Free Traffic Legal Advice

Speaking to the shopping centre is always a wise starting point.

Do you have photos of the signage in the car park?

What evidence has UKPC provided to prove the assertion that the vehicle was parked in that bay without a "toddler" present?

I would love to hear the legal definition of a "toddler" explained to a court. This has ZERO chance ever make it to a hearing and I would also challenge POPLA to provide a definition.

Especially if the terms: "Only cars with children present should park in the parent and toddler section" shows that the term "toddler" could just as well be "rugrat" or "ankle-biter". The point is that it is for parents and children.

Unless the signage clearly defines the age limit, it is impossible for any enforcement action to stand up in court if challenged. Even then, how do you check the age? Does a parking bod go up to the parent and challenge them over the Child's age? Can you imagine the legal ramifications of that under the Equality Act? Legally speaking, “Parent & Toddler” bays are not governed by statute in the UK.

This one is worth getting the popcorn out as it will just be another of UKPC's disastrous attempts to scam money out of the Keeper.

As no initial appeal is ever going to succeed, the first thing is to get the appeal rejection and a POPLA code. I advise you to send the following appeal to UKPC as the Keeper only. No need to amend or change anything:

I appeal as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

You've issued a parking charge on the basis that the car was in a “Parent and Toddler” bay without a toddler present. Let me ask: what exactly do you think a 'toddler' is? And more importantly — where is that defined on your signs?

The actual parking terms — as per the shopping centre’s own website — state:

“Only cars with children present should park in the parent and toddler section.”

Read that again: 'children'. Not 'toddlers'. Not 'babies'. Not 'kids in nappies'. Just 'children'. If you are unable to grasp that concept, then I suggest you pass this appeal to a responsible adult.

So unless you've got some sort of time-travelling ANPR system that can scan DNA and age profiles from inside the car, this is nothing more than a speculative and baseless charge.

And even if the word "toddler" were relevant — which it absolutely isn't — then let’s be honest:

"toddler" is just marketing fluff. It could just as easily be “rug rat,” “ankle biter,” or “little sprog” for all the legal weight it carries. Are you going to start issuing tickets because someone brought a “child” instead of a “tot”? Try running that logic by a judge and see how far it gets.

No signage defines any age, no terms make clear what qualifies as a “toddler”, and no evidence has been provided that no child was present. There was a child — a primary schooler, in a booster seat, accompanying the driver into the shopping centre. That’s all your own published terms require.

This charge is an embarrassment. If you’re actually paying people to dream up this kind of unenforceable drivel, you might want to audit your entire operation.

If you reject this appeal — and let’s be honest, you will, because that’s what your system is designed to do — then I’ll take my free ticket to POPLA. Bring it on.

I agree that the charge is ridiculous given there was a young child present.

Is there a 'template' response for this sort of thing or key phrases you need to use or avoid when you challenge it?

You’ve been given a tailored, specific, non-template response above.