DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 126550--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN - Not Parked Correctly - BECKTON TRIANGLE
DIR By: fahim128
Date: August 2, 2026, 3:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The appeal website limits to 2000 characters so I've condensed
it to the following, and I'll submit it. I fully expect a
rejection so I'll be back soon! Thanks again guys for your help
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to appeal this Parking Charge Notice, issued for an
alleged contravention at Beckton Triangle Retail Park, 5 Claps
Gate Lane, London, E6 6LG on 15/07/2026.
**First ground: the Notice to Keeper does not comply with
Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012**
Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the notice to "specify the vehicle,
the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of
parking to which the notice relates." My Notice states only a
single timestamp — "on 15/07/2026 at 19:06:05" — with no start
and end time. A single observation is not a "period of parking."
This also breaches paragraph 9(2)(b), which requires the notice
to inform the keeper of the sum due "in respect of the specified
period of parking." As no period was specified under 9(2)(a),
9(2)(b) cannot be satisfied either.
As the Notice fails these mandatory requirements, it is
non-compliant with paragraph 9, so the liability provisions in
paragraph 6 do not apply. I am not obliged to name the driver,
and without a compliant notice there is no lawful basis to
pursue me as keeper.
**Second ground: signage terms not evidenced as legible**
The Notice states the Terms and Conditions were "clearly and
prominently displayed." The burden of proving this rests with UK
Parking Control Ltd, but the photographic evidence of the
signage supplied is illegible — the terms cannot be read even on
close inspection. As this evidence fails to establish the
signage was legible, UKPC has not discharged its burden, and I
do not accept a contract on those terms was validly formed.
I look forward to written confirmation that this charge has been
cancelled. Should this appeal be rejected, I reserve my right to
escalate to POPLA and all other rights in this matter.
#Post#: 126553--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN - Not Parked Correctly - BECKTON TRIANGLE
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: August 2, 2026, 4:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph 9(2) has two requirements;
Inform the keeper that;
1. the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of
the specified period of parking
AND
2. the parking charges have not been paid in full
The notice never informs the keeper "that the parking charges
have not been paid in full".
#Post#: 126554--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN - Not Parked Correctly - BECKTON TRIANGLE
DIR By: fahim128
Date: August 2, 2026, 4:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Whoops I’ve already submitted so can’t factor that in
unfortunately. Once they reject it I can maybe incorporate it.
Thanks anyway!
#Post#: 127610--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN - Not Parked Correctly - BECKTON TRIANGLE
DIR By: fahim128
Date: August 12, 2026, 6:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi guys
As expected, they have rejected my initial appeal, see the
rejection letter here
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8qqwtxevx3x20uzqn5nos/02-appeal-rejection-g4Vd2i1WDzzfv.pdf?rlkey=po5gfdkxu8zcgew1evkklvz68&st=2borprn8&dl=0<br
/>
Is there a serious case for winning based on the merits of my
case? Should i escalate to POPLA? If so, I'd really appreciate
some support in drafting the appeal to them (or should i just
re-use the appeal I used before?)
Thanks in advance guys!
PS I ran the rejection letter through Claude, and below is what
they came up with.
What UKPC actually said in the rejection — and, importantly,
what they didn't:
Their response focuses entirely on defending the signage
("compliant with section 18 of the BPA Code," "notices are
numerous," driver "deemed to have accepted terms by the act of
parking"). It does not address the PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph
9(2)(a)/(b) argument at all — no mention of the missing "period
of parking." That's notable: it suggests either they overlooked
it or have no answer to it. Either way, it remains your
strongest ground for POPLA.
They've also added a new claim — that their photos show the car
"clearly parked out of bay with no driver in the vehicle" —
which isn't really responsive to either of your grounds.
#Post#: 127617--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN - Not Parked Correctly - BECKTON TRIANGLE
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 12, 2026, 7:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It’s normal.
If you appeal on a single point, they can’t ignore it.
If you appeal on two or more points, they just ignore the points
for which they have no easy answer.
If you appeal similarly to POPLA, you may well get the same
treatment.
However if this comes to an appeal to a county court claim, the
court won’t ignore the inconvenient points.
You should submit a POPLA appeal, if only to show that you have
done all you can to avoid this going to court. Basically reuse
what you already have.
However the majority of court claims are discontinued, and you
have a number of good points to incorporate in an appeal if it
comes to that.
#Post#: 127663--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN - Not Parked Correctly - BECKTON TRIANGLE
DIR By: fahim128
Date: August 12, 2026, 12:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> It’s normal.
> If you appeal on a single point, they can’t ignore it.
