Free Traffic Legal Advice

To whom it may concern,


I am the registered keeper of the vehicle shown in this PCN received from Total Car Parks on 6th August 2025, (letter dated 1st August 2025). I dispute any and all liability for this parking charge, and appeal it in full.


I quote the relevant statutory requirement from Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012:

“The notice must— (e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges.”

This is a mandatory requirement. The Notice to Keeper must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the charge if the driver is not identified.


Now here is the wording used in the Notice to Keeper from Total Car Parks:

"You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. As we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them."

Nowhere in this wording is there any invitation for the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge. The notice says the driver is required to pay, and that if the keeper was not the driver, they should pass the notice on and provide the driver’s details. It then says that if the charge is not paid or the driver is not identified, Total Car Parks has the right to recover the charge from the keeper.


This is not an invitation to pay. It is a statement of intent to pursue. That fails to meet the requirement under PoFA 9(2)(e)(i), which requires an actual invitation to the keeper to pay the charge.

Because this requirement has not been met, Total Car Parks cannot rely on Schedule 4 of PoFA to hold the keeper liable. They may only pursue the driver, whose identity they admit they do not know. This is a clear procedural failure.


In my original appeal, I put this to Total Car Parks (henceforth referred to as "TCP"):

- As your (TCP's) Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient.

- TCP has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

- The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. TCP's NtK can only hold the driver liable.

- There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn.

TCP then rejected this appeal, stating (quoting verbatim, key section bolded)

Thank you for your appeal.
You explained you are the registered keeper of the vehicle and the Parking Charge is not POFA 2012
compliant.
Please note the Parking Charge is POFA2012 as approved by the British Parking Associationand was
sent to the registered keeper.
You were notified as the registered keeper of the vehicle, "You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of
schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay
this parking charge in full. As we do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, if you were
not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass
this notice to them

As above, the appeal rejection provides no valid counter to my appeal, and is in fact nonsensical. It is not even clear what their basis of rejection actually is.


Below I have summarised why this PCN has been issued in bad faith and is unjustifiable on grounds of procedural ambiguity and the unfair application of said vague terms, resulting in a PCN being issued despite the driver taking all relevant steps to ensure parking was fully paid for:



The driver arrived at 8.33pm. The signage stated that the first hour was free, and that the tariff thereafter was:

• Up to 2 hours: £1.60
• Up to 4 hours: £2.60

The driver attempted to pay on-site but the machine did not accept card payments. They photographed the signage and opted to pay online via Parkonomy, as advertised. At 9.19pm—before the free hour expired—they paid for 2 hours of parking, covering the period from 9.20pm to 11.20pm. The vehicle left at 11.15pm, within the paid period.

The total stay was 2 hours and 45 minutes. The driver reasonably believed this consisted of:

• 1 hour free (8.30pm–9.30pm)
• 2 hours paid (9.30pm–11.30pm)

They paid £1.75 (including booking and SMS fees), which covered the 2-hour paid period. The signage did not clearly state that the free hour was not cumulative with the paid tariff. The driver interpreted the structure as additive: 1 hour free plus 2 hours paid equals 3 hours total.

The tariff board states:

• “60 Minutes Free Parking”
• “Charges apply to all vehicles after 60 minutes”
• “Failure to comply with the Terms & Conditions of the car park may result in enforcement... and a Parking Charge Notice of £100”
• “Pay Here” with instructions to use Parkonomy.com

There is no breakdown of the actual tariff amounts (e.g. £1.60 for up to 2 hours, £2.60 for up to 4 hours) on the board itself. Nor is there any clarification of whether the free hour is included in the paid duration or in addition to it.

This lack of clarity is critical. The driver reasonably interpreted the signage to mean:

• First hour is free
• After that, time is charged cumulatively
• Therefore, 1 hour free + 2 hours paid = 3 hours total

The signage does not state that the free hour is not cumulative or that the paid tariff must cover the entire stay including the free hour. That ambiguity directly affects how a reasonable person would calculate the required payment.

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, contractual terms must be transparent and fair. Where signage forms the basis of a contract, any ambiguity or lack of clarity renders the term unenforceable. In this case, the signage failed to provide a clear tariff structure or explain how the free hour interacts with paid time.

Furthermore, the Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP), section F1(j), amended in February 2025 states:

“Parking charges must not be pursued in relation to vehicles where evidence is provided that they are identified as: a vehicle parked in a car park managed by fixed camera technology (ANPR and/or CCTV) for which payment has been made for the full period of parking prior to the vehicle leaving the car park.”

The driver paid before the free hour expired, covered the intended duration, and left before the paid period ended. Issuing a PCN in these circumstances is contrary to the PPSCoP and undermines the principle of fair enforcement.

In short, the signage was ambiguous and the driver paid for what they reasonably believed was the correct tariff. The payment was made before the free hour expired, and the vehicle left within the paid period. There was no attempt to evade payment, and any discrepancy was caused by unclear signage and a confusing tariff structure. This is not a case of non-payment or deliberate breach. It is a case of procedural ambiguity and good-faith compliance. The charge is therefore unjustified.

Please find attached relevant info including a photograph of the signage taken on the night in question, and confirmation of payment of the aforementioned £2.60 for 2 hours of parking at 9.19pm.

I look forward to hearing from you.

To whom it may concern,


I am the registered keeper of the vehicle shown in this PCN received from Total Car Parks on 6th August 2025, (letter dated 1st August 2025). I dispute any and all liability for this parking charge, and appeal it in full.


I quote the relevant statutory requirement from Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (henceforth referred to by me as "POFA 2012"):

“The notice must— (e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges.”

This is a mandatory requirement. The Notice to Keeper must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the charge if the driver is not identified.


