I think you will find that Grace applies to legitimately parked vehicles. You parked over 2 bays, so I am pretty sure Grace doesn't apply.

The grace period is to allow a driver to read the signs before entering into the 'agreement.' I believe?

We need to see your actual draft appeal in order to comment on it.

There are two grace periods, so you need to quote both of them from the BPA CoP.

You need to use the very long signage template point from the NEWBIES.

Plus, any other points that are relevant which may include, not the landowner, no standing to issue charges in their own name, not the same as Beavis, non-POFA compliant NTK, and anything else that is relevant.

Once the regulars have checked your draft, convert it to a pdf, attach it to the appeal, and put something like, see attached appeal pdf. Embed photos instead of putting hyperlinks. That way the assessor has to look at them.

Here is a draft of my POPLA appeal for your consideration please:

POPLA Appeal Summary
23/11/17 PCN from UKPC received on windscreen in free retail car park
18/12/17 Appealed to UKPC as Keeper requesting cancellation or POPLA code
19/12/17 received email with a PDF demanding driver name before they will consider appeal.
28/12/17 received notice to keeper
25/01/18 Received Notification letter requesting payment within 14 days or details will be passed to recovery agent
30/01/18 Used appeal service again to contest the charge as Keeper and/or request POPLA code
14/02/18 Received appeal refusal and POPLA code.
As the registered keeper I contend that a breach of the terms and conditions did not occur mainly due to but not limited to: there was insufficient signage, namely no signage on the normal car park entrance used from Sandy Lane / Whiting Road (see video evidence) and that no grace period was applied to allow a driver to read any signs placed intermittently in the car park and either accept the terms and conditions or leave the car park contrary to the BPA Code of Practice detailed below.

Appealing as registered keeper based on:
1. No Sign on Car Park Entrance
2. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
3. No Grace Period Applied to allow the driver to read the signs and decide whether to remain in the car park
4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
5. Beavis vs parking eye case extract was not referenced or properly quoted in UKPC correspondence
6. Signage fails to comply with the Consume Contract Regulations 2013 in this free car park

1. No signs on the Main Car Park Entrance from Sandy lane / Whiting Road Contrary to BPACoP Appendix B & sec 18 & section28 !!!8211; Video evidence of this. Signage was therefore not compliant with BPA AOS Code of Practice
The BPA Code of Practice states:
18.1 A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver!!!8217;s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.
18.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format.
18.3 Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.
Appendix B sets out requirements for entrance signs and adds some clarification on the words !!!8220;conspicuous and legible!!!8221; and !!!8220;easy to see!!!8221;. The following extracts are relevant:
As well as the AOS logo, signs at the entrance to the parking area should clearly show the type of parking; and if, when and how any payment should be made.
If one of the following standard wordings applies to your parking area you should use it.
There must be at least one item from Group 1. But no more than three items from Group 1 should appear before, and more prominently than, text from Group 2. You must always mention that terms and conditions apply and say where drivers can find more details !!!8211; this will usually be on the other notices in the parking area.
Group 1
Pay and display [except/free for blue badge holders]
[x minutes!!!8217;/hour!!!8217;s/hours!!!8217;] free parking [for [business name] customers only]
Pay on exit
Pay [on foot/at machine] when leaving
Parking for [business name] customers only
Permit holders only
Group 2
Charges apply [fter this][after x minutes/hours]
Private land
Terms and conditions apply
See the notice[s] [in the car park] for details
Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective.
There is no sign on the main Sandy Lane / Whiting Road Car Park Entrance !!!8211; see video.
There was no contract between the driver and UKPC on entering the Car Park. The driver could not see any contractual information as none existed when entering the car park and therefore at that time had no idea that any contract or restrictions applied. As a consequence the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the parking charge dismissed.

2. Sign was not readable from parking space. 18.3 states You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. See picture taken from parking space at the time of receiving PCN.

The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.
In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:
imgur.com/a/AkMCN
In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.
Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:
2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg
This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.
Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.
It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned such as the entrance from Sandy Lane and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.
This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:
''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''
From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.
The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:
archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm
As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:
signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx
''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2!!!8221; letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3!!!8221; or even larger.''
...and the same chart is reproduced here:
ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html
''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''
So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole elsewhere in the site or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a magnifying glass to be able to read the terms.
Yet the car was not even shown by UKPC to be parked anywhere near any terms and conditions signs at all. In fact the driver had to exit the vehicle and wall a considerable distance to read a sign high up on a lamp post as shown by the picture from the driver seat before deciding to remain in the car park and while doing so was issued a parking notice:

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of authorised, permit displaying in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, right next to every visitors parking area stating the maximum parking period allowed for visitors.
Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':
(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.
The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.
This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:
bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html
This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the non-existent entrance signs from the Sandy lane / Whiting Road entrance appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and exiting the vehicle and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

3. No period of grace given for the driver to read the additional signs within the car park, or to exit the car park following the parking period.
This matter has arisen as the ticket was issued at 10:02 within the period that the driver was reading the closest sign (unreadable from inside the vehicle as shown in the picture) after entering on or after 10:00 and that the total stay in this free car park was less than 10 minutes as confirmed by shop receipt and witness statement contrary to BPA CoP 13.2.