> If you appeal on two or more points, they just ignore the
points for which they have no easy answer.
> If you appeal similarly to POPLA, you may well get the same
treatment.
> However if this comes to an appeal to a county court claim,
the court won’t ignore the inconvenient points.
> You should submit a POPLA appeal, if only to show that you
have done all you can to avoid this going to court. Basically
reuse what you already have.
> However the majority of court claims are discontinued, and you
have a number of good points to incorporate in an appeal if it
comes to that.
>
--- End Quote ---
OK thanks! I've submitted the following appeal to POPLA (just
rehashed my original appeal)
Dear POPLA Adjudicator,
I am appealing against Parking Charge Notice reference
3154961961805, issued by UK Parking Control Ltd ("UKPC") in
respect of an alleged contravention at Beckton Triangle Retail
Park, 5 Claps Gate Lane, London, E6 6LG on 15/07/2026. UKPC
rejected my initial appeal to them by letter dated 11 August
2026, without addressing the substance of the points raised
below. I ask POPLA to allow this appeal and cancel the Parking
Charge on the following grounds.
**First ground of appeal: the Notice to Keeper does not comply
with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012**
Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 sets out mandatory requirements for a notice to keeper. It
states that the notice must:
"specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked
**and the period of parking** to which the notice relates."
The Notice to Keeper I received specifies only a single
timestamp — "on the 15/07/2026 at 19:06:05" — as the moment the
vehicle was recorded. It does not state a period of parking,
i.e. it gives no start time and end time for the parking event
to which the charge relates. A single point-in-time observation
is not a "period of parking" within the meaning of paragraph
9(2)(a).
This defect also causes the Notice to Keeper to fail paragraph
9(2)(b), which requires the notice to "inform the keeper that
the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the
specified period of parking." As no period of parking has been
specified in accordance with paragraph 9(2)(a), the notice
cannot, and does not, properly inform me of a requirement to pay
in respect of any specified period, and so paragraph 9(2)(b) is
also not satisfied.
As the Notice to Keeper fails to meet these mandatory statutory
requirements, it does not comply with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4.
Consequently, the provisions in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 which
would otherwise transfer liability from the driver to the
registered keeper do not apply. I am not obliged to name the
driver, and in the absence of a compliant notice to keeper,
there is no lawful basis on which keeper liability can be
pursued in this case. I would ask POPLA to note that UKPC's
rejection letter of 11 August 2026 did not address this point at
all, and offered no response to it.
**Second ground of appeal: UK Parking Control Ltd has not
evidenced that the signage terms were legible**
The Notice to Keeper asserts that "the Terms and Conditions of
the car park were clearly and prominently displayed." The burden
of proving this rests with UK Parking Control Ltd. However, the
photographic evidence of the signage provided in support of this
Parking Charge is not legible — the text of the terms and
conditions cannot be read from the photograph, even on close
inspection.
For a Parking Charge to be enforceable, UK Parking Control Ltd
must be able to demonstrate that the terms were brought
adequately to the attention of the driver by way of clear and
legible signage, in line with the British Parking Association's
Code of Practice, of which it is a member. In its rejection
letter, UKPC asserts that its signage "complies fully with
section 18 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice"
and is "ample, clear and visible," but has not produced any
legible image of the actual signage terms in support of this
assertion. As the photographic evidence relied upon fails to
establish that the signage was legible, UK Parking Control Ltd
has not discharged its burden of proving that the terms were
adequately displayed, and I do not accept that a contract on
those terms was validly formed.
For these reasons, I ask POPLA to allow this appeal and cancel
Parking Charge Notice reference 3154961961805 in full.
Yours faithfully,
#Post#: 129381--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN - Not Parked Correctly - BECKTON TRIANGLE
DIR By: fahim128
Date: September 2, 2026, 8:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi guys
So i've had a response from POPLA and UKPC seem to have given
some more information to POPLA. They've now given me 7 days to
respond
I'd really appreciate any help on this. All the relevant files
for this case are here. The new files are the ones that start
with "03"
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/flc5zm1ftgpptac6qdul3/ABovd2UYpi_XGqbvvYEIyOk?rlkey=64w1jh0nqspqnyv7xqc3e8bzy&dl=0
Any help would be much appreciated!
Thanks in advance!
#Post#: 129388--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN - Not Parked Correctly - BECKTON TRIANGLE
DIR By: fahim128
Date: September 2, 2026, 9:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For what it's worth, I ran the response through Claude and it
analysed it against what I originally appealed based on. I know
AI is never 100% accurate but thought I'd try it out! Here is
its response
"Being straight about it — this isn't a toss-up, but it's not
open-and-shut either. Here's how I read it, ground by ground.
