Free Traffic Legal Advice

I respond to the operator's evidence as follows:

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 (16:46) 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.

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. Parent and Child Bay / Hatched Area: UKPC’s photographic evidence shows the vehicle slightly encroaching into the hatched area on one side and the rear protruding over the adjacent pedestrian walkway. However, this was clearly the result of the bay’s poor and impractical design. A large structural pillar protrudes significantly into the bay itself, reducing its usable space. UKPC has not addressed this obstruction, which physically prevents a standard vehicle from parking fully within the marked lines without some degree of overlap. The bay is marked as a parent and child space, yet only has a hatched area on one side. The adjacent bay on the other side is not a parent and child bay, meaning there is no accessible buffer zone for loading or unloading children or prams from that side. The driver had no realistic option but to position the vehicle in a way that allowed safe access from the passenger side, adjacent to the non-parent bay. UKPC have not provided any signage or markings to warn drivers that limited use of the adjacent hatched area or slight protrusion due to unavoidable obstructions would result in a PCN.

This layout appears to be a deliberate entrapment setup: a bay that visually invites parents to use it, but is physically too narrow for practical use due to the fixed pillar, with inadequate surrounding space. Rather than design their bays to be fit for purpose, UKPC instead chooses to penalise drivers forced into making reasonable adjustments to use the bay as intended. 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. Exploitation of Poor Design for Enforcement Gain: Having created a bay layout that is not fit for purpose—especially for parents with children—UKPC has opted to exploit these shortcomings rather than address them. The combination of a pillar encroaching into the bay, a single hatched side, and no warning signage about partial encroachment creates a situation where compliant parking is physically impractical. UKPC’s response is to ignore this reality and issue PCNs to drivers who make reasonable adjustments to safely use the space.

UKPC’s failure to design accessible bays or to provide signage clarifying enforcement boundaries strongly suggests that enforcement is not based on genuine management, but on opportunistic ticketing. There is no evidence that UKPC has taken steps to make this site functional or fair for users of these bays, despite their clear knowledge of the layout’s limitations. 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. The signage fails to meet the legal requirements for forming a contract or for establishing keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Specifically, it does not comply with Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 4, which requires that “adequate notice” be given of the parking charge. In this case, the charge is buried within a dense block of tiny text and is neither prominent nor clearly legible from a driver’s perspective. It is not adequately brought to the attention of the motorist and cannot form the basis of a contractual agreement.

UKPC relies on ParkingEye v Beavis as though it is a blanket justification for enforcement, but this is a misapplication of the case. In Beavis, the parking charge was the most prominent element on the sign—clearly visible, bold, and unmistakable. That is not the case here. A comparison between the UKPC sign and the Beavis sign makes it immediately obvious that the latter met the “adequate notice” standard, whereas the former does not.

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. Legitimate Interest and ParkingEye v Beavis: UKPC attempts to rely on ParkingEye v Beavis, but this case does not automatically legitimise every £100 charge. That case was context-specific, relating to free parking overstays in a busy retail car park. Here, there is no evidence of obstruction, loss of amenity, or abuse of parking time. The vehicle was parked responsibly in a wide bay designated for families, in a way that ensured safe access for children. UKPC has not shown how issuing a penalty-style charge in this case serves any genuine or proportionate interest.

8. 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 a site map, illumination, or confirm where the signs were located relative to the vehicle. Assertions that the driver could have parked elsewhere are not evidence. 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.

3. Landowner Authority: The operator has failed to provide a valid contract or sufficient evidence of landowner authority, as required under Paragraph 7.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The burden is on the operator to demonstrate that they have written authorisation from the landholder permitting them to manage the land, issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs), and pursue payment in their own name.

The only material supplied is a partial, heavily redacted document labelled as a "Services Contract" dated 19th August 2021, along with a similarly redacted “Contract Change Request Form” dated 31st March 2022. The purported contract is explicitly marked as comprising 38 pages, yet only 5 pages have been disclosed. The vast majority of the content has been blacked out, including sections that would be necessary to establish the operator’s authority, such as the scope of services, permitted enforcement rights, site-specific terms, or whether the operator is permitted to pursue charges in their own name. The change request form only references a restriction related to motorcycle bays and has no bearing on enforcement rights.

It is therefore wholly unclear whether the operator is authorised to issue PCNs at this location at all, let alone enforce them. The level of redaction renders the document ineligible as proof of standing. A court would be unlikely to give any weight to such a document, as the terms on which the operator relies are not visible, nor is it even clear that this redacted agreement relates to the area where the alleged parking contravention took place.

Unless and until a contemporaneous, unredacted agreement is produced, clearly showing the operator’s rights and obligations, the operator cannot be said to have met the evidential standard required to establish standing.