DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 62529--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN- Not parked within the bay- Lower Precinct,
Coventry
DIR By: b789
Date: March 14, 2025, 11:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Nobody pays a penny to UKPC if they are receiving and following
the advice received here. Even if this goes all the way to a
court claim, you won't pay a penny because they the claim will
either be struck out or discontinued.
Yours is a typical example of the abuse of the system by these
rogue operators. In this case, a de minimus contravention that
is now being pursued out of greed.
Regarding the dates, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA
compliant because there is no period of parking stated which s a
breach of paragraph 9(2)(a). Apart from that, the NtK is more or
less PoFA compliant. However, even a single failure to fully
comply with all the requirements of PoFA renders it
non-compliant and so the Keeper cannot be liable. Only the
driver can be liable and unless the Keeper identifies the
driver, which they are under no legal obligation to do so to an
unregulated private parking company, then UKPC have nowhere to
go with this.
The BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) is
somewhat ambiguous on dates but for the discount period, they
start the 14 days clock running from the sate of issue of the
NtK. In this case, the NtK issue date was 13th January and the
final reminder was issued on 27th January, exactly 24 days
later. Where most operators fail with their dates and wording is
with the deadline for appeals and payment. The PPSCoP states
that appeals must be made and accepted within 28 days of receipt
but most operators use date of issue, which is incorrect. You
will note that on the back of UKPC NtKs, they actually state
that an appeal must be made within 28 days of the date the
notice is given (received).
So, the only real failure in the NtK is the fact that they haven
to specified a period of parking and that is easily countered
should it ever go to court with the persuasive appeal case of
Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H]
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=b2uqddq7&dl=0.<br
/>However, that is enough to invalidate Keeper liability, which
was the basis for the initial appeal, which we knew was going to
be rejected anyway.
You now have 33 days from the appeal rejection date to submit a
POPLA appeal. You should have a search of the forum for other
POPLA appeals to see how they should be formatted and how to put
the points across. POPLA will not consider any mitigation, only
points of law and the PPSCoP.
In your case, there can be no Keeper liability and UKPC have not
shown that the person they are pursuing is the liable party. The
burden of proof is on UKPC to prove your liability, not for you
to prove otherwise. They are not allowed to infer that the
Keeper must also be the driver as that has also been thrown out
of court in several persuasive appellate cases, including most
notably, VCS v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C]
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zra61px7l3if53o3bp9c4/VCS-v-EDWARD-Transcript.pdf?rlkey=bv4bba389nau5qpfglqkpjq5l&st=h2djo8pq&dl=0.
UKPC signage is incapable of forming a contact as it is always
in minuscule font and the charge is never adequately brought to
the attention of the driver. Always use that in a UKPC POPLA
appeal. Also mess with their heads by requiring the operator to
provide strict proof that they even have a valid contract
flowing from the landowner permitting them to issue PCNs at the
location.
Before you submit anything, show us what you think is suitable
and we will advise on any corrections and provide suggestions
for anything that may be missing.
#Post#: 62579--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN- Not parked within the bay- Lower Precinct,
Coventry
DIR By: jfollows
Date: March 14, 2025, 3:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
>
> Yours is a typical example of the abuse of the system by these
rogue operators. In this case, a de minimus contravention that
is now being pursued out of greed.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
De minimis (non curat lex).
To be pedantic (ablative plural).
Latin O level 1977.
PS It doesn’t matter, I was just amused because you recently and
correctly picked me up on a mistake in a recent post I made when
I should have known better!
Oh, I found :
HTML https://www.surfacelanguages.com/blog/2020/08/27/de-minimus-non-curat-lex/
--- Quote ---
> There was a young lawyer called lex,
> who had very small organs of sex.
> When done for exposure,
> he said with composure,
> De minimis non curat lex.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 63161--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN- Not parked within the bay- Lower Precinct,
Coventry
DIR By: dalooah
Date: March 18, 2025, 5:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for all the help so far- I've drafted the following
appeal after finding some samples on the forums- any advice-
particularly on sections 3-5 would be appreciated.
POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking Control
Ltd (UKPC)
APPELLANT: Registered Keeper
PARKING OPERATOR: UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC)
PCN REFERENCE: [Insert PCN Number]
VEHICLE REGISTRATION: [Insert Vehicle Registration]
DATE OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION: 10/01/2025
DATE OF NTK ISSUE: 13/01/2025
The appeal is based on the following grounds:
1. UKPC’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
2. No Presumption That the Keeper Was the Driver
3. The parking bay is a parent and child bay
4. Parking bay has obstruction within it
5. No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
6. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed
7. Lack of Landowner Authority – No Proof of UKPC’s Right to
Operate
1. UKPC’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
• UKPC has not met the statutory requirements under Schedule 4,
Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
• The NtK issued only states that the vehicle was observed at
16:46, which is a single moment in time, not a period of
parking.
• Case law in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023)
[H6DP632H] confirms that PoFA requires a defined period of
parking, and a mere timestamp does not satisfy this requirement.
• Since UKPC has failed to comply with PoFA, Keeper liability
does not apply, and they can only pursue the driver, whom they
have not identified.
Accordingly, POPLA must rule that the PCN is unenforceable
against the Keeper.
2. No Presumption That the Keeper Was the Driver
• UKPC has made no attempt to identify the driver and is
attempting to hold the Registered Keeper liable without meeting
PoFA compliance.
• In VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9CC], the court reaffirmed that
there is no presumption in law that the Keeper was the driver.
• The Registered Keeper has exercised their right not to name
the driver, and no adverse inference can be drawn.
As UKPC has not identified the driver, and the Keeper is not
liable under PoFA, the PCN must be cancelled.
3. The parking bay was a parent and child bay
• The alleged contravention is “Not parked correctly within the
markings of a bay or space”, but UKPC has failed to account for
the fact that the bay the driver parked in was a parent and
child bay and the hatched area forms part of the bay for use of
the driver and the occupants of the vehicle.
• It is not made clear in any signage that the hatched area do
not form part of the parent and child bay- as the space to the
left of the bay being used during this alleged contravention is
also a parent and child bay it is assumed that half the hatched
area is for the use of either vehicle.
• The alleged contravention is therefore ambiguous, and the
burden of proof lies with UKPC to demonstrate a clear breach.
4. The bay has an obstruction within it
• As is clearly visible in photos provided by UKPC, there is a
pillar that protrudes into the parking bay and thus, UKPC have
not upheld their duty to provide suitable parking spaces.
• Had UKPC provided bays which are of a suitable size and
without obstructions parking within the hatched area or walking
path, would not have been necessary.
Since UKPC has failed to provide a suitable parking space, this
PCN must be dismissed.
5. No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
• UKPC has not demonstrated that being parked in the hatched
area has caused any loss or inconvenience.
• In ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, the Supreme Court held
that a parking charge must serve a legitimate interest beyond
mere deterrence.
Given that, had the driver parked in a way that would ensure all
spaces around it were accessible, the charge doesn’t meet the
necessary criteria of serving a legitimate interest.
6. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed
• The signage at this location is high up and contains very
small text, making it difficult to read unless the driver
actively seeks it out to review the terms and conditions of
parking. Even if the driver attempts to read the sign, the
charge for breaching any terms is not “adequately” brought to
the attention of the driver or anyone attempting to read it.
• The parking charge of £100 is buried in a block of small
print, which does not meet the PoFA requirement for “adequate
notice”.
• The most prominent text on the sign states “PAY ON EXIT”,
which is instructive rather than contractual.
• In ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, the Supreme Court held
that a parking information must be clearly and prominently
displayed.
Since the terms were not adequately communicated, no contractual
agreement was formed, and therefore no breach occurred.
7. Lack of Landowner Authority – No Proof of UKPC’s Right to
Operate
• Under Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, UKPC must provide
strict proof that it has the landowner’s authority to issue PCNs
at this location.
• UKPC has not provided any evidence that it holds a valid
contract with the landowner.
• Any contract must include specific clauses permitting the
issuing and enforcement of PCNs.
• The proof must be a contractual right flowing from the
landowner. A signed statement from an agent of the landowner is
not evidence that the agent has the right to make a contractual
arrangement with the operator.