Ground 1 (no period of parking) — your stronger ground,
genuinely.
Para 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 POFA 2012 doesn't carve out an
exception for attendant-observed contraventions — it just
requires the notice to specify "the period of parking." UKPC's
rebuttal ("this wasn't ANPR so no period was needed") doesn't
actually engage with the statutory wording; they're asserting an
exception that isn't in the Act. Your vehicle was on site for
some duration before the warden's 19:06 observation, and the NTK
only captures a single moment of that, not a period. This is a
well-established line of appeal and has succeeded at POPLA
plenty of times.
The honest caveat: POPLA assessors are not perfectly consistent
on this. Some have accepted UKPC's kind of argument — that for a
contravention which is true at a single moment (parked outside a
bay, as opposed to an overstay), a single observation time is
adequate specification. It's a real split in outcomes, not
settled law, so I'd rate this "more likely to succeed than not"
rather than "certain."
Ground 2 (illegible signage) — weaker than when you filed it.
Your original point was solid: the image on the PCN itself was
too blurry to read. But UKPC has now supplied a second, clear,
contemporaneous photo (timestamped 19:06:02 on the actual day)
of a wall sign near where you parked. That's a real evidentiary
cure — it goes a decent way to discharging their burden on this
specific point, whatever you think of the rest of their pack.
The other "signage evidence" photos dated 3 Feb 2020 are worth
flagging (they're not evidence of what was displayed on
15/07/2026), but I wouldn't oversell that point — it's a
credibility ding on the quality of their evidence pack, not a
rebuttal that cancels out the one photo that is dated correctly
and legible. An assessor is likely to weigh the good photo over
the stale ones rather than throw out the good one because of the
bad ones.
Net assessment: I'd put this as a reasonable-to-decent chance of
success, carried mainly by Ground 1, with Ground 2 now doing
less work than it was when you first appealed. If I had to bet,
I'd lean toward "arguable win, not a sure thing" — worth
pursuing, but I wouldn't walk in assuming it's in the bag. The
comments stage is really your chance to sharpen Ground 1 (hold
UKPC to the actual statutory text, not their "ANPR only" gloss)
rather than lean on Ground 2, which has been partly answered.
#Post#: 129390--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN - Not Parked Correctly - BECKTON TRIANGLE
DIR By: fahim128
Date: September 2, 2026, 9:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
And here is the reply Claude has done based on the above, again
I have no idea how good it is so feedback would be great!
Parking Charge Reference: 3154961961805 | POPLA Reference:
8652236344
I have reviewed UK Parking Control Ltd's evidence and maintain
both grounds of my appeal.
On the first ground (non-compliant Notice to Keeper):
UKPC argues that because this contravention was
attendant-observed rather than ANPR-derived, no "period of
parking" was required under paragraph 9(2)(a), Schedule 4, POFA
2012. This is incorrect. Paragraph 9(2)(a) makes no distinction
between ANPR-issued and attendant-issued notices — it requires
the notice to specify "the period of parking" in all cases. My
vehicle was parked on the land for a period of time before the
warden's observation at 19:06:05; the Notice to Keeper records
only that single moment, not the period during which the vehicle
was parked. UKPC's evidence does not address this statutory
wording, and offers no authority for treating attendant-observed
contraventions as exempt from paragraph 9(2)(a). As the Notice
fails this mandatory requirement, paragraph 6 does not operate
to transfer liability to me as keeper.
On the second ground (signage not evidenced as legible):
UKPC has now produced one legible, contemporaneous photograph of
signage taken at 19:06:02 on 15/07/2026. I note, however, that
the majority of the other signage photographs in UKPC's evidence
pack are dated 3 February 2020 — over five years before the
contravention date — and are not evidence of what, if anything,
was displayed at the site on 15/07/2026. A single photograph of
one sign does not establish that adequate signage bringing the
specific "must be parked within bay markings" term to a driver's
attention was clearly and prominently positioned and legible
throughout the car park, as UKPC's own case summary asserts. The
burden remains on UKPC to prove this, and it has not been
discharged by evidence that is either outdated or limited to a
single sign.
For these reasons I ask POPLA to allow this appeal and cancel
the Parking Charge.
#Post#: 129671--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN - Not Parked Correctly - BECKTON TRIANGLE
DIR By: fahim128
Date: September 5, 2026, 2:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all
Any thoughts on this please? Only got a handful of days left
before I need to reply to POPLA and it’s quite daunting doing
this!
Would really appreciate it!
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page