Now here is the wording used in the Notice to Keeper from Total Car Parks:

"You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. As we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them."

Nowhere in this wording is there any invitation for the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge. The notice says the driver is required to pay, and that if the keeper was not the driver, they should pass the notice on and provide the driver’s details. It then says that if the charge is not paid or the driver is not identified, Total Car Parks has the right to recover the charge from the keeper.

Again, the crucial difference is this:

- POFA 2012 requires Total Car Parks to 1. state they do not know who the driver was, and 2. invite the registered keeper to pay.

- Instead, Total Car Parks asks the keeper to tell them who the driver is, and pass the notice on to the driver.


They fail to comply with POFA 2012 because they fail to ask the keeper to pay the charge; they instead ask the keeper to identify the driver and to pass the notice on to them.


As Total Car Parks did not invite the keeper to pay, they have failed to comply with PoFA 2012, specifically with 9(2)(e)(i), as quoted above; they did NOT invite the keeper to pay the charge.


This means they cannot rely on Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 to hold the keeper liable. They may only pursue the driver, whose identity they admit they do not know. This is a clear procedural failure.


In my original appeal, I put this to Total Car Parks (henceforth referred to as "TCP"):

- As your (TCP's) Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient.

- TCP has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

- The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. TCP's NtK can only hold the driver liable.

- There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn.

TCP then rejected this appeal, stating (quoting part of the response verbatim, key section bolded)

Thank you for your appeal.
You explained you are the registered keeper of the vehicle and the Parking Charge is not POFA 2012
compliant.
Please note the Parking Charge is POFA2012 as approved by the British Parking Associationand was
sent to the registered keeper.
You were notified as the registered keeper of the vehicle, "You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of
schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay
this parking charge in full. As we do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, if you were
not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass
this notice to them

As above, the appeal rejection provides no valid counter to my appeal, and is in fact nonsensical. It is not even clear what their basis of rejection actually is; in the absence of any clear justification, it appears the appeal was never truly considered by TCp, and may have been declined simply in keeping with their internal working procedure.


As before, without full compliance with PoFA 2012 (as demonstrated to be the case above), TCP are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the parking charge. Partial compliance is not sufficient to comply with PoFA 2012.


In addition to the failure to comply with POFA 2012, which alone makes the parking charge unenforceable: Below I have summarised how I attempted to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park, only to be hit with this parking charge notice (PCN) anyway:



The driver arrived at the car park in question at 8.33pm. The signage stated that the first hour was free, and that the tariff thereafter was:

• Up to 2 hours: £1.60
• Up to 4 hours: £2.60

The driver attempted to pay on-site but the machine did not accept card payments. They photographed the signage and opted to pay online via Parkonomy, as advertised. At 9.19pm—before the free hour had expired—they paid for 2 hours of parking, covering the period from 9.20pm to 11.20pm. The vehicle then left the car park at 11.15pm, within the paid period.

The total stay was 2 hours and 45 minutes. The driver reasonably believed this consisted of:

• 1 hour free (8.30pm–9.30pm)
• 2 hours paid (9.30pm*–11.20pm) [*note: paid at 9.20pm, thus the 2 hours ran only to 11.20pm: 10 minutes of overlap with the free hour occurred to ensure any PCN for over-running the free hour would be avoided]

The driver paid £1.75 (including booking and SMS fees), which covered the 2-hour paid period. The signage did not clearly state that the free hour was not cumulative with the paid tariff. The driver interpreted the structure as additive: 1 hour free plus 2 hours paid equals 3 hours total.


The on-site tariff board states:

• “60 Minutes Free Parking”
• “Charges apply to all vehicles after 60 minutes”
• “Failure to comply with the Terms & Conditions of the car park may result in enforcement... and a Parking Charge Notice of £100”
• “Pay Here” with instructions to use Parkonomy.com

There is no breakdown of the actual tariff amounts (e.g. £1.60 for up to 2 hours, £2.60 for up to 4 hours) on the board itself. Nor is there any clarification of whether the free hour is included in the paid duration or in addition to it.

This lack of clarity is critical. The driver reasonably interpreted the signage to mean:

• First hour is free
• After that, time is charged cumulatively
• Therefore, 1 hour free + 2 hours paid = 3 hours total

The signage does not state that the free hour is not cumulative or that the paid tariff must cover the entire stay including the free hour. That ambiguity directly affects how a reasonable person would calculate the required payment.

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, contractual terms must be transparent and fair. Where signage forms the basis of a contract, any ambiguity or lack of clarity renders the term unenforceable. In this case, the signage failed to provide a clear tariff structure or explain how the free hour interacts with paid time.


Furthermore, the Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP), section F1(j), amended in February 2025 states:

“Parking charges must not be pursued in relation to vehicles where evidence is provided that they are identified as: a vehicle parked in a car park managed by fixed camera technology (ANPR and/or CCTV) for which payment has been made for the full period of parking prior to the vehicle leaving the car park.”

The driver paid before the free hour expired, covered the intended duration, and left before the paid period ended. Issuing a PCN in these circumstances is contrary to the PPSCoP and undermines the principle of fair enforcement.

In short, the signage was ambiguous and the driver paid for what they reasonably believed was the correct tariff. The payment was made before the free hour expired, and the vehicle left within the paid period. There was no attempt to evade payment, and any discrepancy was caused by unclear signage and a confusing tariff structure. This is not a case of non-payment or other deliberate breach of . It is a case of procedural ambiguity resulting in a PCN being issues in bad-faith, in spite of good-faith compliance by the user. The charge is therefore unjustified.

Please find attached relevant info including a photograph of the signage taken on the night in question, and confirmation of payment of the aforementioned £2.60 for 2 hours of parking at 9.19pm.

I look forward to hearing from you.