Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello

The Keeper got this after visiting a McDonald's in Worcester Blackpole. They do not want to pay the BS 'fee' considering they where not parked for all that time given time to go through the drive-thru plus 10mins grace.

There has been no contact with UKPC.

Please advise.

The Keeper feels that the fee is ridiculous, and OTT considering the car park is not limited during the day and they could park "for hours" with no problem, but nip in for a burger and chat in the evening and suddenly you are slapped with stupid, oversized, and undeserving 'charges'.

Particularly since the signs are (while not invisible), certainly not clear at night and the time change was unknown to them since their last visit to said park.

Hope that explains things.

You didn't actually answer the question...

Why do you think that the driver has not breached the contractual terms of the signs?

That question matters, because I do not help people “beat” every parking charge at all costs. I am happy to assist where the charge has been issued unfairly or unlawfully, or where the operator is trying to claim more than they are entitled to, but that always starts with an honest look at whether there has actually been a breach on the operator’s own terms.

Here, going by the times you have given and even allowing a full 10 minutes’ grace at the end, the ANPR record still shows the vehicle on site for around eight minutes beyond that. On the face of it, that is a clear breach of the stated maximum stay. So if your position is that no breach occurred at all, you need to explain why you say that, because at the moment it looks like the driver simply stayed longer than was allowed.

That does not mean you have to roll over and pay UKPC. It means the focus shifts away from “no breach” and onto other issues: whether a fair and transparent contract was ever formed, whether the signage is adequate (especially at night), whether the change in time limit was properly brought to customers’ attention, and whether McDonald’s are prepared to step in and get this cancelled for a genuine customer.

As I said before, if the time limit was reduced or evening rules introduced since your last visit, that really should have been highlighted with very prominent “new terms” or similar notices. Quietly changing the rules in a long-used car park, then hammering regular customers for £100, is not a good look and is something to complain about to McDonald’s.

Likewise, your own description of the signs as hard to see and not clear at night is potentially important. The legal test is not “are there some signs somewhere”, but whether an ordinary motorist arriving in the dark can actually see and read the key terms before they could realistically be bound by them. If the maximum stay, any different evening rules, and the £100 charge are in small print on poorly lit boards, UKPC will struggle to show that the driver had a fair opportunity to understand and accept those terms.

There is also the point that ANPR captures time between the cameras, which includes queueing for the drive-thru, waiting to be served, waiting for food, circling, and not just the time the car is parked. McDonald’s positively encourage people to use the drive-thru, yet UKPC treat every second within the ANPR zone as “parking”. That is not how a reasonable consumer would look at it, and again it feeds into the argument that the system is penalising normal custom rather than abuse.

The practical route I would suggest is this. First, if you want help with the legal and technical angles, you need to post up the Notice to Keeper (both sides) with personal data removed, and clear photos of the signage, ideally at night. UKPC’s paperwork often fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act, and if this notice is not fully compliant then only the driver would be liable, not the keeper. That is why it is vital that you do not name the driver in any appeal.

Second, you should make a robust complaint to McDonald’s with proof that the driver was a genuine customer (receipt, bank statement, app history). Explain that they were using the site as intended, that the restriction or evening terms were not clearly brought to their attention, that the signage is poor at night, and that the ANPR timing includes normal drive-thru use and a short chat, not long-term parking or abuse. Ask the restaurant manager to get the ticket cancelled with UKPC; escalate to McDonald’s head office if the local store is unhelpful.

So to be clear: on what you have told us so far, it does look as though the driver technically overstayed on UKPC’s own figures. That is why I have pressed you on why you think there was no breach. However, even where there has been an overstay, there can still be good arguments on signage, changes to terms, the way ANPR is operated, and PoFA compliance, plus the very real chance of a landowner (McDonald’s) cancellation for a genuine customer.

Lastly, to reassure you: even if you did absolutely nothing for now and simply waited to see whether UKPC ever issued a county court claim, as long as any claim is properly defended the odds are that you will never end up paying them a penny. These claims are usually struck out by the court, or discontinued by the parking company or their solicitors, once they see a competent defence and realise the motorist is not an easy target.

We still need the front of the Notice to Keeper. That is the key document. Please post both sides, only redacting your personal info and the PCN number. Leave ALL dates and times visible.

Regarding the text message, DO NOT click that link. It is a phishing scam and is almost certainly unrelated to this UKPC notice. The wording is wrong for private parking in the UK (it calls it a penalty notice/fine, threatens licence revocation and credit damage) and the payment link is not a legitimate UKPC channel. Report it as junk and block the sender. You can also forward the message to 7726.

As for “how did they get the number”, spam texts like this are sent in bulk to random numbers and to numbers harvested from many unrelated data sources. It does not mean UKPC have your phone number. UKPC obtain keeper details from the DVLA, and that does not include a telephone number.

For the main case, because you are not saying “no breach”, the angle becomes fairness and transparency: whether the evening restriction was clearly and prominently communicated (especially if it changed since the last visit) and whether the signs are readable at night. If you can, get night photos from a driver’s eye view of the entrance sign and the nearest terms sign.

So just appeal to UKPC with something, anything, as the Keeper. The aim is to get a POPLA code as any initial appeal is always rejected, irrespective of what you say.

Once you appeal to POPLA, if that is not successful, it won't matter because a POPLA decision is not binding on the appellant. You ignore all useless debt recovery letters because all debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.

