Free Traffic Legal Advice

So the “period of parking” as required by the legislation to transfer the liability from the driver to the registered keeper is ?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4

(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

The signage does show that there is no roadway parking and to park in a marked bay.

However, with UKPC and Ecp as advised by b789 you would not be paying anything to these two.

Yes, and it’s not a “fine”.

Latest update.  I am now at the same stage as mentioned in this post and I've replied in the same way. 

Letter asking for driver details

Let's see what happens next.

Here's my draft POPLA appeal. 
I'd be grateful for any feedback.
I think the fact that there is no evidence that “the consideration period [had] expired” is key and maybe I should state this first?
I will include some of the attached photos with the appeal.
photos
Thanks

Re. POPLA Reference: xxxxxx

I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxx and I dispute the above-referenced Parking Charge. The NtK (Notice to Keeper) is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA (Protection of Freedoms Act) which means that they cannot transfer liability for the charge to the keeper. I therefore dispute the charge on the following grounds :
1.  Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act
2.  Inadequate signage/Ambiguous Signage
3.  No evidence of parking
4.  No evidence of Landowner authority

Non-Compliance with POFA

Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) is binary (“MUST” means all or nothing)

Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) does not say the notice should include certain things. It says: “The notice must — (a)… (b)… (c)… (d)… (e)… (f)… (g)… (h)… (i)…”. “Must” is compulsory. PoFA 9(2) is a statutory gateway to keeper liability: either every required element is present or the gateway never opens. There is no such thing as “partial” or even “substantial compliance” with 9(2). Like pregnancy, it is binary: a notice is either PoFA-compliant or it is not. If one required limb is missing, the operator cannot use PoFA to pursue the keeper. End of.

Here the missing limb is 9(2)(a). That sub-paragraph requires the NtK to specify 'the period of parking to which the notice relates'.

What this NtK actually does is specify one moment in time - that being '21/12/2025 at 11:12:14'.  This does not demonstrate any 'period' which is defined as a length or interval of time with a specific start and end. 


Ambiguous Signage

I refer to Section 3 (signs and surface markings) of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice Version 1.1 dated 17 February 2025 – the “COP”

The commentary states “Signs and surface markings must be .... unambiguous to drivers.”
 
Section 3.1.2 states “The size and positioning of the sign must take into account the expected speed and direction of travel of vehicles approaching the entrance and must be visible (i.e. not be obscured e.g. by foliage or other objects).  The design of entrance signs must comply with the requirements detailed at Annex A”.

The keeper has identified that the entrance sign is on the left of the vehicle and is not legible from the driver's seat of a vehicle entering from the road into the development except for the words “P 3 Hours Maximum Stay”. 

Section 3.1.2 NOTE 2: states “Where cameras are installed operators, are reminded of their obligations to inform motorists that personal data is being obtained and/or retained.”

The keeper has identified that nothing on the entrance sign informs motorists that personal data is being obtained and/or retained.

Section 3.1.3 states “Signs within controlled land displaying the specific terms and conditions applying must:”
 
“a) be placed within the controlled land, such that drivers have the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle;”

The keeper has identified that there is no signage at the place where the car appears to be parked (see photos in NtK letter and also photos taken by the keeper at a later date).

“b) be sufficiently large to be visible from a distance and legible on approach;”

The keeper has identified that the signage identified in the NtK is not visible from the position of the car shown in the NtK.  Furthermore, the signage identified in the NtK is at a height which makes it impossible to be read without the aid of a step ladder (see photo of Keeper standing by the sign post).

“f) ........ be clearly readable by a driver, having regard to the likely position of the driver in relation to the sign;”

See keeper's responses at Section 3.1.2, and also a and b above.


“h) display the parking tariff of sums payable, or indicate where the tariff is displayed if separate, or the duration of permitted free parking as appropriate;”

The keeper has identified that none of the signs refer to “Free Parking” or a “Tariff for Parking”

“i)  be clear, unambiguous ........”

