This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by Smart Parking Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Sunday, 12 July 2026. The notice itself is dated Tuesday, 28 July 2026, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as The Embankment-Stratford upon Avon.
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates NON_COMPLIANT: Likely outside PoFA paragraph 9 timing window. Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Thursday, 30 July 2026 (18 days after the alleged event). On this basis, keeper liability may not be established.
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No
Additional notes provided:
Charge is for overstay of approx 30 mins. Paid for 2 hours via RingGo 07:52 - 09:52. ANPR time 07:50 - 10:23. £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days of issue. Letter received today 03/08/26
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
For anyone interested, you do not have to pay the extortionate fees charged by airports to use the drop-off zones if they use a barrier less system. The simple reason is that, as long as the driver is not identified, and the ONLY way they can identify the driver is if the Keeper, the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK), blabs it to them.
Because airport land (also ports/harbours and some country parks) is covered by byelaws, it is therefore under 'statutory control'. The ONLY way a parking firm can transfer liability form the unknown driver to the known Keeper is if they strictly follow all the requirements of PoFA 2012. One of the requirements to be able to rely on PoFA is that the land must not be under statutory control. In other words, airport land (and any other byelaws controlled land) is not "relevant" for the purposes of PoFA.
Because PoFA cannot be used, unless the driver is identified, they have nowhere else to go with this. Only the driver can be liable and there is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking firm.
I have not paid a drop-off fee or paid a single PCN for not doing so for many years now. My latest was after the driver dropped off a family member at Manchester Airport. This was the PCN received:
Appealed with the following:
Quote:I am the registered keeper. APCOA cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, APCOA will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because Manchester Airport is not 'relevant land'.
If Manchester Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because APCOA is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for APCOA’s own profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and APCOA 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. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. APCOA have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Just received the cancellation:
Another reason why you should never identify the driver.
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Monday, 29 June 2026. The notice itself is dated on the 7th of July, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Arcadia Library & Leisure Centre, Manchester.
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates PENDING: Enter the notice issue date to calculate deemed delivery and timing. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Not available.
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No
Additional notes provided:
The charge is for Failure to Register for Duration of the stay.
it was at 22:47 in the night, I could not see any visible signs, and the leisure centre was closed, meaning I wasn't able to register my vehicle at night since it was closed.
I was there for 17 minutes.
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case, thanks!
Another wider family member got the following PCN, can you please give pointers how to appeal?
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by ParkingEye Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Monday, 22 June 2026. The notice itself is dated an unspecified date, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Broadway Retail Park, Halifax.
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates PENDING: Enter the notice issue date to calculate deemed delivery and timing. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Not available.
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by Horizon Parking Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Thursday, 25 June 2026. The notice itself is dated Wednesday, 01 July 2026, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Tesco, Burton on Trent.
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates COMPLIANT: Likely PoFA timing compliant for paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Friday, 03 July 2026 (8 days after the alleged event).
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No
Additional notes provided:
This is a double dip incident. The vehicle is owned by a sole trader entity. There is tracking data from the day showing the vehicle made several movements to and from sites around Burton.
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
We have received 13 Parking Charge Notices for company vehicles for stopping on Chequers Lane on Dagenham Docks, waiting to access a waste management site which has limited capacity. Chequers Lane is an industrial estate road..... that happens to be privately owned by the Greater London Authority (GLA). The issue is, it's just a road, it's purpose is to serve the commercial premises on the road, it looks like public highway, and there is nothing that clearly differentiates it from the adopted public highway. There is no entrance signage, and PPM even had their enforcement signage on a section of Public Highway on Choats Road, the road leading to Chequers Lane. This has since been removed following complaints to Barking & Dagenham Council, their Counter Fraud Department, BPA and a BBC Radio 4 show about Dagenham Docks and unfair parking practices.
In 2025 we received 9. All 9 were issued and delivered outside of the relevant 14-day period required by POFA 2012 to invoke Keeper Liability. The first 4 were appealed and rejected by PPM. They were then appealed to POPLA, and PPM failed to submit evidence within 21 days. One fella at POPLA, Alex, was actually very helpful when I called and concluded all four on the POPLA portal immediately with a successful decision. The 5th Notice to Keeper, PPM included pictures of the wrong vehicle. They accepted that appeal and attributed the mistake to an "admin error". The following four were appealed, and again, rejected by PPM. These four were appealed to POPLA, and PPM withdrew from all 4.
