This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by Britannia, relating to an alleged contravention on Friday, 20 February 2026. The notice itself is dated Thursday, 05 March 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 Location:Mill Hill - Waitrose, 2 Langstone Way, NW7 1GU.
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 Monday, 09 March 2026 (17 days after the alleged event). On this basis, keeper liability may not be established.
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No
Response/appeal already sent:
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. G24 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. Britannia Parking have no hope should you be so stupid as to litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Additional notes provided:
This was the initial response to the above from Brittania:
Re: Parking Charge Number A7346736
Thank you for your appeal.
This Parking Charge is not POFA compliant, however, payment can still be sought under the old
‘implied-contract-with-the-driver’ rules used prior to POFA.
Under Contract Law there is a probability that the Keeper was the Driver if the Keeper does not
nominate anyone else.
Britannia Parking have made no assumptions as to the identity of the driver. We have written to you
as the vehicle’s keeper to inform you of any outstanding contraventions against your vehicle. If you
inform us of the driver’s details, we will pursue them for the Parking Charge. Please be aware that
the identity of the driver does not affect the validity of a Parking Charge.
In addition, should this Parking Charge reach court proceedings, we will put in a request to the
judge that the insurance certificate for the vehicle to reviewed as evidence, to determine who was
able to drive the vehicle at the time of the contravention.
It is our choice as a car park management company, to decide whether to refer to the Keeper
Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, when we issue a Parking Charge. Not referring to
or quoting POFA 2012 on a Parking Charges does not mean that it was not correctly issued.
It is not a requirement that we must notify you of your Parking Charge within 14 days. This only
applies if we refer to the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 when we issue a
Parking Charge. As we did not, we have 6 months in which we may notify you of the Parking
Charge.
We have placed the Parking Charge on hold for 14 days to allow for you to send this information.
Please be aware due to awaiting for additional evidence your appeal response may exceed our 28
day deadline.
Please submit the requested additional evidence or comments through our website using the link
below. You will need your Parking Charge Number and Vehicle Registration: https://www.britannia-parking.co.uk/en-gb/appeal/
Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department
Britannia Parking
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 National Parking Control Group Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Friday, 17 April 2026. The notice itself is dated Friday, 17 April 2026, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.
The notice appears to have been issued as On vehicle (windscreen ticket only). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as The Foundry, Chichester.
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates WAITING: This is still pre-NtK under PoFA paragraph 8. Wait for a postal NtK. Route applied: Pre-NtK stage after windscreen NtD. The notice is treated as given on Not available (1 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 put my reg in the system in the pub and it said it was valid until 07:00. No AM or PM listed so I assumed the parking is 24hrs but it was 12hrs. The length of time wasn’t listed anywhere. I have attached an image of an example of how the time is formatted on the iPad.
I was a paying customer at the pub but just misunderstood the parking system.
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
This place might ring a bell. I posted on FTLA about one here at the start of last year, and there were a few other posts regarding this location, including one poster who had an unsuccessful POPLA appeal but had an admission from Flexible Resolution Services that it was essentially the wrong decision.
With that in mind, I'm wondering how best to tackle this.
The NtK has no period of parking specified but has a time of 14:47 and the two timestamped images show 14:40:31 and 14:40:41.
On their online portal there were 10 photos with timestamps from 14:40:31 to 14:48:05, but the last one with the vehicle in was timestamped 14:47:02. The two after were photos of some signage. I have included the first and last photos of the vehicle with livery and reg edited out (images inbetween are just more images of the vehicle), and the two photos of signage as well as the NtK at the link below:
- The NtK fails to SPECIFY a Period of Parking
- The photos show the vehicle there for 6 mins 32 seconds.
- The signage is purely prohibitory, "No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on roads at any time." Etc. So there is no offer to park under certain terms and so no basis of a contract.
- This prohibition is also not prominent on the signage and can not be read whilst driving. Stopping is certainly required to do so.
- The relevant land is stated to be "UXBRIDGE IND EST, Wallingford Rd, Salisbury Rd, Arundel Rd, UXBRIDGE, UB8 2RZ". The vehicle was stopped outside Tomato Plant Limited UB8 2SR.
As I was typing this I remembered I have the evidence from last time.
Including:
- their contract with "TRADE SALES";
- their signage which I suspect is in breach of section 3 and Annex A of PPSSCOP.
- their signage site map.