The keeper has identified that there is conflicting signage at the site which indicate “Parking time limit is 3 hours” without any conditions attached.  Another sign identifies the property “is managed by Savills” - see photos.


Section 3.1.4 states “Signs informing drivers that a parking charge may be applicable and of the level of that charge must do so in a font of comparable size and boldness to the main body text on the sign, and where included on signs also displaying the parking tariff a font no smaller than the tariff text/numbers.”

The keeper has identified that none of the signs refer to “Free Parking” or a “Tariff for Parking”


Section 3.1.6 states “Signs must be designed and installed so as to be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions during which the controlled land may legitimately be accessed, at a height that takes account of whether the signs are intended to be viewed from the vehicle (including by headlight in the hours of darkness) or having left the vehicle by a driver on foot or in a wheelchair.  ...
NOTE 2: If there is more than one sign, all should be consistent with regards to typeface style, size and weight, colour and layout.”

See keeper's responses at Section 3.1.2, and also a, b and i above.


Section 3.3 states “Where relevant obligations require drivers to park within delineated parking bays, surface markings must be applied and maintained in such a manner as to be clearly visible to drivers in all lighting and weather conditions as might apply.  NOTE: ...  it is good practice to use surface markings to display symbols indicating restricted uses,”

The keeper has identified that where the car is shown as parked on the NtK there are no restrictions to parking and it would appear, from the other cars in the photo on the NtK, that there may have been parking available.  The keeper has included photos showing some of the car park roads where there are white line marks but there are no similar white line marks where the car is shown as parked in the NtK.  Note, there are other sections of the car park that have double yellow lines to indicate 'no parking' 


Duration of parking period

Section 5 states “As a matter of contract law, drivers need to be given an appropriate opportunity to understand and decide whether to accept the terms and conditions that apply should they choose to park a vehicle on controlled land.”

Section 5.1 states “Where a parking operator assumes a vehicle is parked based on time alone they must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out at Annex B.”

Annex B states “It is important to note that where there is evidence the consideration period has expired the minimum period of
time for the consideration is not relevant however, the operator should retain evidence to show how the consideration period had ended.
The significance of whether the consideration has expired is fundamental as it is the point the driver has accepted the terms and conditions attached to the controlled land in question. A consideration period is not a free period of parking.”

Annex B.1 states “The minimum consideration and grace periods listed in Table B.1 must be applied by parking operators.
NOTE: The consideration period may end earlier than the times prescribed in Annex B where there is evidence that the driver has accepted the terms and conditions applying (whether or not they have chosen to read them), which may for example be evidenced by
the driver parking the vehicle and leaving the premises, paying the applicable parking tariff, or remaining stationary for more than 5 minutes.”

The Keeper has stated above that the NtK actually only specifies one moment in time - that being '21/12/2025 at 11:12:14'.  However, none of the photographs on the website 'https://ukpcappeals.co.uk/Appeal/Review' include a timestamp of '11:12:14'.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that “the consideration period [had] expired”.  In order to evidence any expired consideration period the NtK must provide two time-stamped photos of the car in the exact same position where the time-stamps are a minimum of 5 minutes or 10 minutes apart (dependent on the size of the car park).  Also, there is no evidence that the driver had accepted the terms and conditions i.e. there is no evidence the driver parking the vehicle and left the premises or that the car remained stationary for more than 5 minutes. 


The signage at this location fails on all the above criteria.

Considering the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of the COP and PoFA, it is beyond any doubt that the signage is not sufficient to give adequate notice of the charge and bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist.


No evidence of parking

I have seen examples of these ‘Notice to Keeper’ letters shown to me by friends. It seems to be common practice to include photos of the vehicle entering and leaving the site, together with a time stamp. Whilst evidence of entering and leaving site is not evidence of parking, UKPC have failed to include even this basic information in their notice.

I require full unredacted copies of photographs of the vehicle entering and leaving the site which conform to Section 7.3 of the COP. Without these, we only have UKPC’s word that an infringement has potentially been committed.

No evidence of Landowner authority

The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landowner of the “relevant land” to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landowner’s definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints nor that both the landowner and operator are in full compliance with planning permission granted against a Traffic Management Plan.