However, despite being clearly non-POFA compliant, forfeiting their right to pursue the charge by withdrawing from POPLA and having written confirmation from the Landowner, GLA, that non-POFA charges are not pursued passed the initial appeal stage, PPM passed these four onto a debt collection agency TNC Collections, who started sending letters. They did eventually get cancelled and I got two apologies from PPM. They seemed quite upset about being reported to BPA, DVLA, Trading Standards, the ICO and Action Fraud. Lucky for them though, nobody cares! They don't have a Kadoe contract so DVLA don't care; BPA is BPA, they never care; Trading Standards only investigate something if it gets numerous reports; ICO don't care as it's not personal data; and Action Fraud only seems to take reports regarding online fraud.
I thought PPM had maybe learnt their lesson. But apparently not. They gave us a 2026 new year gift of 4 more Parking Charges. But this time they weren't even claiming we were parked. They were issued for.... get this....... being "STOPPED IN A NO WAITING ZONE".
PPM failed to provide evidence that they had the legal standing to enforce the charges on the land and all four POPLA appeals were allowed on that point alone.
PPM have said they are unfamiliar with the Codes Signage Requirements and they were unaware that they had to provide evidence of Landowner Authority to POPLA..... as it was there first time doing it.
I actually had a 40 minute discussion with the presenter Polly Weston, and it was refreshing to converse with someone who had done their homework and was standing up for the little guy as they say. I was actually in the show for like 5 seconds, but they cut out the part where I explained how I didn't pay any of them lol, but I get why, and I support the narrative of the show. Screw PPM and all the parking companies.
Hi - I'm helping a friend with this -- a hospital car park charge!!
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by Euro Car Parks Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Tuesday, 16 June 2026. The notice itself is dated Wednesday, 24 June 2026, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Finchley Memorial Hospital.
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates COMPLIANT: Likely PoFA timing compliant for paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Friday, 26 June 2026 (10 days after the alleged event).
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No
Additional notes provided:
I am going through this process as a favour for a friend.
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
Hi b789, I trust all is well? A family member (another one!), got the below parking fine, ironically it's at the same place for the second time, even though they enter their details in the VRM terminal to go the the local gym, it seems to be hit and miss.
Last time I used the following appeal and won, I've noticed they've changed the layout of their 'PCN', can you please check and approve if my appeal is ok?
Quote:PCN Ref : XXXXX
Date
Dear Sirs,
I have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: XXXXXX) for vehicle registration mark XXX XXXX, in which you allege that the driver has incurred a parking charge. I note from your correspondence that you are not seeking to hold me liable as the registered keeper, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("The Act"). You have chosen not to issue a Notice to Keeper in accordance with The Act, and it is now too late for you to do so.
There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so. I am therefore unable to help you further with this matter, and look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code.
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by UKPS Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Wednesday, 17 June 2026. The notice itself is dated Wednesday, 24 June 2026, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: Yes. The location is stated as Dragon Retail Park - Cardiff.
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates COMPLIANT: Likely PoFA timing compliant for paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Friday, 26 June 2026 (9 days after the alleged event).
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
Great forum, followed it from FTLA. Can you please help with the PCN, details below and attached, the driver was waiting to pick up family, did not see any signs anywhere but did notice other cars (incl Taxis) waiting there as well.
-----
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by UKCPS Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Tuesday, 26 May 2026. The notice itself is dated Tuesday, 09 June 2026, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Leeds City Station, LS1 4DY.
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates NON_COMPLIANT: Likely outside PoFA paragraph 9 timing window. Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Thursday, 11 June 2026 (16 days after the alleged event). On this basis, keeper liability may not be established.
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
------
![[Image: R7W2848.jpeg]](https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/R7W2848.jpeg)
![[Image: c4NfmFV.jpg]](https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/c4NfmFV.jpg)