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by Bank Park Parking Management, relating to an alleged contravention on Sunday, 15 March 2026. The notice itself is dated Friday, 20 March 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 Tandem Centre, High Street Colliers Wood, London, SW19 2TY.
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 Tuesday, 24 March 2026 (9 days after the alleged event).
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No
Response/appeal already sent (verbatim where possible):
This was their response:
Thank you for your recent communication concerning parking charge reference 3338160741109.
On the day in question your vehicle was parked outside the demarcation of a parking bay, The signage at the aforementioned car park clearly states that
vehicles must be parked fully within the confines of a single marked bay.
The appeal has been reviewed, having considered and investigated your appeal the PCN has been issued correctly. We operate under the code of practice
for Parking Enforcement on private land and public car parks as issued by the International Parking Community (IPC) and our Parking Charge Notice’s are
not deemed to be unfair at law – IPC Code of Practice: https://theipc/code-of-practice
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 Bank Park Management Ltd. PLEASE REFER OVERLEAF FOR PAYMENT
OPTIONS AND ADDRESS DETAILS.
2) Make an appeal to the independent adjudicator If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service
(IAS). In order to appeal, you will need your parking charge number, your vehicle registration and the date the charge was originally issued. Appeals must be
submitted to the IAS within 28 days of the date of this letter. Please note that if you wish to appeal to the IAS, you will lose the right to pay the discounted
rate of £60.00, and should the IAS 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 the IAS. Please note Please visit www.theias.org for full details.
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 £70.00, 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
Bank Park Management Ltd
Additional notes provided:
I sent an appeal something along the lines of this, using chatgpt, I don't have a copy of what I sent.
"Compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is central to this appeal, as the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice to me in my capacity as the registered keeper of the vehicle.
There is no evidence or allegation that I was the driver at the material time. The operator has therefore sought to rely on the provisions of Schedule 4 to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.
A creditor may only recover unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper where the strict requirements of Schedule 4 are fully complied with. This is set out at Paragraph 4(1) and 4(2) of Schedule 4.
Paragraph 4(2)(a) requires that the conditions set out in Paragraph 6 are met. Paragraph 6(1)(b) in turn requires that a Notice to Keeper is given in accordance with Paragraph 9.
Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires that the Notice to Keeper must specify “the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
The Notice to Keeper in this case fails to meet this requirement. It provides only a single timestamp rather than a defined period of parking. A timestamp does not constitute a “period of parking” as required by the Act.
This failure is fatal to the operator’s ability to transfer liability to the keeper.
As the operator has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Schedule 4, they have no lawful basis to pursue me as the registered keeper. I am under no obligation to identify the driver, and I decline to do so."
I also saved the photos of the contravention of the vehicle not parked in the bay properly, but it only show time stamp between 11:11:41 to 11:12:53. No driver was shown in the photos
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
I come from the FTLA website and it’s regarding my post there. Could you please give me some advice on what to do now?
I sent a complaint to GXS as one of the experienced users suggested, to show that I’ve been trying to resolve this issue. They have just cancelled the PCN after admitting they used the wrong photos.
I thought it wouldn’t get cancelled and that I would be able to go down the LOC + counterclaim route for highest bill, as one of the experienced users suggested. But now that it’s cancelled, I’m not sure what the best option is.
I feel like I need to hurt their pockets to the max. They blatantly sent me a PCN with multiple completely wrong evidence, rejected my appeal even though I clearly pointed out the obvious errors, held their stance, sent a final reminder, and then passed my personal details to a third-party debt collector - all to try and get money out of innocent people like me for something I didn’t do.
Please have a read through it. If you need any pictures of the letters, just let me know.
Thanks
Also, this is the last reply I got from them:
“I write in response to your recent correspondence regarding the above cited matter.
We appreciate you taking the time to raise your concerns with us and we regret that you have found yourself in a situation that has caused frustration or inconvenience.
Nature of your complaint
From my understanding, you wish to lodge a complaint regarding the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
In light of your correspondence, I can confirm that a full investigation has been conducted into the issues raised and we are committed to reviewing all complaints thoroughly, fairly, and in accordance with the relevant industry standards.
Responses have been provided below addressing the substantive and relevant aspects of your correspondence. Portions of your correspondence may have been deemed repetitive, unfounded, or not materially relevant to the matter at hand and such points may not have been addressed in detail. For the avoidance of doubt, where we have not directly responded to a specific point, this should not be interpreted as agreement or acceptance of the same.