Section 14 of the COP  defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner, to prove that they have the right to enforce the charge in court in their own name.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld.

Thanks for the prompt response @DWMB2

I've now had a reply from POPLA.
Any advice would be appreciated.

It states: 'You have 7 days from the operator evidence submission date - 13/02/2026. You will not have opportunity to edit or add further detail once you have submitted your comments.'


The case summary includes the text as well as some site photos and the prior correspondence.

On the 21/12/2025, our parking operative issued a parking charge virtually to
vehicle registration xxxx at Kingsley Village Shopping Park (Car Park 1). The
parking charge was issued because the vehicle was not parked correctly in the bay
markings.
Following the parking event on 21/12/2025, UKPC had reasonable cause to obtain
the details of the registered keeper from the DVLA for the purposes of issuing a
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by post- a copy of this PCN is included in this pack.
The PCN was issued on  24/12/2025
The parking charge rate was £100.00, reduced to £60.00 if payment was received
within fourteen days.
An appeal was received from the vehicle driver MR CHRISTOPHER on
the 04/01/2026, which the appeals department investigated and decided to reject.
Whilst UKPC note the comments, we cannot accept them as evidence when
reviewing a parking charge notice.   A bay is an area that is clearly defined on both
sides in which the vehicle is to park.  The area in which the appellant’s vehicle was
parked was not an authorised parking bay, as there were no clear line markings
delineating a designated parking space. The bays are clearly identifiable and
distinguishable from the unmarked area used by the appellant. By parking outside of
a designated bay, the appellant’s vehicle was positioned in a manner that caused an
obstruction.
The appellant asserts that keeper liability does not apply under the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 on the basis that the driver has not been identified. However,
the operator has fully complied with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. A copy of the Notice to Keeper has been
provided, which contains all mandatory information prescribed by the Act and was
issued within the required statutory timescales. As such, keeper liability has been
correctly established, and the appellant’s submission on this point is without merit.
We can confirm that the relevant correspondence was issued and sent accordingly.
we have no control over any issues relating to the postal service. In accordance with
Paragraph 8(6) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), a
notice sent by post is presumed—unless proven otherwise—to have been delivered,
and therefore 'given', on the second working day after the date of posting. For the
purposes of this provision, a 'working day' excludes Saturdays, Sundays, and public
holidays.
For the avoidance of doubt, the purpose of entrance signs is solely to advise
Page 2 of 25
motorists they are entering into private land and there are parking conditions they
must be aware of.Our signage conforms to the guidelines set out within the code,
and we are audited regularly by the BPA for those standards; the signs must be
provided to make it easy for motorists to find out what the terms and conditions are
and that the signs contain the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that
drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their
vehicle. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language,
so that they are easy to see, read and understand. The BPA audits have confirmed
that we follow this to their standard.
Signage does not need to be positioned immediately adjacent to every vehicle that
parks on site, it is the responsibility of the motorist to take reasonable steps to
observe and comply with the instructions displayed on the entrance signage.
Motorists are expected to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions of
parking as clearly communicated at the point of entry.
Please see attached a signage plan showing the signage locations, the entrance
signage proof and onsite signage proof. We feel it reasonable to suggest that the
driver was advised sufficiently of the terms & conditions of parking on site.

A driver is permitted a consideration period by clause 5.1 Annex B of the Private
Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) to review the signs and decide if
they are going to stay or go. The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms
and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with the motorist. If,
having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the
car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave.
The consideration period may end earlier than the times prescribed in Annex B
where there is evidence that the driver has accepted the terms and conditions. The
vehicle was parked adjacent to the signage and no one was at the signage or in the
vehicle, which supports the conclusion that a parking event did take place.

The appellant has stated that the keeper liability warning is not in the prescribed
PoFA 2012 format. Section 9(2)(f) states that the notice must warn the keeper that:
“if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice
is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d)
has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the
driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the
applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from
the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;” Having reviewed the notice,
I am satisfied that it specifies all of this information. Although I appreciate that it
may not be stated verbatim, it contains the necessary information nonetheless.