You then come back here when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) from DCB Legal and we advise you on how to defend the claim and if you follow all the advice, the claim is eventually struck out or discontinued.

Seriously? Are you not able to search the forum for a basic appeal that you can use or just make one up yourself?

Any initial appeal will be rejected so even if you submitted a limerick, that would be enough to get a rejection and a POPLA code.

You were advised on 17 December to submit any initial appeal — literally a placeholder — because that is what preserves your right to a proper POPLA appeal. You could have copied one from the forum in under a minute.

Today is 22 December. Five days later you are now saying you didn’t bother sending anything, and you’re trying to present the consequences of that choice as if they were inevitable. They weren’t.

You’ve wasted everyone’s time. If you had simply followed the basic first step, you would now have a full POPLA appeal available to you. Instead, you’ve thrown that opportunity away and moved straight to the debt recovery stage.

In over 99.9% of UKPC cases, not a penny is ever paid — when the process is followed. You chose not to follow it.

I’m stepping back at this point. The advice was given clearly, and I’m not spending more time on someone who asks for guidance, ignores it, and then complains about the predictable outcome. Hopefully someone else can assist you from here.

I apologise. I initially thought no appeal had been submitted at all, which is why I reacted as I did.

You were advised on 13 December to submit any appeal, even a placeholder, purely to secure a POPLA code, and I assumed that step hadn’t been taken. Given that an appeal was in fact lodged via the portal (and not acknowledged), the issue now clearly shifts to UKPC’s process failure and their premature escalation to debt recovery, which is a breach of the PPSCoP.

Let’s focus on holding them to account for that. What exactly did you put in as your appeal? Word for word.

You have an "out" here. Their debt recovery letter has been issued at least 3 days too early. Even though you submitted the defence on the 17th, which is a day too late.

The PPSCoP clearly states in section 8.1.1(e) (my emphasis) that:

The parking operator MUST ensure that a notice informs the recipient: that if the recipient appeals within 28 days of RECEIVING the parking charge, the right to pay at the rate applicable when the appeal was made must stand for a further 14 days from the date (subject to 8.1.2d) they receive notification that their appeal has been rejected;

Note 2 then goes on to state:

A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose, “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. Therefore, parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)

Therefore, if the NtK was issued on Saturday 15 November. That means the it was deemed delivered (received) on Tuesday 18 November. Therefore the 28 day window of appeal is valid until Tuesday 16 December. The Notice of Debt Recovery was issued on 13 December, at least 3 days too early.

Send the following formal complaint to UKPC at complaints@ukparkingcontrol.com and CC aos@britishparking.co.uk and yourself:

Subject: Breach of PPSCoP – Premature Debt Recovery and Appeal Handling Failure (PCN [reference])[/b

I am making a formal complaint regarding your handling of this Parking Charge Notice and your clear breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice.

The breach is simple, objective, and incapable of dispute.

The Private Parking Single Code of Practice is explicit that the appeal period runs for 28 days from the date the Notice to Keeper is RECEIVED, not from the date it is issued, generated, or printed.

Section 8.1.2(e) of the PPSCoP states:

“The parking operator must ensure that a notice informs the recipient: that if the recipient appeals within 28 days of receiving the parking charge, the right to pay at the rate applicable when the appeal was made must stand…”

This is reinforced by Note 2, which makes clear that a notice sent by post is presumed to be delivered on the second working day after posting, and that operators must retain records of the actual date of posting, not merely the date a notice was generated or passed to a third-party mail consolidator.

Chronology demonstrating the breach:

• The Notice to Keeper is dated Saturday 15 November 2025
• A notice dated on a Saturday cannot be presumed delivered that day
• Applying Note 2, deemed delivery is Tuesday 18 November 2025
• The 28-day appeal period therefore runs until 16 December 2025

Despite this, a debt recovery letter dated 13 December 2025 was issued, including an unlawful £70 add-on, while the statutory appeal period was still running.

That is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice.

There is no alternative interpretation available to you. The only way this breach can have occurred is that UKPC has wrongly calculated the appeal window from the date of issue or generation, rather than from the date of receipt as the Code requires.

This failure has resulted in:

• premature escalation to debt recovery,
• the unlawful addition of a £70 sum,
• and continued processing of keeper data when enforcement activity should have been suspended.

Appeal handling failure:

An appeal was lodged via your web portal before the debt recovery letter was received. Your system accepted the appeal text, yet:

• no acknowledgement was provided,
• no reference number was issued,
• no response or rejection was sent,
• and no POPLA code was issued.

That compounds the breach and demonstrates a failure of your appeal handling process.

Required action:

I now require the following:

1. Immediate confirmation that this parking charge is placed on hold, with all debt recovery activity ceased.
2. A written explanation as to why UKPC calculated the appeal period incorrectly, contrary to PPSCoP section 8.1.2(e) and Note 2.
3. An explanation for the issuance of a debt recovery letter dated 13 December 2025, during a live appeal window.
4. Confirmation that the lodged appeal is now being properly reconsidered, and that you will either:

• cancel the Parking Charge Notice, or
• issue a rejection together with a valid POPLA verification code.

Escalation:

This breach will be reported to:
• the British Parking Association, and
• the DVLA, for misuse of keeper data arising from non-compliance with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice and, by extension, your KADOE contract.

These reports will be made irrespective of the outcome of this complaint.

No liability is admitted and no payment will be made.

I expect a substantive response addressing each point above.

Yours faithfully,

[Registered Keeper Name]
[Address]
[PCN reference]