DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 118372--------------------------------------------------
UKPC parked at a Hospital
DIR By: terminator x
Date: May 11, 2026, 8:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi there.
Help if possible pls, these guys seem persistent.
Car parked in a 10min waiting zone. First letter as follows:
<a href="
HTML https://ibb.co/d0yR3tz5"><img<br
/>src="
HTML https://i.ibb.co/d0yR3tz5/2026-05-12-01-47-16-Apr-26-Redacted.png"<br
/>alt="2026-05-12-01-47-16-Apr-26-Redacted" border="0" /></a>
I then replied standard wording on their website portal:
"I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle
VRM xxxx
The car park appears to be not relevant land as defined by
paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act
2012, being subject to byelaws. You cannot, therefore, transfer
liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to
me, the keeper.
Even if it were relevant land, you have failed to comply with
the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act
2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver the notice
within the relevant period of 14 days as prescribed by section 9
(4) of the Act.
There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and
I will not be doing so.
I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors,
except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this
matter and my personal details have been removed from your
records."
I then got this letter:
<a href="
HTML https://ibb.co/MxLmTKFC"><img<br
/>src="
HTML https://i.ibb.co/MxLmTKFC/VPBn-Mh-DJy-QRSA-01-May-26-Redacted.png"<br
/>alt="VPBn-Mh-DJy-QRSA-01-May-26-Redacted" border="0" /></a>
I then replied with same standard wording as above. They've now
sent this letter:
<a href="
HTML https://ibb.co/JRLNBnJs"><img<br
/>src="
HTML https://i.ibb.co/JRLNBnJs/VPBn-Mh-Dl22-XF1-005-11-May-26-Redacted.png"<br
/>alt="VPBn-Mh-Dl22-XF1-005-11-May-26-Redacted" border="0"
/></a>
Can I just (a) ignore them or (b) do I need to go to POPLA or
(c) if ignored will it go to court etc eventually.
Help much appreciated, TX.
#Post#: 118373--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC parked at a Hospital
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 11, 2026, 11:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hospitals usually are “relevant land”. However, if you know
which specific byelaws apply to this specific hospital, it could
be an exception.
You should use POPLA even if the outcome is the same, ie court,
because it will look better that you tried all avenues to
resolve this before court.
#Post#: 118387--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC parked at a Hospital
DIR By: Dave65
Date: May 12, 2026, 4:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The parking charge date was 09-04-2026 and the PPN issue date
16-04-2026.
Within the 14 days!
#Post#: 118425--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC parked at a Hospital
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 12, 2026, 8:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: terminator x link ---
>
> I then replied standard wording
>
--- End Quote ---
There is no "one size fits all" standard wording. That wording
is fine in cases where the land is subject to byelaws, and where
the notice was not given within the relevant period of 14 days,
but it is not clear from what you have shown us that either of
those things are correct.
If you're intending to fight this, it would be wise for us to
explore your grounds for so-doing. Photos of the signage, and an
explanation of why the driver parked for over 4 hours in a 10
minute drop-off area would both be helpful.
#Post#: 118476--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC parked at a Hospital
DIR By: terminator x
Date: May 12, 2026, 2:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi there.
I'll get them to go back and get some signage pics although you
might have seen it was midnight ish that they parked there so
pitch black and the area and signs aren't that well lit. In a
previous visit the area stopped wasn't a 10 min limit, it's new
ish signage. Reason for visit they say was the wife broke her
ankle so it was in an emergency.
TX.
#Post#: 120803--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC parked at a Hospital
DIR By: terminator x
Date: June 4, 2026, 6:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all.
Pics of signage:
HTML https://ibb.co/zhD1mvGj
HTML https://ibb.co/Kpd6qJ06
HTML https://ibb.co/rGQFxPN9
HTML https://ibb.co/nqh0b7g3
HTML https://ibb.co/kgbYjC7H
HTML https://ibb.co/VYbQCPN4
HTML https://ibb.co/m5K2YK88
HTML https://ibb.co/5XqZX0N7
HTML https://ibb.co/5WB5Tb16
Any thoughts?
Do these guys really pursue through the courts now? My
experience of private tickets is that they try with a few
letters then go silent. Normally debt collection x2 then a final
legal letter.
TX.
#Post#: 120807--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC parked at a Hospital
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 5, 2026, 12:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Search the forum for UKPC cases.
Some threads go quiet, others go to DCBL and DCB Legal which
need to be defended.
#Post#: 120826--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC parked at a Hospital
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 5, 2026, 4:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't have any more recent figures, but in 2023 UKPC issued
4,227 County Court Claims.
#Post#: 120905--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC parked at a Hospital
DIR By: terminator x
Date: June 5, 2026, 8:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok I've searched for and read various UKPC cases on here, it
seems they like to push the cases as far as they can albeit not
"all the way".
I've only got the w/end left to go to POPLA, do you chaps have
any suggestions re either paperwork issues or signage to use for
POPLA?
Below is a copy / paste of some of the suggestions from other
cases:
===========
9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for
the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with
this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked
and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
As long as the driver is not identified, there is an appeal
based on non-compliance with PoFA 2012 to transfer liability
from the driver to the registered keeper.
===========
No period of parking stated - a single time stamp is not
regarded as sufficient - Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(a)
requirement.
A section of mandatory wording is missing - 9(2)(f) states that
the notice must... Warn the keeper... blah blah blah... the
creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this
Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so
much of that amount as remains unpaid; - the warning in bold is
missing and the NtK does not warn the keeper that the parking
operator's NtK must meet "all the applicable conditions" to be
able to use PoFA keeper liability.
===========
PoFA 9.2(a) as there is no mention of the “period of parking”.
All that NtK mentions is a “vehicle duration”, whatever that may
be.
===========
... that signage appears to be forbidding. That is, it doesn't
make an offer for anyone to park on certain terms, it simply
prohibits any and all stopping/parking. Given that there is no
offer of consideration made by UKPC, there cannot be any
contract formed between the driver and UKPC. If there is no
contract, then no money is owed.
... even if the signage was otherwise capable of forming a
contract (which, as above, will be denied), the content of it is
poor - the Ł80 charge is hardly displayed prominently, instead
being displayed in a small font amongst other text.
If they are deemed not to have 'specified' the relevant land,
then they are unable to recover the charge from the registered
keeper, instead only being able to pursue the driver (who they
do not know), as they will be deemed not to have complied with
the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
(2012)
===========
[to do in edit]
TX.
#Post#: 120909--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC parked at a Hospital
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 6, 2026, 1:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Your objective is to get an appeal lodged with POPLA, so if any
of the above points are true, use them.
It’s likely that POPLA will reject the appeal, but then you will
have seen that UKPC usually use DCBL debt collectors (ignore)
and DCB Legal to raise a court claim. The reason they do this is
because vast numbers of similar claims either result in payment
or default judgements because they’re ignored, but if you defend
this it’s usual for DCB Legal to discontinue before having to
pay the court fee.
Once you’ve got a defence, just stick to it and go through the
process, which is well documented here (Letter of Claim, N1SDT
court claim, N180 Directions Questionnaire, mandatory mediation,
attempts to contact you to offer to “settle”, discontinuation).
It will all take a while, and is designed to intimidate you into
paying up with lots of vague threats.
And you only get a CCJ which negatively affects credit etc. if
you are taken to court, lose, and don’t pay within 30 days - or
if you ignore the claim. Their threats will be peppered with
“CCJ”, possibly in red ink.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1