The appellant has stated that there isn’t a clear date that the period of parking. Having
reviewed the notice, I can see that it specifies the date as 21/12/2025.

The contract between UK Parking Control Ltd and the landowner (or their managing
agent) authorising UKPC to provide parking management, and therefore issue
parking charges to vehicles breaching the terms of parking, is confidential and we
are unable to provide a copy for reasons of commercial sensitivity. We have
however provided a redacted copy, with sensitive information covered. The
redacted contract confirms our authority in an ongoing agreement. If neither party
terminates the contract, as in this case, the contract will continue on a rolling basis.
We have provided the T&C’s in relation to the rolling contract.

Although the BPA Code of Practice outlines what authorisation must set out, we
Page 3 of 25
have also shown that beyond checking documentation;  there is equipment, signage
and on occasion personnel on site to manage the function of enforcement and this
cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. I am sure that if the parking
operator was not allowed to issue charges on site the landowner would not permit
the parking operator to keep its signage on site nor would the landowner allow
motorists to park on its land without authorisation.
UKPC must maintain a consistent approach when issuing and upholding a charge. In
this instance, this vehicle had been parked on site in direct breach of the terms and
conditions of parking on site as stated on signage. The vehicle was parked in close proximity to UKPC signage, please see all photographic evidence to support this.UK Parking Control signage complies fully with section 3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice and we reject the suggestion that it is vague or misleading.

Entrance signage advises motorists that terms of parking apply, and that
notices within the car park should be checked to identify the full terms and
conditions. These notices are placed throughout the car park. It is ultimately the
responsibility of the motorist to ensure they identify the terms of parking, and then
decide whether to park their vehicle, or leave the site if they are unable to meet
those terms.
The parking charges issued by UK Parking Control Limited are based on a
contractual agreement between UKPC and the driver, as detailed on the signage
displayed in the car park. The signage states the terms and conditions of parking and
explains that a parking charge will be payable if the terms are not met by the driver.
We ensure that signage is ample, clear and visible, wholly in line with the British
Parking Association Code of Practice. It is settled law that a driver is deemed to
have accepted the terms and conditions of parking by the act of parking and leaving
a vehicle.
Ultimately, it is fundamentally the responsibility of the motorist to identify the terms
of parking when leaving their vehicle on private land. If they feel they are unable to
adhere to the terms, they may leave the site before agreeing to those terms.
There are sufficient signs advising drivers that not parking within bay markings may
result in a parking charge being issued. MR CHRISTOPHER's the vehicle
was not parked correctly in the bay markings; consequently, the parking charge was
issued correctly.
A letter was sent to MR CHRISTOPHER informing him of our decision
on the 27/01/2026

I've started my comments as follows:



The operator UKPC seems to have buried the first ground of the appeal: 

1.   No contract:  On page 3 of the 'case+summary' UKPC include a paragraph "A driver is permitted a consideration period by clause 5.1 Annex B of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) ..... The vehicle was parked adjacent to the signage and no one was at the signage or in the vehicle, which supports the conclusion that a parking event did take place........"

Firstly, the vehicle was NOT parked adjacent to the signage.  This is clearly obvious from UKPC's own photographic evidence.

Secondly, The NtK actually only specifies one moment in time - that being '21/12/2025 at 11:12:14'.  However, none of the photographs on the website 'https://ukpcappeals.co.uk/Appeal/Review' include a timestamp of '11:12:14'. 

Thirdly, The COMMENTARY ON ANNEX B states "The purpose of this Annex is to set the MANDATORY minima for the consideration and grace periods that parking operators are required to apply in accordance with 5.1 and 5.2.......  The minimum consideration and grace periods listed in Table B.1 must be applied by
parking operators."  Table B.1 gives the minimum consideration period as 5 minutes.

