Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all

I've just received a PCN from UKPC for my vehicle being parked in Beckton Triangle while "not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space"

WHAT HAPPENED: Upon entering the car park, the driver noticed that the car park was quite empty and there was pleny of space and therefore just parked without thinking too much about parking within the bay lines. This did not create inconvenience to other drivers who were parking as it was very quiet, but it was done primarily because the car park was relatively empty and the driver did not think it would impact anyone (the driver had never heard of anyone getting a ticket for not parking within lanes perfectly!). You can see from the photos taken with the PCN that the car park is quite empty around the car

On Wed 29th July, the registered keeper received a PCN through the post.

The PCN, including All the images taken for the PCN are in this Dropbox link here, including the signage
DROPBOX LINK WITH ALL IMAGES INC PCN


This is the location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/76xWo7EcGRUu9ZB96

I really thing it's unfair that a PCN was given for poor parking while the car park was empty-ish. It did not impede anyone else

I would really appreciate any help with this!

One point: the PCN is not compliant with PoFA 2012 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4), specifically but not limited to

Quote

9(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;

so that as long as the driver is not identified, the registered keeper can appeal that there is no liability because of this.

There may be other reasons, so wait for other input before appealing.

The appeal will be rejected, so prepare for a more detailed appeal to POPLA in the first place.

Thanks for your reply and insights. I've run your advice through Claude and came up with this appeal letter: what do you think?




**Parking Charge Reference Number: 3154961961805**
**Vehicle Registration: VA17 SJO**
**Notice to Keeper dated: 22/07/2026**

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally appeal the above Parking Charge Notice, issued in respect of an alleged contravention at Beckton Triangle Retail Park, 5 Claps Gate Lane, London, E6 6LG on 15/07/2026.

**Ground of appeal: the Notice to Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012**

Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 sets out mandatory requirements for a notice to keeper. It states that the notice must:

"specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked **and the period of parking** to which the notice relates."

The Notice to Keeper I received specifies only a single timestamp — "on the 15/07/2026 at 19:06:05" — as the moment the vehicle was recorded. It does not state a period of parking, i.e. it gives no start time and end time for the parking event to which the charge relates. A single point-in-time observation is not a "period of parking" within the meaning of paragraph 9(2)(a).

As the Notice to Keeper fails to meet this mandatory statutory requirement, it does not comply with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4. Consequently, the provisions in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 which would otherwise transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper do not apply. As I am not obliged to name the driver, and in the absence of a compliant notice to keeper, there is no lawful basis on which keeper liability can be pursued in this case.

I would ask that UK Parking Control Ltd cancel this Parking Charge Notice on this basis.

I look forward to your written confirmation that this charge has been cancelled. Should you reject this appeal, please note my right to escalate to POPLA, and I reserve all rights in relation to this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Also, from a previous poster that said do not pay UKPC a penny.
They will most likely discontinue the claim.

As in, just ignore it?

So The photo of the signage is taken from their website, and was submitted by them as part of their evidence. I haven’t mentioned the fairness aspect on my appeal and have stuck to what you pointed out initially

Is that appeal letter good to submit?

Thanks again!

It’ll be rejected, simply because they always do, acceptance means no ££. But it’s fine as far as I can see. If you also can’t read the sign then you may want to add something about this too.

Noted. Amended the letter to include a point of the fact the photo of the sign is difficult to read. See below. Thanks again for your help



Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally appeal the above Parking Charge Notice, issued in respect of an alleged contravention at Beckton Triangle Retail Park, 5 Claps Gate Lane, London, E6 6LG on 15/07/2026.

**First ground of appeal: the Notice to Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012**

Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 sets out mandatory requirements for a notice to keeper. It states that the notice must:

"specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked **and the period of parking** to which the notice relates."

The Notice to Keeper I received specifies only a single timestamp — "on the 15/07/2026 at 19:06:05" — as the moment the vehicle was recorded. It does not state a period of parking, i.e. it gives no start time and end time for the parking event to which the charge relates. A single point-in-time observation is not a "period of parking" within the meaning of paragraph 9(2)(a).

As the Notice to Keeper fails to meet this mandatory statutory requirement, it does not comply with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4. Consequently, the provisions in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 which would otherwise transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper do not apply. As I am not obliged to name the driver, and in the absence of a compliant notice to keeper, there is no lawful basis on which keeper liability can be pursued in this case.

**Second ground of appeal: UK Parking Control Ltd has not evidenced that the signage terms were legible**

The Notice to Keeper asserts that "the Terms and Conditions of the car park were clearly and prominently displayed." The burden of proving this rests with UK Parking Control Ltd. However, the photographic evidence of the signage provided in support of this Parking Charge is not legible — the text of the terms and conditions cannot be read from the photograph, even on close inspection.

For a Parking Charge to be enforceable, UK Parking Control Ltd must be able to demonstrate that the terms were brought adequately to the attention of the driver by way of clear and legible signage, in line with the British Parking Association's Code of Practice, of which it is a member. As the photographic evidence relied upon fails to establish that the signage was legible, UK Parking Control Ltd has not discharged its burden of proving that the terms were adequately displayed, and I do not accept that a contract on those terms was validly formed.

I look forward to your written confirmation that this charge has been cancelled. Should you reject this appeal, please note my right to escalate to POPLA, and I reserve all rights in relation to this matter.

Yours faithfully,

The appeal website limits to 2000 characters so I've condensed it to the following, and I'll submit it. I fully expect a rejection so I'll be back soon! Thanks again guys for your help




Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to appeal this Parking Charge Notice, issued for an alleged contravention at Beckton Triangle Retail Park, 5 Claps Gate Lane, London, E6 6LG on 15/07/2026.

**First ground: the Notice to Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012**

Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the notice to "specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates." My Notice states only a single timestamp — "on 15/07/2026 at 19:06:05" — with no start and end time. A single observation is not a "period of parking."

This also breaches paragraph 9(2)(b), which requires the notice to inform the keeper of the sum due "in respect of the specified period of parking." As no period was specified under 9(2)(a), 9(2)(b) cannot be satisfied either.

As the Notice fails these mandatory requirements, it is non-compliant with paragraph 9, so the liability provisions in paragraph 6 do not apply. I am not obliged to name the driver, and without a compliant notice there is no lawful basis to pursue me as keeper.

**Second ground: signage terms not evidenced as legible**

The Notice states the Terms and Conditions were "clearly and prominently displayed." The burden of proving this rests with UK Parking Control Ltd, but the photographic evidence of the signage supplied is illegible — the terms cannot be read even on close inspection. As this evidence fails to establish the signage was legible, UKPC has not discharged its burden, and I do not accept a contract on those terms was validly formed.

I look forward to written confirmation that this charge has been cancelled. Should this appeal be rejected, I reserve my right to escalate to POPLA and all other rights in this matter.

Whoops I’ve already submitted so can’t factor that in unfortunately. Once they reject it I can maybe incorporate it. Thanks anyway!

It’s normal.
If you appeal on a single point, they can’t ignore it.
If you appeal on two or more points, they just ignore the points for which they have no easy answer.
If you appeal similarly to POPLA, you may well get the same treatment.
However if this comes to an appeal to a county court claim, the court won’t ignore the inconvenient points.
You should submit a POPLA appeal, if only to show that you have done all you can to avoid this going to court. Basically reuse what you already have.
However the majority of court claims are discontinued, and you have a number of good points to incorporate in an appeal if it comes to that.