. The driver seems to have parked the car in the car park and went into the shops. It looks to me that the red car parked next to my vehicle is also over the bay marking. This could have therefore forced the driver to park awkwardly and not within the markings. This can be seen in the pics attached.

Google maps link to parking location:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Zc8V2vWZtLWTnkQb8?g_st=ac

Parking charge date is 06/08/25. Please advise on next steps to appeal.
Thank you.

Thank you. I will send the appeal as written above and get back once I've received a response. Much appreciated.

If you scroll to the top of the private parking forum there's a post called "READ THIS FIRST" that includes a guide to attaching images.

So do a search of the forum for any recent POPLA appeals and put one together and show it before you send it.

Is anyone able to help me put together a POPLA appeal for the above case. Thanks. Will be much appreciated

Please see the following POPLA appeal draft and suggest any amendments or additions to make. Thanks. Much appreciated.

Appeal Draft:

The appeal is based on the following grounds:
1. UKPC’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

2. No Presumption That the Keeper Was the Driver.
____

1. UKPC’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

• UKPC has not met the statutory requirements under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

• The NtK issued only states that the vehicle was observed at 19:23, which is a single moment in time, not a period of parking.

• Case law in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H] confirms that PoFA requires a defined period of parking, and a mere timestamp does not satisfy this requirement.

• Since UKPC has failed to comply with PoFA, Keeper liability does not apply, and they can only pursue the driver, whom they have not identified.

Accordingly, POPLA must rule that the PCN is unenforceable against the Keeper.

2. No Presumption That the Keeper Was the Driver

• UKPC has made no attempt to identify the driver and is attempting to hold the Registered Keeper liable without meeting PoFA compliance.

• In VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9CC], the court reaffirmed that there is no presumption in law that the Keeper was the driver.

• The Registered Keeper has exercised their right not to name the driver, and no adverse inference can be drawn.

As UKPC has not identified the driver, and the Keeper is not liable under PoFA, the PCN must be cancelled.

In conclusion, the PCN issued by UKPC is fundamentally flawed on legal and evidential grounds. The NtK fails to comply with PoFA due to the absence of a “period of parking,” making Keeper liability impossible. And there is no presumption that the Keeper was the driver, and UKPC has not identified the driver.

Given these significant deficiencies, I request that POPLA allow this appeal and cancel the PCN in its entirety.

Signed,

[Registered Keeper's Name]

Although the letter says you have 28 days, actually you have 33.