"It is important to note that where there is evidence the consideration period has expired the minimum period of time for the consideration is not relevant however, the operator should retain evidence to
show how the consideration period had ended. The significance of whether the consideration has expired is fundamental as it is the point the driver has accepted the terms and conditions attached to the controlled land in question."  This section of the code is totally irrelevant as it lends itself to subjectivity unless there is clear evidence that a vehicle was parked for at least 5 minutes or unless UKPC are able to state what a reasonable time period would be for any person of average ability to exit a vehicle, find signage, read all the small print of the terms and conditions and then return to a vehicle.
 
UKPC photographic evidence is time-stamped 11:11:54, 11:11:56 and 11:11:48.  I would suggest that 8 seconds is not sufficient time for any person of average ability to exit a vehicle, find signage, read all the small print of the terms and conditions and then return to a vehicle and leave the premises.

Section 5 states “As a matter of contract law, drivers need to be given an appropriate opportunity to understand and decide whether to accept the terms and conditions that apply should they choose to park a vehicle on controlled land.”

Also, there is no evidence that the driver had accepted the terms and conditions i.e. there is no evidence the driver parking the vehicle and left the premises or that the car remained stationary for more than 5 minutes.   

UKPC also state "The appellant has stated that there isn’t a clear date that the period of parking."
This is possibly an untruth as it is incoherent.  The appeal refers to no evidence of the consideration period having expired - it does not dispute the date.



COMMENTARY ON ANNEX B
"The purpose of this Annex is to set the mandatory minima for the consideration and grace
periods that parking operators are required to apply in accordance with 5.1 and 5.2.
Factors to be taken into account are detailed in the relevant clauses. It is important to note
that where there is evidence the consideration period has expired the minimum period of
time for the consideration is not relevant however, the operator should retain evidence to
show how the consideration period had ended.
The significance of whether the consideration has expired is fundamental as it is the point
the driver has accepted the terms and conditions attached to the controlled land in
question. A consideration period is not a free period of parking.
B.1 The minimum consideration and grace periods listed in Table B.1 must be applied by
parking operators."


3.   Inadequate signage/Ambiguous Signage
UKPC state "The area in which the appellant’s vehicle was parked was not an authorised parking bay, as there were no clear line markings delineating a designated parking space. The bays are clearly identifiable and distinguishable from the unmarked area used by the appellant. By parking outside of
a designated bay, the appellant’s vehicle was positioned in a manner that caused an obstruction."

It is clear from both UKPC and the keepers photographic evidence that the vehicle was NOT positioned in a manner that caused an obstruction.  And I would reiterate the comments in the appeal at section 3.

UKPC state "it is the responsibility of the motorist to take reasonable steps to observe and comply with the instructions displayed on the entrance signage. Motorists are expected to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions of parking as clearly communicated at the point of entry."
I would reiterate the comments in the appeal at section 3.
Also, UKPC's own signage plan shows there is only one 'Entry' sign (number 1 on the plan).  The picture dated 8 July 2025 seems to show the entry sign at that date but is photographed from a standing position in front of the sign.  However, I would reiterate the comments of the appeal: 'The keeper has identified that the entrance sign is on the left of the vehicle and is not legible from the driver's seat of a vehicle entering from the road into the development except for the words “P 3 Hours Maximum Stay”.'

UKPC's photographic evidence cannot be relied upon as it is out of date and not viewed from the position of a driver's seat of a vehicle entering the car park.   


UKPC state "The vehicle was parked in close proximity to UKPC signage, please see all photographic evidence to support this." 
It is clear from both UKPC's and the keepers photographic evidence that the vehicle was NOT parked in close proximity to UKPC signage.  The keepers photographic evidence shows the closest signage is behind foliage and at a height that makes the font illegible from a standing position.

UKPC state "UK Parking Control signage complies fully with section 3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice and we reject the suggestion that it is vague or misleading". 
However, they have not addressed the existence of the other signs in the keepers photographic evidence one of which indicates the property “is managed by Savills” and another which indicate “Parking time limit is 3 hours” without any conditions attached. 

It should be noted that Savills is party to the redacted contract provided by UKPC.