Free Traffic Legal Advice

Here is a suitable response you can email back to them:

Dear Appeals Department,

Thank you for your latest correspondence regarding Parking Charge Reference [Reference]. I see that you have once again chosen to ignore the clear points raised in my previous response and, instead, sent yet another request for the “full name and address of the driver.” This is beginning to feel like an exercise in futility.

In my original response, I advised you to pass the matter to a competent adult for proper handling. If this most recent letter is indeed the result of having done so, then I must express my deep concern. It would appear that what UKPC considers "competent" falls well below even the most generous definition of sub-standard.

Allow me to reiterate what I stated previously, as it seems to have escaped your comprehension: as the Hirer of the vehicle, I am under no legal obligation to provide the information you are requesting. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, upon which you seem to rely without fully understanding it, does not compel me to identify the driver. Instead, it requires you to meet strict statutory requirements to transfer liability to the Hirer. You have failed to do so.

For your benefit—and in the hope that someone at UKPC might eventually grasp this—I will again highlight your key failures under Schedule 4 of the Act:

• You have not issued a compliant Notice to Keeper, as required by Paragraph 13(2).

• Your Notice to Hirer omits essential information and documentation, as mandated by Paragraph 14(5).

These are not minor oversights; they are fundamental requirements. Without fulfilling these obligations, you cannot lawfully transfer liability to me as the Hirer. Your repeated attempts to demand information that I am not required to provide only highlight the glaring inadequacies in your case and, frankly, in your understanding of the law.

Should you wish to continue this charade, I expect you to issue a POPLA verification code immediately. I am confident that an independent adjudicator will confirm what should already be obvious: your claim is invalid due to your failure to comply with the statutory requirements. However, if you wish to avoid further embarrassment (and unnecessary costs), I suggest cancelling this charge without further delay.

Your persistence in sending these nonsensical letters is becoming tedious. Repeating the same request in the hope of a different outcome is not a demonstration of competence or strategy—it is simply a sign of intellectual malnourishment.

In summary, I will not be providing the information you seek, nor am I obliged to do so. Please cancel this charge or issue a POPLA code so we can put an end to this farce. I suggest that, moving forward, you consider investing in staff training to avoid such glaring incompetence in future.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]

UKPC have finally responded. This time it wasn't a copy and paste from the last one. They also seem to have given up on asking for the driver details.

Now, I'm not sure what's going on but Imgur keeps saying the file format is not supported and my Mac won't open it when I change the extension to .jpeg, but only this particular one, which is strange, so I have to just copy and paste their response.

Thank you for your recent communication concerning parking charge reference *************.

We have carefully considered your appeal based on the information provided and the evidence supporting the parking charge. In this instance having completed our assessment, we consider the parking charge to have been correctly issued, as the vehicle was not parked correctly in the bay markings.

We appreciate that on occasion long wheel-base vehicles will park within car parks that we manage. As such a parking charge will not be issued, provided that the vehicle is parked reasonably within the confines of the length of a parking bay, or bays. However, it is our position that parking over the width of the bay is in breach of the terms and condition set out by the signage within the car park.

UK Parking Control signage complies fully with section 18 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice. 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 numerous and placed appropriately 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.

We would also contend that when a motorist enters a car park they should be at the same level of observance as when driving on a public road; When driving on the road, motorists are expected to be aware of signs when travelling at up to 70mph. In a car park, the typical driving speed is on average, much lower. We therefore contend that it is not unreasonable to expect a motorist to note the signs and to subsequently familiarize themselves with these.

It is UKPC’s position that the signage installed on site is more than sufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of any motorist, both in the clarity of information contained within it, as well as the number of appropriately placed signs on site, that a legally binding contract is formed between the
motorist and the party offering that contract.

Our appeals process is now concluded, you may now choose one of the following options:

1) Pay the parking charge detailed above at the reduced rate of £60.00 to UK Parking Control Ltd. PLEASE REFER OVERLEAF FOR PAYMENT OPTIONS AND ADDRESS DETAILS.

2) Make an appeal to the independent adjudicator POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) using the verification code provided above. Please note that if you wish to appeal to POPLA, you will lose the right to pay the discounted rate of £60.00, and should POPLA reject your appeal you will be required to pay
the full amount of £100.00. If you opt to pay the parking charge you will be unable to appeal with POPLA. Appeals to POPLA must be made within twenty-eight days from the date of this letter. To appeal with POPLA, please visit www.popla.co.uk. If you are unable to access the internet, you may appeal by post – this must be done using a POPLA postal form which may be obtained by contacting POPLA by phone (0330 159 6126) or post (PO Box 1270, Warrington, WA4 9RL).

By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.