Our investigation and findings
For future reference, if you ever disagree with a decision made following an appeal response, your next steps of dispute should be through the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), so that the matter can be reviewed by an adjudicator who does not work for ourselves.
Due to the severity of the claim you have made, I have reviewed the matter on this occasion.
On review I can see there has been an administrative error, and the wrong photos have been placed into this charge. Due to the error I can confirm that this case has now been cancelled with immediate effect. Apologies that this was not caught during your internal appeal. The appeal handler has been corrected of their mistake.
Next steps
While we trust that this has provided clarity on our position and the justification for the same, as your complaint has now been reviewed by a member of the Compliance Team and/or the Quality and Compliance Manager, should you be dissatisfied with the outcome, you may either write back to us for further comment or, alternatively, you have the right to complain to our Trade Association, the International Parking Community (IPC) – www.theipc.info
1. As expected, all appeals to UKCPS and the IAS have been dismissed.
The IAS give the following response:
Quote:I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them.
I have previously determined the Appellant's appeal against PCN no. z509896, z462713, z483355, z483360 and z518315. Whilst each appeal is determined on its own merits, the Appellant appeals this PCN on the same basis as the aforementioned PCNs. Therefore my considerations are largely the same.
Images have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site.
The terms and conditions of parking at this location are such that drivers must display a valid permit in their vehicle which entitles them to park there. In the photographs provided to me it is clear that no such permit was displayed and this is not disputed by the Appellant. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they display a valid permit and otherwise conform with the terms and conditions of the Operator's signage displayed at this site. Mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into account. The Appellant's distinction between permit holders and non-permit holders is not correct. The terms and conditions apply to all drivers. The difference between them is that permit holders are able to comply with the terms (provided they correctly display their permit), whereas non-permit holders cannot. This is the exact desired effect of the terms and conditions; permit holders are permitted to park and non-permit holders are not. The Appellant claims to have rights under his tenancy agreement which he purports is for the address he sets out in his response. However, the document provided appears to be either a redacted or template tenancy agreement. It does not contain any key information such as the property address, parties names or dates and is unsigned. Therefore, I have no evidence that this document has any relevance or connection to the Appellant or to this site. It is certainly not evidence of an unrestricted right to park and no other evidence demonstrating this is provided. It is often the case that a right to park on a site is subject to the rules and regulations put in place by the landowner, such as a parking enforcement scheme. If the Appellant has a connection to a property on this site, whether by way of a tenancy agreement or otherwise, the Appellant may wish to check the position to avoid any future PCNs being issued to him. The Appellant raises as an issue the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and purports that the Operator has failed to comply with the requirements therein. I am not satisfied that the Appellant has established a breach of PoFA. Whilst the NTK sets out the time of issue, as is appropriate, the period is the time over which the vehicle is observed as shown in the images (which the keeper is directed to on the NTK). The period shown in the images provided to me is 20:54 - 21:00. On the basis of the evidence provided I am satisfied that the NTK is compliant and that the Operator is entitled to pursue the Appellant as the registered keeper. The Appellant's contention that the Operator's evidence relies on a single moment in time and is therefore insufficient is also not accepted for this reason. Whilst I cannot comment on the Appellant's argument that the Operator has not engaged with him on substantive legal issues, this is not a basis upon which I could allow the appeal in any event. The pertinent point in this appeal is that I am satisfied that the Operator has established their prima facie case that the Appellant failed to display a valid permit. In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. The Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued and therefore the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision. For the reasons I have set out above, the Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued. As such, on the basis of the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in breach of the displayed terms and conditions and that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion.
I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.
2. In parallel I have submitted formal complaints to the estate management company in an attempt for them to order UKCPS to cancel all charges but they have refused, which now allows me to escalate to the property ombudsman
They gave the following response to my 2nd formal complaint:
Quote:Thank you for your patience while we reviewed your concerns. We understand that parking disputes can be frustrating; however, after a full internal review, our position remains as follows:
Contractual Basis and Information Sharing:
We recognise your frustration regarding the lack of direct documentation provided by Trinity Estates. As the managing agent, our relationship is with the Freeholder/Leaseholder. Any specific clauses, restrictions, or regulations pertaining to your individual tenancy are the responsibility of your landlord or letting agent to provide. We cannot advise on or provide contracts to which we are not a party.
