Free Traffic Legal Advice

Do not be entrapped by their portal. Just use "Other".

In what capacity was the driver there as? I ask because it sounds as though you may be a resident who may have been using the VP for your won purposes. If so, what does your lease/AST say about parking at the property?

What precisely are you planning to put as your appeal? You may want to run it by us first just in case you are about to FUBAR it.

Any appeal as Keeper only should concentrate on the following main points:

Explain first that the vehicle was parked in a bay clearly marked “VP” while visiting a resident. Other bays are individually numbered and obviously reserved for specific flats. It is entirely reasonable to understand “VP” as a visitor parking bay, especially as the vehicle has been parked there previously without issue and there is no information anywhere on site explaining a visitor-permit scheme or how a visitor could obtain a permit.

You should then focus on the wording of the sign. It states that “Parking is permitted for permit holders only when parking wholly in their allocated bays and displaying a valid permit clearly within the windscreen at all times.” That is a prohibitive sign: it does not make any offer at all to a driver who does not already hold a permit, and it says nothing about visitor bays or visitor permits. A sign which simply forbids parking without a permit cannot create any contractual liability for a non-permit holder; at most it alleges trespass, and only the landowner – not UKCPS – could pursue a claim for trespass. On its own wording, the sign is incapable of forming a contractual agreement with a visitor who does not already possess some undefined permit.

You should also argue that no contract could have been formed because UKCPS have not evidenced any period of parking beyond the obligatory minimum consideration period. A driver is entitled to enter, locate a space, read and consider the terms and then decide whether to stay. The Notice to Keeper only shows a single “time of issue” and no entry and exit times, no observation period, and no evidence that the vehicle was stationary for longer than the minimum consideration period allowed by the industry Code. Without a recorded period of parking beyond that initial consideration period, UKCPS cannot show that the driver had a fair chance to read the terms, agree to them and then breach them. The charge appears to have been issued prematurely, before any contract could possibly have been formed.

As Keeper, you should challenge their attempt to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Notice to Keeper does not “specify the period of parking” at all; it gives a single timestamp only. A moment in time is not a period of parking. Because the statutory wording has not been met, UKCPS cannot transfer any alleged liability from the unidentified driver to you as Keeper. State clearly that you will not be naming the driver and that there is no legal obligation on you to do so.

Bring these strands together by stating that: (1) the “VP” marking reasonably indicates visitor parking; (2) there is no clear or prominent information about any visitor-permit requirement; (3) the sign is prohibitive and incapable of creating a contract with a non-permit holder; (4) no period of parking beyond the minimum consideration period has been evidenced, so no contract could have been formed or breached; and (5) the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with PoFA because it does not specify any period of parking, so you, as Keeper, cannot be held liable. Invite UKCPS to cancel the charge on these grounds.

As I said, if Plans A, B and C are unsuccessful, Plan D will see it off eventually when the county court claim is either struck out or discontinued.

Your draft is absolutely fine in terms of direction and you are nowhere near FUBAR. It hits all the right points and keeps the driver anonymous.

If you want to tighten it, I would only suggest very minor tweaks rather than a full rewrite:


Attach the photo showing the VP bay and the neighbouring numbered bays as you planned, submit it and then sit back. This is as strong and concise a keeper appeal as UKCPS are likely to see.

Appealing on day 13 specifically for the sake of the mugs “discount” is, bluntly, pointless. With UKCPS (IPC member) the “appeal” is guaranteed to be rejected anyway and they routinely re-offer the reduced amount in the rejection. The only thing you needs to care about is:


Whether that goes in on day 3, 10 or 20 doesn’t change the legal position at all. You shouldn’t be trying to game the mugs discount clock; you should be assuming you will never pay a penny and that this will be fought if necessary.

On the property managers, they need something more forceful. Right now the managing agents have fobbed you off because the request was too “polite please help” and not “you are the principal, this is your mess, fix it”.

Can you get the resident you were visiting to send something along these lines (with you copied in):

Dear [Name],

I am the leaseholder/tenant of [full address]. On 23/11/25 my invited visitor parked in the bay marked ‘VP’ directly outside my property. My own allocated bay is [number]. UKCPS have issued a Parking Charge Notice alleging that a permit should have been displayed.

I have never been provided with any visitor permits, nor have I ever been informed of any visitor-permit scheme. The bays on this estate are either numbered (allocated to specific properties) or marked ‘VP’, which any reasonable person would understand to mean ‘Visitor Parking’. There is no clear signage at the VP bay explaining that visitors must obtain or display a permit, nor how they could possibly do so. My visitor has parked in that VP bay on previous occasions without issue.

UKCPS are your contractor, not mine. They act on your instructions and for your commercial benefit. It is unacceptable that my invited guests are being threatened with Ł100 charges for using what is plainly marked as a visitor bay, in circumstances where no visitor permit scheme has ever been communicated to me. This amounts to harassment of my visitors and an unreasonable interference with my right to receive guests.

As principal, you are fully able to instruct UKCPS to cancel this charge. I require you to do so and to confirm in writing that invited visitors may park in VP bays without penalty unless and until a clear, fair and properly communicated visitor-permit scheme is put in place.