3) If you choose to do nothing the parking charge will automatically increase after thirty-five days from the date of this letter to £100.00 and the matter will be passed to our debt recovery agent, at which point you will be liable to pay an additional charge of £70, in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking, and further charges will be claimed if court action is taken against you. Any unpaid court judgement may adversely affect your credit rating.

Yours sincerely,

Appeals Department
UK Parking Control Limited

Will do, thank you very much.

Here is a suggested POPLA appeal:

POPLA Verification Code: [Insert Code]
UKPC Parking Charge Reference: [Insert PCN Reference]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM]
Appellant: [Your Name]

Grounds for Appeal

I am appealing as the Hirer of the vehicle, and I contest this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the following grounds:

1. UKPC’s Notice to Hirer (NtH) is non-compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), so the Hirer cannot be held liable.

2. UKPC has not established the identity of the driver.

3. The signage at the site is inadequate and does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice.

4. UKPC has not provided evidence of landowner authority to issue and enforce parking charges at this location.

---

1. UKPC’s Notice to Hirer (NtH) is non-compliant with PoFA, so the Hirer cannot be held liable

Under Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), a parking operator can only transfer liability to a vehicle's Hirer if they have fully complied with the requirements of the Act. UKPC has failed to do so, meaning I, as the Hirer, cannot be held liable for this charge.

Key Failures in UKPC’s Notice to Hirer:

• UKPC did not include the mandatory documents required by Paragraph 13(2) of PoFA, which states that to transfer liability to the Hirer, the operator must provide copies of:

• The Notice to Keeper (NtK)

• The hire agreement

• A statement of liability signed by the Hirer

• UKPC’s Notice to Hirer (NtH) does not comply with Paragraph 14(5), as it omits crucial statutory wording and fails to inform the Hirer of their liability conditions.

Since UKPC has failed to meet these legal requirements, they cannot transfer liability to me as the Hirer, and I am not liable for this charge.

2. UKPC has not established the identity of the driver

Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), the operator may only hold the Hirer liable for an unpaid parking charge if they fully comply with all the requirements outlined in Paragraph 14. As demonstrated above, the NtK issued by UKPC is non-compliant with PoFA in the following critical ways:

• UKPC did not include the mandatory documents required by Paragraph 13(2) of PoFA, which states that to transfer liability to the Hirer, the operator must provide copies of:

• The Notice to Keeper (NtK)

• The hire agreement

• A statement of liability signed by the Hirer

• UKPC’s Notice to Hirer (NtH) does not comply with Paragraph 14(5), as it omits crucial statutory wording and fails to inform the Hirer of their liability conditions.

Since UKPC has failed to meet these legal requirements, they cannot transfer liability to me as the Hirer, and I am not liable for this charge. I put the operator to strict proof that:

• They have fully complied with all the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4, allowing them to transfer liability to the Hirer.

• The person being pursued (the Hirer) was, in fact, the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged contravention.

There is no presumption in law that the Hirer was the driver. In VCS v. Edward [2023], it was ruled that the operator must provide sufficient evidence to prove that the Keeper/Hirer and the driver are the same person. Without such evidence, the Keeper/Hirer cannot be held liable for the charge.

Without evidence of the driver’s identity and given the clear PoFA non-compliance, the operator has no lawful basis to pursue me, the Hirer, for this charge.

3. The signage is inadequate and does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice

The BPA Code of Practice (version 8, 2024), which still applies to existing car parks until the new Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCOP) comes into effect in 2026, outlines clear requirements for signage.

Section 18.3 of the BPA Code states that signs must be clear and legible, with terms and conditions clearly visible to drivers upon entering and throughout the site. UKPC has failed to meet these requirements:

• The signs do not contain prominent terms regarding vehicles that exceed standard bay sizes.

• The charge amount is buried within a large block of text and is not prominent, contrary to Beavis v ParkingEye (2015) UKSC 67.

• Below is a comparison of the HUPC signage and the sign from the Beavis case:

Given that the signage is inadequate and does not comply with the BPA Code, it cannot form the basis of a legally enforceable contract.

4. UKPC has not provided 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 landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.

The operator is also put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice. 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. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules.

A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. I require UKPC to provide an unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner as evidence. If they fail to do so, this charge must be cancelled.

Conclusion

For the reasons set out above, this Parking Charge Notice must be cancelled. UKPC has:

• Failed to comply with PoFA, so I, as the Hirer, cannot be held liable.

• Failed to identify the driver, so there is no enforceable claim against me.

• Failed to provide adequate signage, meaning no contract was formed.

• Failed to provide proof of landowner authority, meaning they have no legal standing.

As UKPC cannot enforce this charge, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel this PCN.