Residential Use and "Quiet Enjoyment":
While we understand the impact this has had on your residence, any claims regarding the "quiet enjoyment" of your property must be directed to your landlord. Your tenancy agreement is held with them, and they are the appropriate party to address concerns regarding the terms of your residency.
Regarding the enforcement action: the parking operators act in accordance with the established site policy. Without a valid permit, the area cannot be used for loading, unloading, or parking for any duration. As the ticket was issued according to these set terms, any dispute regarding the validity of the fine must be handled through the formal parking company appeals process.
Trinity’s Role as Managing Agent:
Trinity’s responsibility is to oversee the management of on-site services, which includes subcontracting the parking enforcement to maintain order for all residents. By entering and using the managed parking areas, all residents and visitors are bound by the terms clearly displayed on the site signage.
Final Outcome:
Trinity Estates will not be engaging with the parking company on your behalf. Our instruction to the enforcement team is to uphold the terms of the site; by using the car park, you effectively agree to the conditions advertised on the signage.
This represents our final response on this matter, and we will not be providing further comment or correspondence regarding this specific dispute.
If you remain dissatisfied or feel your complaint has not been fully addressed, you may seek an independent review through The Property Ombudsman.
- Also I have moved address 2 weeks ago , I have updated my V5C logbook and drivers licence. Should I inform UKCPS?
I would appreciate any advice as to how I should now proceed. I have no intention to pay UKCPS.
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by Britannia Parking Group Limited, relating to an alleged contravention on Friday, 13 February 2026. The notice itself is dated Tuesday, 03 March 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 Southampton - west quay retail park, harbour parade so15 1ba.
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, 05 March 2026 (20 days after the alleged event). On this basis, keeper liability may not be established.
(In a follow up email the company admitted the claim is non compliant with POFA)
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No
Response/appeal already sent (verbatim where possible):
I appealed on grounds that it is not POFA 2012 compliant due to the notice to keeper coming later than 14 days after the offence
Additional notes provided:
I appealed and they responded by saying they were using pre POFA implied contract with driver - if I don’t nominate a driver there is a “probability” that the driver is the registered keeper
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 Civil Enforcement Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Wednesday, 10 December 2025. The notice itself is dated Wednesday, 17 December 2025, 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 61 SUFFOLK ROAD.
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, 19 December 2025 (9 days after the alleged event).
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No
Response/appeal already sent (verbatim where possible):
Yes we have made an appeal to Civil Enforcement which has now been turned down. Next phase is to go to POPLA
Additional notes provided:
We have appealed but it has been turned down. Need to go to POPLA
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
1. The car park is attached to the Eltham branch of Sainsburys.
2. The parking tariff is refunded if you spend £10 or more in store.
3. This wasn't a shopping trip. The driver's missus was attending a hospital appt. at the Eltham Community Hospital.
4. She has a 'blue badge', which she believed exempted her from normal parking charges.
5. The driver knew this was nonsense, but unfortunately didn't engage his grey matter sufficiently to challenge her baseless assumptions.
6. Consequently, no ticket was purchased.
7. You now have before you the result of the driver's own stupidity and lack of engagement with his missus' misapprehensions about her parking rights.
8. The driver is painfully aware that the PPC will just laugh at any appeal based on this set of circumstances. He would rather by-pass this stage altogether if legally feasible.
9. Although there must be signs all over the place, none were seen or read. The disabled bays were by the entrance, and the driver had no reason to seek them out.
10. The driver wonders if the invoice might be successfully challenged by arguing, for example, that there is no contract between him and the PPC.
11. Her misapprehensions arose from a tel/con. with Customer Services at Bexley Council, who assured her that no charges applied to her when using council-owned car parks.
12. It was also assumed that this car park was owned by Greenwich Council. Unfortunately:
"No, the Eltham Sainsbury’s car park (Passey Place) is not, and has not been, directly owned by Greenwich Council. It is owned and operated by the Greenwich Enterprise Board (GEB), a social enterprise and independent body, although the Council helped establish the GEB. It is technically private land, though open to the public."
Yes, the driver walked into this one. Any grounds for a defence? Any point in appealing when the driver knows any appeal will be rejected OOH?
![[Image: IMG-6324.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/ds84fjnw/IMG-6324.jpg)
