DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 56728--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking Charge - Parked Correctly Within the Markings -
Stevenage Leisure Park
DIR By: b789
Date: February 5, 2025, 7:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: la_u link ---
>
> You said to come back nearer to day 27 and then submit an
appeal, I assume that's because the notice was attached to the
car rather than sent to me in the post?
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes. In some cases, if the operator receives an appeal before
they have requested the Keepers details from the DVLA in order
to issue a Notice to Keeper (NtK), they will respond to the
appeal (and reject it) without having issued an NtK which
invalidates any Keeper liability.
#Post#: 58678--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking Charge - Parked Correctly Within the Markings -
Stevenage Leisure Park
DIR By: la_u
Date: February 18, 2025, 3:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good morning, I believe day 27 is tomorrow so was just coming
back to get some advice for the online appeal wording?
#Post#: 58682--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking Charge - Parked Correctly Within the Markings -
Stevenage Leisure Park
DIR By: b789
Date: February 18, 2025, 3:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just use this and you are only appealing as the Keeper... as
long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is
no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the
Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown
driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which
means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot
transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove
anything from it:
--- Quote ---
> 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 Driver (NtD) 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. UKPC 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 NtD can only hold the driver liable.
UKPC have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 58827--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking Charge - Parked Correctly Within the Markings -
Stevenage Leisure Park
DIR By: la_u
Date: February 19, 2025, 3:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, this has been submitted.
#Post#: 62496--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking Charge - Parked Correctly Within the Markings -
Stevenage Leisure Park
DIR By: la_u
Date: March 14, 2025, 8:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello, this response was received electronically today. Any
recommendation on next steps?
HTML https://i.imgur.com/L1gfvXu.png
#Post#: 62534--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking Charge - Parked Correctly Within the Markings -
Stevenage Leisure Park
DIR By: b789
Date: March 14, 2025, 11:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, they have rejected your appeal to the NtD. Have they sent
you Notice to Keeper yet? They have until the 19th March to
issue an NtK. If they don't, then there can be no transfer of
liability to the Keeper from the unknown (to UKPC) driver.
So, you have 33 days from the appeal rejection date to appeal to
POPLA. For now, wait at least until Friday 21st March to see if
you receive an NtK in the post. If you haven't received an NtK
by this time next week, we can submit a POPLA appeal that blows
UKPC out of the water.
Remind us next week about this.
#Post#: 63934--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking Charge - Parked Correctly Within the Markings -
Stevenage Leisure Park
DIR By: la_u
Date: March 24, 2025, 7:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello, I waited and have still not had a postal NTK. How can I
go about the POPLA appeal please?
#Post#: 63963--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking Charge - Parked Correctly Within the Markings -
Stevenage Leisure Park
DIR By: b789
Date: March 24, 2025, 1:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a suitable POPLA appeal for this ridiculous PCN:
--- Quote ---
> POPLA Reference number: [POPLA Ref Number}
> PCN number: [PCN number]
> VRM: [VRM}
>
> This is an appeal by the Keeper and will refer to the
following points:
>
> [indent]1. No Notice to Keeper (NtK) has been given – no
keeper liability can apply
> 2. NtD is non-compliant with PoFA – no period of parking
stated
> 3. No Keeper liability can arise – the driver has not been
identified and the PCN is not PoFA compliant
> 4. No contravention stated – UKPC’s own NtD confirms no breach
occurred
> 5. Signage incapable of forming a contract – fails to meet the
requirements of PoFA and the Beavis test
> 6. Predatory enforcement – no legitimate interest is served
> 7. Rejection of the initial appeal was unreasonable,
disingenuous, and shows bad faith[/indent]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. No Notice to Keeper (NtK) has been given – no keeper
liability can apply
>
> This PCN was issued as a Notice to Driver (NtD) on 23 January
2025. The Registered Keeper submitted an appeal on 19 February
2025 (day 27 after the NtD was issued). UKPC rejected the appeal
on 14 March 2025 (day 50). As of 24 March 2025 (day 60), no
Notice to Keeper (NtK) has been given.
>
> UKPC is therefore time-barred from pursuing the Registered
Keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA),
Schedule 4, Paragraph 8. The law is not ambiguous.
>
> The relevant provision is Paragraph 8(5), which states:
>
> [indent]“The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph
(4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days
beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver
was given.”[/indent]
>
> That is not 56 days in total from the date of the NtD, as some
operators lazily assume. It is a period of 28 days that follows
another period of 28 days, beginning with the day after the NtD
was given.