If you refuse to intervene, please confirm:

– who within your organisation authorised UKCPS’s operation on this estate;
– a copy of any policy that explains how VP bays are intended to be used; and
– why you consider it reasonable to allow your agent to pursue my invited guests for Ł100 for using what is signed on the ground as visitor parking.

If this matter is not resolved promptly I will escalate my complaint to the freeholder and, if necessary, consider taking advice on your liability for the actions of your contractor.

Yours faithfully,

The resident (your friend) should now be the one pushing the managing agent. They have the leverage because they are the customer, and UKCPS is merely the managing agent’s contractor. The resident should frame this squarely as an unreasonable interference with their right to receive invited visitors, and as a failure by the managing agent to properly control its agent. The message should make clear that cancellation is required as a matter of principle, not requested as a favour.

If the managing agent again responds with a dismissive “we can’t help, contact UKCPS”, the resident should reply and require clear answers in writing. Specifically, they should ask for the name and contact details of the freeholder or estate manager who has authority over UKCPS, a copy of any visitor parking policy and an explanation of where and how that policy is communicated to residents, confirmation of how a visitor is supposed to obtain a permit, from whom, and at what times, and confirmation of whether “VP” means visitor parking and, if it does not, what it is intended to mean. This forces the managing agent off the stock response and into either instructing cancellation or exposing that no coherent visitor parking system actually exists.

For any later correspondence from yourself, it is sensible to be slightly careful about how the consideration period point is framed. The stronger and safest position is that UKCPS has failed to evidence or specify any period of parking at all in the Notice to Keeper, as required by statute, because it relies on a single timestamp or “time of issue”. That point is unanswerable on the face of the notice. Arguing that the vehicle was not parked beyond the minimum consideration period remains valid if the operator has no timed evidence, but it is better not to over-commit to that phrasing until their evidence pack is known.

As submitted, the Keeper appeal is strong, coherent, and safe. It preserves all key arguments and does not prejudice your position going forward.

On the photographs and timing, the later image does not cure the PoFA defect. What matters for Keeper liability is what is stated on the Notice to Keeper (NtK) itself, not what later appears on a website or in an appeal pack. The NtK must specify the period of parking on its face. A single timestamp, or even two timestamps that only appear later online, does not retrospectively fix a failure to comply with PoFA. The operator cannot rely on evidence that was not included in, or referenced by, a PoFA-compliant notice to transfer liability to the Keeper. At most, the later photos might be relevant to an allegation against a driver, but they do nothing to establish Keeper liability.

On the 10-minute interval itself, it also does not undermine the argument in any meaningful way. Even if UKCPS now suggest the vehicle was present for roughly ten minutes, that is still squarely within what would ordinarily be a consideration period in a permit-controlled residential setting, particularly where the signage is ambiguous and the bay marking “VP” positively suggests visitor use. More importantly, the legal problem for UKCPS is not the length of time but the fact that the NtK failed to specify a period of parking at all. That failure cannot be repaired after the event.

If the VP bays are intended only for visitors to a specific building rather than neighbouring buildings, that still does not help UKCPS unless that restriction is made clear on the ground. For such a limitation to be enforceable, the signage at or immediately adjacent to the VP bays would need to state something along the lines of “Visitor parking for Building X only” or similar. A hidden or undisclosed rule that visitors must somehow know which building “owns” which VP bay is not capable of forming part of any contract. If anything, this point strengthens the your position, because it highlights further ambiguity and poor site management. Contractual terms must be clear, prominent, and unambiguous before parking takes place; they cannot be inferred later or explained only after a charge has been issued.

You are also correct that the rejection letter does not meaningfully address the prohibitive nature of the signage or the absence of any contractual offer. The response is a generic template that simply asserts compliance and repeats “permit required” without engaging with the substance of the argument. UKCPS have not explained how a sign that states parking is permitted only for permit holders makes any contractual offer to a non-permit holder, nor how a visitor is supposed to obtain a permit when no visitor permit scheme is identified. They simply assert that “by remaining parked, the driver accepted the terms”, which is not a legal answer to a prohibitive sign argument. It is exactly the kind of hand-waving that IPC operators rely on, but it does not resolve the underlying flaw.

At this stage, nothing in that rejection materially weakens your position. The Keeper liability point remains intact. The signage and prohibitive wording point remains intact. The ambiguity around VP bays remains intact. The managing agent angle remains important, because they are the only party with real power to stop this without litigation.

The sensible next steps are to preserve all evidence, including the rejection letter and the additional photos, continue pressing the resident to escalate firmly with the managing agent or freeholder, and treat any further appeal stage (IAS) as procedural rather than substantive. The discounted amount is irrelevant. This is now about positioning the case so that, if UKCPS or their solicitors ever try court, the claim is either discontinued or collapses under scrutiny, as is invariably the case.

I'll hold off giving you a text you can use until after you have had a word with the resident and clarified the position, especially what their lease says about parking and visitor parking, if anything, so I can then refine the IAS appeal wording accordingly.