The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) states that parking operators "should allow the driver a reasonable !!!8216;grace period!!!8217; in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action." As stated previously, there is NO entrance sign to this car park from the Whiting Road entrance to allow the driver to decide whether parking in the car park would breach any contract. The additional signs are within the car park spaced so they cannot be read from every available parking space. Therefore drivers must exit their vehicles to read the signs.
Kevin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at BPA states that:
!!!8216;There is a difference between !!!8216;grace!!!8217; periods and !!!8216;observation!!!8217; periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.
!!!8220;An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA!!!8217;s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator!!!8217;s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,!!!8221; he explains.
!!!8220;No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.!!!8221;
The BPA!!!8217;s guidance defines the !!!8216;grace period!!!8217; as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.
Kelvin continues: !!!8220;In the instance of a PCN being issued while a ticket is being purchased, the operator has clearly not given the motorist sufficient time to read the signs and comply as per the operator!!!8217;s own rules. If a motorist decides they do not want to comply and leaves the car park, then a reasonable period of time should be provided also.!!!8221;!!!8217;
In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (13.4) states that the parking operators !!!8220;should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.!!!8221;
During a BPA Professional Development and Standards Board meeting in July 2015 it was formally agreed that relevant changes to the Code of Practice would be made to ensure compliance with the DfT guidelines regarding grace periods.
!!!8220;Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.!!!8221;

There is no evidence that UKPC have upheld the minimum grace periods as set out in the BPA Code of Practice as the issue time and the Time First Seen on the Parking Charge Notice are the same at 10:02 23-11-2017

4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As UKPC does not have any proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

5. BPA CoP 19.10 !!!8216;If an Operator seeks to use extracts from the !!!8216;ParkingEye v Beavis!!!8217; judgement laid down by the Supreme Court, the judgement must be referenced and that extracts from it must be properly quoted. Best practice would be adding the website link to the summary of the judgement, when making reference to it!!!8217;

Correspondence received from UKPC 14/02/18 used extracts from Beavis vs parking eye namely: !!!8216;Beavis vs parking eye case which stated that the amount of the parking charge should be adequately brought to the attention of the motorist as well as the requirements of the BPA code of practice!!!8217;

The extract was not referenced or properly quoted. There is no link to the summary of the judgement contrary to BPACoP 19.10

6. Failure to comply with the Consumer Contract Regulations 2013
The signage at this location as a free car park fails to create any contractual liability due to the failure to comply with the provisions of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. The purported contract created by the signage is a !!!8216;distance contract!!!8217; as defined in section 5 of the Regulations, and is therefore subject to the mandatory requirements set out in section 13, relating to the statutory information which must be provided by the trader.

The Regulations state, at 13(1)(a), that the information listed in Schedule 2 must be given or made available to the consumer in a clear and comprehensible manner. The Claimant!!!8217;s notice fails to comply with various clauses of Schedule 2, as follows:

(c)the geographical address at which the trader is established and, where available, the trader!!!8217;s telephone number, fax number and e-mail address, to enable the consumer to contact the trader quickly and communicate efficiently;
(d)where the trader is acting on behalf of another trader, the geographical address and identity of that other trader;
(e)if different from the address provided in accordance with paragraph (c), the geographical address of the place of business of the trader, and, where the trader acts on behalf of another trader, the geographical address of the place of business of that other trader, where the consumer can address any complaints;
(k)where applicable, the trader!!!8217;s complaint handling policy;
(r)the existence of relevant codes of conduct, as defined in regulation 5(3)(b) of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, and how copies of them can be obtained, where applicable;

Due to these significant breaches of the Regulations, it is submitted that I as the registered keeper cannot be held contractually liable, according to the wording of the Regulations at 13 (1) !!!8220;Before the consumer is bound by a distance contract, the trader must !!!8230;!!!8221; and again I respectfully suggest that the parking charge is cancelled.

Yes that looks good (what a shame they sent you a NTK!). Just a typo here:
=Kelvin

Also make sure you can upload your video in a format that the POPLA website allows, if not you might have to ring them and ask how to attach the video (don't submit the appeal without it because you are not allowed to add evidence of any description once you submit the appeal.

Yes! Many many thanks for your help, will sort the typo and check out the video upload.