>
> Let’s spell this out:
>
> [indent]• The NtD was given on 23 January 2025
> • The first 28-day period started on 24 January and ended on
20 February (inclusive)
> • The second 28-day period — the “relevant period” under
Paragraph 8(5) — ran from 21 February to 20 March 2025
(inclusive)
> • Therefore, the latest possible date that a Notice to Keeper
could be given was 20 March 2025.[/indent]
>
> “Given” does not mean sent, posted, or issued. It means
delivered to the Keeper, either by post or by hand, within that
window. That is the test in PoFA.
>
> As of the date of this appeal, no NtK has been given. UKPC has
no legal route under PoFA to hold the Keeper liable.
>
> That they nonetheless rejected the appeal and issued a POPLA
code either betrays a complete ignorance of the legislation they
rely on, or worse, is a conscious attempt to coerce payment from
someone who is not liable under statute. Either way, it is
unacceptable.
>
> To be clear for the avoidance of doubt: without a
PoFA-compliant NtK delivered between 21 February and 20 March,
the Keeper cannot be held liable. That is not my opinion — it is
what the legislation says, in black and white.
>
> If the POPLA assessor fails to acknowledge this basic
statutory failure, it will raise serious questions as to whether
this is a truly independent appeals process or merely a rubber
stamp for operator errors.
>
> 2. NtD is non-compliant with PoFA – no period of parking
stated
>
> Irrespective of the failure to serve a Notice to Keeper within
the required statutory timeframe (as outlined above in section
1), the Notice to Driver (NtD) itself was not compliant with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
>
> Schedule 4, Paragraph 7(2)(a) of PoFA requires a valid NtD to:
>
> [indent]“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it
was parked and the PERIOD of parking to which the notice
relates.”[/indent]
>
> UKPC's NtD does not specify any period of parking. It states
only a single timestamp described as a “time first seen.” This
does not satisfy the statutory requirement to specify a period
and it has been tested in persuasive appellate court authority.
>
> In Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], His
Honour Judge Mitchell clarified at paragraphs 27–28 that while
it is not necessary to record the entire period of parking,
there must be at least a minimum period stated. The court held
that merely recording a moment in time does not demonstrate that
a contravention occurred, especially when the driver may have
been reading and considering the terms and conditions before
deciding whether to leave the site altogether.
>
> This distinction is critical. Without a stated period of
parking, it is impossible to establish whether the driver was in
breach of any terms, or whether they departed within the
consideration period allowed under the BPA/IPC Private Parking
Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). UKPC have offered no evidence
of such a period in the NtD.
>
> This is not a technicality. The requirement to state a “period
of parking” is a statutory prerequisite for enforcing any PCN
under PoFA. Where the NtD omits this, keeper liability cannot
arise, and the NtD fails at the first hurdle. UKPC, as a
professional parking operator, should be intimately familiar
with the requirements of the legislation they purport to operate
under as they have had since 2012 to get it right. The omission
of a required element renders the NtD PoFA non-compliant.
>
> 3. No Keeper liability can arise – the driver has not been
identified and the PCN is not PoFA compliant
>
> The driver has not been identified, and the Registered Keeper
fully understands that they are under no legal obligation to do
so. The Keeper has made a conscious decision not to name the
driver, as is their legal right.
>
> As explained in the previous points, this PCN is not compliant
with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The Notice to
Driver fails to specify a period of parking, in breach of
Paragraph 7(2)(a), and no Notice to Keeper has been given within
the timeframe required by Paragraph 8(5). The operator has also
provided no evidence to identify the driver.
>
> UKPC has therefore failed to meet the statutory conditions
required to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the
Registered Keeper. If they wished to rely on PoFA, they should
have ensured that every single requirement of the legislation
was fully met. They did not.
>
> POPLA must begin by determining whether the operator has
lawfully established Keeper liability. That is a threshold
issue. If the answer is no — as it clearly must be in this case
— then no further consideration of the appeal is necessary,
because UKPC is pursuing the wrong party.
>
> Just as a person cannot be partially or mostly pregnant, they
either are or they aren't, in the same way, a PCN cannot be
partially or even mostly PoFA compliant. It either is or it
isn't. This PCN is not PoFA compliant.
>
> The appeal must therefore be allowed.
>
> 4. No contravention stated – UKPC’s own NtD confirms no breach
occurred
>
> The wording on the NtD issued by UKPC actually states:
>
> [indent]“Vehicle parked correctly within the markings of a bay
or space.”[/indent]
>
>
HTML https://i.imgur.com/H8TWI19.jpeg
>
> That is not an allegation of wrongdoing — it is a statement of
compliance. Incredibly, UKPC appear to have issued a PCN for
what is, on their own account, perfectly acceptable parking.
