Free Traffic Legal Advice

I respond to the operator's evidence as follows:
But first I must point out some incorrect statements in their evidence:
a)   UKPC state “An appeal was received from the vehicle driver MR ..”.  However, the appeal was made by the keeper.
b)   UKPC state “the vehicle was positioned in a manner that caused an obstruction”.  This is not true as can be seen in the photos of the NtK.  And I would reiterate the comments in the appeal at section 3.
c)   UKPC state “The vehicle was parked adjacent to the signage”.  This is not true.  The car was parked some distance from the signage show in UKPC’s NtK photos. 
d)   UKPC state “The appellant has stated that there isn’t a clear date that the period of parking.”  Whilst grammatically incorrect, the keeper did not state the same.
1. PoFA Compliance: UKPC states that the Notice to Keeper complies with Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This is incorrect. The NtK only includes a single timestamp (11:12:14) and does not specify a "period of parking" as required by Paragraph 9(2)(a). This omission means that the NtK is non-compliant, and the operator cannot pursue the registered keeper. UKPC has made no attempt to explain how a single moment in time constitutes a period of parking, nor have they addressed the precedent set in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023), which confirms that a period of parking is required. Without a recorded duration, it is also impossible to establish whether the vehicle remained on site longer than the minimum consideration period that must be allowed before any contractual terms can take effect. Simply regurgitating that the NtK is PoFA compliant does not make it so. PoFA is not a “best efforts” checklist. It is an all-or-nothing statute. You cannot be “mostly PoFA compliant” any more than someone can be “mostly pregnant.” It’s binary: you either fully comply, or you don’t. As shown here, UKPC does not.
The purpose of this Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice 5.1 Annex B is to set the MANDATORY minima for the consideration periods that parking operators are required to apply. “As a matter of contract law, drivers need to be given an appropriate opportunity to understand and decide whether to accept the terms and conditions that apply should they choose to park a vehicle on controlled land.”
UKPC state “The vehicle was parked adjacent to the signage” – this is not true.  The car was parked some distance from the signage show in UKPC’s NtK photos.  Furthermore, that same sign is some 10 feet or more above the road and partially obscured by foliage.
UKPC state “no one was at the signage or in the vehicle, which supports the conclusion that a parking event did take place”.  This suggests that a driver cannot view other more easily accessible signs without being presented with a PCN.
UKPC has provided no “evidence the consideration period had expired”. 
Therefore, in the absence of an 'agreed contract' I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld.


2. Presumption of Driver Identity: UKPC has not identified the driver. Their comments imply an assumption that the keeper was the driver, but they have not contested or rebutted the legal position in VCS v Edward (2023) which makes clear that no such presumption exists in law. As UKPC has not identified the driver, and PoFA has not been complied with, the keeper cannot be held liable.

3. Landowner Authority: UKPC has failed to provide any evidence of landowner authority. Their evidence pack does not include a contract, redacted or otherwise, no witness statement, and no proof that they are authorised to operate on this land. UKPC’s narrative merely asserts that a contract exists, but nothing is provided to support this. This is a clear breach of Section 14 of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)). POPLA requires documentary evidence of landowner authority, and UKPC has failed to provide it. The appeal must be allowed on this basis alone.

4. UKPC’s photographic evidence shows the vehicle parked along side other vehicles parked on the same section of the car park. However, whilst other sections on the car park include double yellow lines and/or white road markings in the centre of a road to indicate no parking, the subject area lacked any such markings.  Hence, if other cars are parked and a space is between them without yellow or white lines any reasonable person would view it as a parking place.  UKPC’s signage evidence indicates ‘no parking on yellow lines’ and also ‘no roadway parking’ where white lines are marked on the roadway. UKPC have not provided any signage or markings to warn drivers that use of such areas would result in a PCN.
This layout appears to be a deliberate entrapment setup: the road visually invites people to use it. Rather than include yellow lines, UKPC instead chooses to entrap. This is unfair, and the alleged contravention is not clearly established. The burden of proof remains with UKPC, and they have failed to discharge it.

5. UKPC’s failure to include yellow or white lines in this area suggests that enforcement is not based on genuine management, but on opportunistic ticketing – especially in view of the number of cars parked in the area. This undermines any suggestion that the charge serves a legitimate interest and instead reflects a model based on entrapment.

6. Signage and Photographic Evidence: UKPC has included photographs of signage taken at the time of the alleged contravention, but these images do not assist their case. UKPC fails to address the keeper’s evidence of ambiguous signage (see previous photos) or the fact that the entrance sign is on the left of the vehicle and is not legible from the driver's seat of a vehicle entering from the road into the development except for the words “P 3 Hours Maximum Stay”.
UKPC, have not addressed the existence of the other signs in the keepers photographic evidence one of which indicates the property “is managed by Savills” and another which indicate “Parking time limit is 3 hours” without any conditions attached.
UKPC's photographic evidence cannot be relied upon as it is out of date and not viewed from the position of a driver's seat of a vehicle entering the car park.
Furthermore, POPLA has previously upheld numerous appeals where UKPC signage was found to be non-compliant with both PoFA and the BPA Code of Practice. The signs in this case suffer from the same fundamental defects: poor layout, inadequate font size, and failure to make key terms—particularly the charge—sufficiently prominent.

UKPC has failed to show that any contract could have been formed, and therefore cannot demonstrate that a contravention occurred.

7. Generalised Assertions: UKPC repeatedly rely on boilerplate language rather than addressing the specific context of this case. They refer to signage and enforcement “throughout the car park” but do not show current information – UKPC photos are dated July 2025.  The operator must prove the terms were properly conveyed and that the driver breached them—this has not been done.

In conclusion, UKPC has failed to prove valid PoFA compliance, failed to prove landowner authority, failed to provide adequate signage evidence from the material date, failed to justify the charge under Beavis, and failed to rebut the specific arguments made in my appeal. I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and cancel the PCN.