UKPC - designated disabled person's parking place without displaying a valid disabled person's badge

Coupon-mad

No, do not use what was suggested by @Vitor who isn't a regular poster on this board and the advice is incorrect for a UKPC PCN.  You should simply say that there were no t&cs signs, nor blue badge upright signs to draw attention to these bays, so (because they were all full at the point of parking) they looked like parent & child bays with the wide hatchings being the only visual cue. And the other sign in the car park is faded such that it is unreadable.

as I need to submit it today to meet the 14-day deadline for freezing the charge amount during the appeal process.

No you don't. The 14 days is completely irrelevant. Slow down and don't take the first advice given.

meetzainkhan

Thanks @Coupon-mad

I'm thinking of going with what you've advised, and it's the truth.

Dear UKPC,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle [YOUR REG] and I am appealing the above Parking Charge Notice.

No contract was formed because there were no readable terms and conditions signs, nor upright blue badge signs, at the disabled bays used. At the time of parking, all disabled bays were occupied and the one used had no signage to indicate disabled-only use, making it look like a parent & child bay. The only visual cue was the wide hatchings, and the only T&Cs sign in the vicinity is located on a distant lamp post, far from the bay and unreadable from a parked vehicle.

Your own photographs fail to show any clear, prominent signage in front of the bay in question. The BPA Code of Practice requires that signs be positioned so that they are visible, readable, and convey the relevant terms before parking. This was not the case.

Myci85

I get that you may be able to get off this on a technicality, but should you?

Those bays are extremely clearly marked on the ground, so unless you drove in with your eyes closed, you clearly knew you shouldn't have parked there, upright sign or not. And even if the space was mistaken for a parent and child space, the way your first post says you think you may have accidentally parked in either a disabled bay or a parent and child bay, implies you didn't have a young child with you either. Which suggests you parked there as it was close to the shop, you knew you were just popping in and thought you'd get away with it. 

Sorry if that sounds unsympathetic, but places provide these parking bays for a reason. I'm all for making a stand against unfair parking charges as lots of these companies are a joke, but in this case the pcn seems fair to me. 

meetzainkhan

I believe there’s been a misunderstanding regarding my situation. I have two child car seats permanently installed in the back of my car, and I was with my children at the time. It was a busy car park, and in the moment, I genuinely mistook the bay for a parent-and-child space. They do look very similar — perhaps you’ve noticed this too if you’ve ever taken a closer look.

While the photos taken afterwards may make it appear straightforward, in real-time — with young children in the car, a nearly full car park, and the need to find a safe space quickly — things aren't always as clear, especially when appropriate signage is lacking.

I’ve never intentionally parked in a disabled bay and fully respect the importance of these spaces for those who truly need them. This was an honest mistake.

I’m not looking for sympathy — only for practical guidance on how to proceed with an appeal, particularly based on what I believe to be a valid concern about inadequate signage, as outlined in the BPA Code of Practice.

Many thanks in advance for your advice.

Coupon-mad

Myci85 said:

I get that you may be able to get off this on a technicality, but should you?

Those bays are extremely clearly marked on the ground, so unless you drove in with your eyes closed, you clearly knew you shouldn't have parked there, upright sign or not. And even if the space was mistaken for a parent and child space, the way your first post says you think you may have accidentally parked in either a disabled bay or a parent and child bay, implies you didn't have a young child with you either. Which suggests you parked there as it was close to the shop, you knew you were just popping in and thought you'd get away with it. 

Sorry if that sounds unsympathetic, but places provide these parking bays for a reason. I'm all for making a stand against unfair parking charges as lots of these companies are a joke, but in this case the pcn seems fair to me. 

Sorry but this isn't a technicality. The PCN is not a fair one. This is contract law and these bays require full t&cs that are in the run of accessible bays. Hatched tarmac markings on the sides of a bay is not enough to create a contract. There is no contract.

Here there are no signs and it's deliberately done to catch families & disabled people out.

Seen a lot at retail parks. Totally unfair.

meetzainkhan

Hi everyone,

Thanks for your input. I just want to clarify a few points so the discussion stays focused on the legal/signage aspects rather than assumptions about intent.

I do have two child car seats permanently in my car and was with my children at the time. It was a busy car park, and I genuinely thought the bay was a parent-and-child space because there were no upright blue badge signs or nearby terms-and-conditions signage clearly indicating otherwise.

I’ve never deliberately parked in a disabled bay and fully respect that these spaces are vital for those who genuinely need them. This was an honest mistake. My goal here is not to debate morality but to get practical guidance on the appeal process in line with the BPA Code of Practice, particularly regarding signage clarity.

I’d appreciate keeping the conversation constructive and focused on signage and appeal strategy rather than assumptions about intent.

Thanks!