>
> If this was supposed to describe a contravention, then it is
utterly self-defeating. A PCN that alleges no breach, and
instead affirms that the vehicle was parked correctly, is not
just defective — it is absurd.
>
> What exactly are UKPC accusing the driver of here — parking
too compliantly? Exceeding the legally permissible level of
correctness? The NtD reads more like a commendation than a PCN.
>
> If this was a misprint or cut-and-paste blunder, that is
entirely UKPC’s responsibility — not the Keeper’s. The law
requires clarity and specificity in the allegation. It is not
for the recipient to try and guess what contravention the
operator may have intended to allege. If a company cannot even
be trusted to get the wording right on its own notices, it
raises serious concerns about the credibility of everything else
they submit.
>
> A notice that fails to identify any breach is legally void for
uncertainty. UKPC had one job here — to state what contravention
occurred. They didn’t. The result is that no breach has been
alleged, and there is therefore nothing to answer.
>
> 5. Signage incapable of forming a contract – fails to meet the
requirements of PoFA and the Beavis test
>
> For any parking charge to be enforceable against a driver —
let alone the Registered Keeper under PoFA — the charge must be
adequately brought to the attention of the driver at the time
the vehicle is parked. This is a statutory requirement, not a
guideline.
>
> Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(2) of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 states:
>
> [indent]“The reference in the definition of ‘parking charge’
to a sum in the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate
notice was given to drivers of vehicles (when the vehicle was
parked on the relevant land).”[/indent]
>
> Paragraph 2(3) goes on to define what constitutes “adequate
notice”:
>
> [indent]“(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) ‘adequate
notice’ means notice given by—
> (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any
applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under
paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of
sub-paragraph (2); or
> (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or
more notices which—
> (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking;
and
> (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers
who park vehicles on the relevant land.”[/indent]
>
> UKPC’s signage fails both of these conditions.
>
> Their own evidential photograph shows a sign mounted well
above head height, affixed to a lamppost, angled upward, and
comprised of dense small-print text that is illegible even at
close range. The amount of the parking charge is not specified
in any prominent or accessible way, and the layout of the sign
ensures that the charge is effectively hidden from view.
>
> This is not a matter of opinion — it is clear from their own
evidence that the sign fails to “specify the sum” and is not
“adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers,” as
required by Paragraph 2(3)(b)(i)–(ii).
>
> In ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court
upheld the enforceability of a parking charge only because the
sign was:
>
> [indent]• Prominently displayed at driver eye level;
> • Clearly worded, with no dense blocks of legal text; and
> • The parking charge amount was immediately visible and
clearly associated with the terms.[/indent]
>
> The contrast between the Beavis signage and UKPC’s sign could
not be more stark. A side-by-side comparison is provided to
illustrate the point.
>
>
HTML https://i.imgur.com/FkjpYVL.jpeg
>
> In Beavis, the charge was stated in large, bold font, in the
centre of the sign, and visible to any driver on entry. Here, it
is buried — if it appears at all — in a wall of inaccessible
text, several feet above the driver’s line of sight.
>
> The result is simple and inevitable: no adequate notice was
given of any parking charge, and therefore no contract could
have been formed. Without a contract, there can be no
contravention. Without a clearly communicated charge, there can
be no lawful attempt to enforce it — either against a driver or
a keeper.
>
> 6. Predatory enforcement – no legitimate interest is served
>
> The photographic evidence provided by UKPC shows that the
vehicle was parked partially across two bays — yet crucially,
one of those bays is completely unusable due to a temporary
metal fence running directly through the middle of it.
>
> There was no obstruction to any other motorist. The driver
parked across one usable bay and one bay that no vehicle could
conceivably use. The alleged encroachment did not deprive anyone
of a space, did not interfere with traffic flow, and did not
impact the operation or management of the car park in any way.
>
>
HTML https://i.imgur.com/gIB7okDl.jpg
>
> There was no loss, no inconvenience, and no disruption. The
PCN was issued purely because UKPC’s operative saw an
opportunity to issue a charge in a situation where common sense
would clearly dictate that no penalty was warranted.
>
> This is the definition of predatory enforcement. This is not
the regulation of parking behaviour — it is opportunistic
revenue generation dressed up as contract enforcement. It serves
no purpose other than to extract money from unsuspecting drivers
who have caused no harm.
