Free Traffic Legal Advice

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, namely no period of parking is defined in the NtK as required per paragraph 9(2)(a), you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn.

Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegations and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

I suggest you cancel the PCN or issue me with a POPLA code.

I am appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle against the parking charge notice issued by UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC). The grounds for my appeal are outlined below, supported by multiple failings in the Notice to Keeper (NtK) and the supporting evidence provided by UKPC. The PCN has been incorrectly issued based on the following grounds:

1. Failure to Comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) - No Period of Parking Specified

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by UKPC does not comply with PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a), which mandates that the NtK MUST specify the period of parking. The NtK only provides a single timestamp (01:54:34) but fails to indicate the duration or period during which the vehicle was allegedly parked.

Without this information, the NtK does not meet the statutory conditions necessary to hold the keeper liable. UKPC cannot transfer liability to the keeper when their NtK does not comply with PoFA, and as such, the charge must be cancelled.

2. Inadequate and Non-Compliant Signage – No Contract Formed & PoFA Failure

UKPC claims that their signage is clear and prominent, citing an absurd comparison in their rejection letter to road signs that motorists are expected to read at 70 mph. This argument is not only irrelevant but laughable in the context of a car park, where signage must be legible and sufficiently prominent at low speeds or even while stationary.

a) Hidden Terms and Conditions: The only prominent wording on the sign is "NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING." All other crucial information, including the terms of parking and the parking charge, is hidden in a wall of small text, making it impossible for any driver to reasonably read or understand the contract they are purportedly agreeing to. The wording "NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING" on the sign is prohibitory in nature. A prohibitory sign cannot form the basis of a contract because it offers no invitation to park under any terms. Instead, it acts as a deterrent, merely stating that parking is not permitted. For a contract to be valid and enforceable, there must be an offer, consideration, and acceptance, none of which can occur with a prohibitory notice.

As a result, this type of signage cannot be used to form a contractual agreement, and no breach of terms could have occurred. Therefore, no parking charge can be enforced based on this inadequate and non-compliant signage.

b) Non-compliance with BPA Code of Practice: The BPA Code of Practice mandates that parking terms and charges must be clearly visible and easy to read. In this case, the signage does not meet these standards, as the essential terms (including the £100 charge for breach) are obscured within tiny text, and the clarity of the signage is insufficient to form any contract with a motorist.

c) PoFA Non-compliance: This failure to clearly (adequately) bring to the attention of the driver the sum of the parking charge for breaching terms also constitutes a failure to comply with PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(d). PoFA mandates that the amount due must be clearly communicated. As UKPC has failed to adequately highlight this, no valid contract was formed, and UKPC cannot hold the keeper liable.

Given these facts, no legally binding contract was formed between the driver and UKPC, as the signage fails to communicate the parking terms adequately.

3. Ambiguity of Location – NtK Fails to Specify Exact Location

The NtK is vague and fails to specify the exact location within Uplands Business Park where the vehicle was allegedly parked. This business park is a large industrial estate, with numerous areas, many of which are entirely unsignposted. Without specifying the exact location, it is impossible for UKPC to claim a valid parking contravention occurred at a specific point.

a) PoFA Non-Compliance: Under PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, the relevant land must be specified. The general mention of Uplands Business Park does not meet the requirement for specifying the relevant land, and therefore the NtK is not compliant.

b) Multiple Unsigned Areas: Given that some areas within the estate have no signage whatsoever, it is entirely possible that the vehicle was parked in a location without any displayed terms. This further erodes the credibility of UKPC's claim and their assertion that the driver was bound by any parking terms.

4. UKPC Must Provide Strict Proof of Driver Identity

Since I am appealing as the registered keeper, and no admission has been made regarding the identity of the driver, UKPC is required to provide strict proof that the person they are pursuing is indeed the driver.

UKPC has not provided any evidence that identifies the driver, nor can any assumptions or inferences be made under PoFA 2012. In the absence of such proof, the charge must be cancelled, as UKPC cannot demonstrate that the keeper and driver are the same individual.

5. Consideration Period – Ability to Locate and Understand Signage

In their rejection of my initial appeal, UKPC claimed that their signage was sufficient and that motorists should have the same level of "observance" in a car park as they do on public roads at high speeds. This claim is not only baseless but also demonstrates UKPC’s lack of understanding of the BPA Code of Practice.

a) Time to Find and Read Signs: The BPA Code of Practice clearly requires that motorists be given an appropriate amount of time to find the signage, read it, and understand the terms before any contract can be assumed to have been formed. This is referred to as a consideration period. In this instance, there was no adequate signage visible upon entry, and even where signs are placed, the terms are not legible due to their size and poor placement.

b) Inadequate Signage in Low Light Conditions: The alleged contravention occurred in the early morning, in darkness, which would make it even more difficult for any motorist to read and understand the terms displayed on UKPC’s signs. No consideration period was allowed for the driver to locate, read, and comprehend the small-font, densely worded signage.

Conclusion

In summary, the parking charge must be cancelled due to the following reasons:

• The NtK is non-compliant with PoFA 2012 due to the absence of a period of parking and the failure to specify the exact location of the alleged contravention.
• No contract was formed because the signage was inadequate, non-compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, and failed to clearly communicate the parking terms.
• The failure to bring the sum of the charge for breaching terms to the attention of the driver constitutes another PoFA 2012 failure.
• UKPC has provided no evidence identifying the driver, and no assumptions can be made under PoFA about the keeper being the driver.
• The consideration period required to locate and understand the signage was not provided.

I suggest that POPLA upholds this appeal and cancels the PCN.