Free Traffic Legal Advice

During a trip, the driver of the vehicle required EV charging and so visited a public ROAM charger. The charger itself was accessed by driving through a pub car park, down a ramp and then located at the back. The charger had issues starting but then successfully completed and the driver immediately left.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and received this letter in the post on Tuesday 24th February.
https://ibb.co/NnKPYkDV
https://ibb.co/2YCwNCMD

I did contact ROAM charging asking if they are able to help with this parking charge and received this message. I have not yet contacted the pub in question.

"I'm sorry to hear about the situation. However, I’d like to clarify that we have not implemented any parking enforcement at this location, and we do not have any affiliation with UKPC
The signage currently displayed in the car park is managed and installed by the hotel and/or the parking enforcement company, and it includes guidance for all users.
As we do not control or manage the on-site parking and are not involved in any enforcement operations, we're unfortunately unable to assist further with this matter.
I completely understand how frustrating it is to receive a ticket, and I'm sorry this has happened. We recommend reaching out to the hotel directly, as they may be able to support you in resolving the issue.
What we can do is report your concerns about the signage to the hotel directly. To see if this is something that can be improved.
Again, I am so sorry for any inconvenience caused, and please do let me know if you have any other questions."

The charger in question is here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/xxZ8X5iJT7rqSL3a8. It is not visible on street-view due to the age however it is located roughly where the skip is in the lower

There are no signs near the charger that say parking must be paid nor that additional fee is required for parking while charging the car. However as I am located very far from the charger I am not able to get photographs of this until 10th March.

Thanks for the help in advance

Possible legal technicality;

If the landowner is directly allowing the installation of charging points then the landowner is also allowing client's to enter the site in order to use the apparatus - in order to use the apparatus the client is required to form a contract with ROAM for each charge - this could easily constitute a primacy of contract issue.

Why would a driver need to form a contract with a parking company when they already had a contract to use the apparatus??

I don't know if this has any relevance but the hotel website advertises the presence of charging points as part of their "stay with us we're great" blurb:

"Electric car charging points are available at the hotel for guests"

Quote from: InterCity125 on February 27, 2026, 01:12:17 pm

Why would a driver need to form a contract with a parking company when they already had a contract to use the apparatus??

Following that logic a driver using a drive through on a site would be entering a contract for food (as opposed to electricity) or any other onsite service, being a patron of a pub would automatically exempt them from the contract with the PPC. We know in reality that's not the case.

The landowner could also be intending to restrict the use of the charge points to specific users, for specific durations or also expect users to pay for parking on top of charging which they convey via the parking enforcement signage. I don't see how a vague undocumented offer to use the charger would trump the defined offer within the parking signage. So unless there is specific signage at the location of the chargers detailing the terms of use for the chargers in respect of being in the car park the general terms would apply. Unless the charge point operator is leasing the land and bays the chargers are installed on in which case the PPC has mandate to enforce those bays without written consent from the leaseholder.

For the OP, IPC / IAS so no amount of legal gymnastics has much chance of success appeal. Plan A, talk to the hotel.

No.

This is different because the contract with ROAM is to charge the vehicle and as such the vehicle must be present on site in order to charge.

That is different to a customer who enters an establishment for their own purposes, namely; eat / drink / sleep etc - the fact that they parked a car in the car park is therefore a clearly separate event to eating / drinking / sleeping etc.

In the instance of a patron using a pub, the patron may or may not use the option of onsite car parking - parking is not a required prerequisite to using the establishment - in the instance of charging a vehicle, the vehicle itself is a component part of the contract to charge - therefore, using the site to park is a clear prerequisite to charging the vehicle - meaning it is reasonable to assume that entering the ROAM contract to charge would include the right to be there.


I'm sure that there is some legal precedent for this but I cannot remember which case it was!! Doh! But I'm pretty sure it involved a garage which was set in a private estate - customers of the garage got notices demanding charges from the landowner.

Your point about a 'Drive-Thru' restaurant is total valid and would clearly fall into the category we are discussing since it is reasonable that by using the drive thru you are contracting directly with the landowner (to provide food while you remain in your vehicle) without the need to enter a third party contract.

The garage will have been a leaseholder and therefore had rights over the land which will have extended to the customers of the garage but not the PPC. As I said before some landowners are giving 20 year leases to charge point operators for a couple of bays within a wider car park, after they have contracted with a PPC. In that situation the PPC can't enforce on those bays. As they don't know who is and isn't in the EV bays it screws up enforcement. The complication here is land owners often don't tell the PPC and many of the PPCs wont care. The OP should go back to ROAM and ask them if they are leasing the land their chargers occupy. If they do the PPC can't enforce on those bays and the OP can tell the PPC to back off. Even if the PPC doesn't it'll be a pretty solid case in court if it gets that far.

Just to finish this off - the hotel has responded and the ticket has been cancelled

Thanks again for the advice