>
> In ParkingEye v Beavis, the Supreme Court upheld the
enforceability of a charge because the operator had a legitimate
interest in controlling overstaying to preserve turnover and
parking availability in a busy retail environment. But the Court
was also clear: a charge imposed purely to raise revenue, in the
absence of any such interest, is not justified and is unlikely
to be enforceable.
>
> UKPC has shown no legitimate interest whatsoever in enforcing
a charge in this situation. The space in question was unusable
by anyone else, and the driver’s actions had no impact on
parking availability. There is no deterrent value, no loss to
protect, and no justification for the charge other than
financial gain.
>
> This kind of conduct undermines the supposed purpose of
private parking schemes and brings the industry into disrepute.
It is behaviour that fails to meet the standards of
proportionality, reasonableness, or legitimacy, and it further
discredits UKPC’s already defective PCN.
>
> 7. Rejection of the initial appeal was unreasonable,
disingenuous, and shows bad faith
>
> The Keeper’s appeal to UKPC was unequivocal. It clearly stated
that the Notice to Driver (NtD) did not comply with all the
requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and
therefore no keeper liability could arise. It also put UKPC on
notice that:
>
> [indent]1. The Keeper denied any liability or contractual
agreement;
> 2. No admission would be made as to the driver’s identity;
> 3. The NtD could only apply to the driver;
> 4. The Keeper rejected any legal presumption, inference, or
agency argument;
> 5. The conduct would be referred to the landowner as
predatory.
> 6. The appeal even warned UKPC that they had “no hope at
POPLA” and explicitly invited them to cancel the PCN to avoid
wasting everyone’s time.[/indent]
>
> This was not a generic or vague submission. It was a direct
challenge to the enforceability of the charge under PoFA, rooted
in statutory failings and legal limitations on keeper liability.
It gave UKPC every opportunity to review the matter and
reconsider their position.
>
> Yet UKPC responded with a template-style rejection, failed to
address any of the specific legal points raised, and proceeded
to issue a POPLA code as though the appeal had said nothing at
all. This was not a good-faith response. It was a calculated
move to push the matter to the next stage, hoping the Keeper
would give up or pay rather than fight it through to
cancellation.
>
> It is impossible to believe that UKPC — a large and
long-established operator — does not understand the statutory
requirements of PoFA, which has been statute for over 12 years.
They knew, or ought to have known, that:
>
> [indent]• No Notice to Keeper had been given within the
required timeframe;
> • The NtD was non-compliant (e.g. no period of parking
stated);
> • The Keeper had not identified the driver and had no
obligation to do so;
> •There was no basis in law to continue pursuing the
charge.[/indent]
>
> And yet they continued.
>
> This shows a clear disregard for the statutory framework, a
disregard for fair dealing, and a willingness to pursue
unenforceable charges in the hope of intimidating motorists into
payment.
>
> It is precisely this type of behaviour that has earned the
unregulated private parking industry its notorious reputation.
This isn’t isolated — it reflects a wider pattern of conduct
long criticised by the public and Parliament alike. The
descriptors often used — “cowboys,” “scammers,” “rogues” — are
not mere hyperbole. They have been used repeatedly by MPs across
the political spectrum, and are recorded in Hansard, the
official record of Parliamentary debate.
>
> This should call for strong oversight and genuine
adjudication. However, it is difficult to place full confidence
in POPLA’s independence when its entire existence — including
its funding and remit — is ultimately provided by the British
Parking Association (BPA), whose members it is supposed to
adjudicate against. Why would any rational person expect POPLA
to bite the hand that feeds it? Its financial dependence on the
very operators it oversees inherently undermines the concept of
impartiality.
>
> That said, even in such a conflicted structure, the facts of
this case are so plainly against the operator that to uphold
this charge would be to endorse illegality, disregard statutory
protections, and reward bad faith. The PCN is defective in law
and in conduct. It must be cancelled — anything less would
simply reinforce the perception that POPLA is not truly
independent at all.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 65903--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking Charge - Parked Correctly Within the Markings -
Stevenage Leisure Park
DIR By: la_u
Date: April 7, 2025, 3:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for that appeal wording, a slightly modified version
of it was submitted on 01/04/2025.
A day later I received this email back from POPLA -
HTML https://i.imgur.com/tViv9Sm.jpeg
When I go onto UKPC's website and search the reference I now get
this -
HTML https://i.imgur.com/mqlBz9A.jpeg
Therefore the ticket has been cancelled.
I just want to say a huge thank you to DWMB2 and especially b789
for convincing me to appeal and for giving me all the
information to do so.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page