UKPC is put to strict proof that it has a legally binding
agreement to operate on this land. If no valid contract is
provided, this PCN must be cancelled.
CONCLUSION
The PCN issued by UKPC is fundamentally flawed on multiple legal
and evidential grounds:
• The NtK fails to comply with PoFA due to the absence of a
“period of parking,” making Keeper liability impossible.
• There is no presumption that the Keeper was the driver, and
UKPC has not identified the driver.
•The hatched area forms part of the parking space to ensure
children are abel to enter and exit the vehicle safely.
• The bay has a permanent obstruction within it necessitating
parking over the walking path.
• The signage is inadequate, meaning no contract was formed.
• UKPC has not provided proof of landowner authority.
Given these significant deficiencies, I request that POPLA allow
this appeal and cancel the PCN in its entirety.
Signed,
[Registered Keeper's Name]
#Post#: 63227--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN- Not parked within the bay- Lower Precinct,
Coventry
DIR By: b789
Date: March 19, 2025, 8:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Looks good to me unless anyone else has an opinion. You will
have an opportunity to respond to the operators evidence pack
when they send that, so you will see if they fail to rebut or
answer any of your point.
#Post#: 63352--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN- Not parked within the bay- Lower Precinct,
Coventry
DIR By: dalooah
Date: March 20, 2025, 5:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just trying to submit the POPLA appeal now and you have to pick
a reason for appealing the charge; and the options thats most
suitable is "I was not improperly parked" and surely this
identifies the driver (or it's not an accurate statement) and
the next best option would be "other". Or does it not matter
which option you pick?
#Post#: 63357--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN- Not parked within the bay- Lower Precinct,
Coventry
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 20, 2025, 5:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Choose 'other' - the text of your appeal sets out the reasons
for your appeal.
#Post#: 63360--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN- Not parked within the bay- Lower Precinct,
Coventry
DIR By: dalooah
Date: March 20, 2025, 5:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Great thanks!
#Post#: 63384--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN- Not parked within the bay- Lower Precinct,
Coventry
DIR By: b789
Date: March 20, 2025, 7:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You simply select "OTHER" and that's it!!!! You do not select
anything that implies that you were the driver.
#Post#: 64596--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN- Not parked within the bay- Lower Precinct,
Coventry
DIR By: dalooah
Date: March 28, 2025, 6:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've now recieved UKPC's 'evidence' for the POPLA appeal- is
there any value in sharing it all here- I've got their T&C's for
their rolling contract; the contract with the shopping center;
their evidence to show the vehicle was parked next to signage
(this also shows that the signage was at the height of the
ceiling and not eye level- which is something I think I aught to
comment on- this image was part of the initial images in my OP);
a case summary which I will copy and paste below- they have
included the original images on the day of the alledged
contravention as well as images from 2021/2022/2023 that don't
reflect the level/location or time (their photos are taken in
full daylight-whereas the vehicle was parked after dark so
lighting levels are not the same and thus signage is even more
difficult to see) where the vehicle was parked- would it be
worth mentioning that UKPC need to provide more up to date
photos to evidence that their signage is adequate? There is also
a signage plan document included- which details which signs
should be placed where.
Will my comments actually hold any weight?
Their case summary:
On the 10/01/2025, our parking operative issued a parking charge
virtually to vehicle registration XXXX at Lower Precinct
Shopping Centre. The parking charge was issued because the
vehicle was not parked correctly in the bay markings.
Following the parking event on 10/01/2025, UKPC had reasonable
cause to obtain the details of the registered keeper from the
DVLA for the purposes of issuing a Parking Charge Notice (PCN)
by post- a copy of this PCN is included in this pack. The PCN
was issued on 13/01/2025
The parking charge rate was £100.00, reduced to £60.00 if
payment was received within fourteen days.
An appeal was received from the vehicle's registered keeper on
the 29/01/2025, which the appeals department investigated and
decided to reject.
Whilst UKPC note the comments, we cannot accept them as evidence
when reviewing a parking charge notice. A bay is an area that is
clearly defined on both sides in which the vehicle is to park.
The vehicle must be positioned within the markings and not
protruding any part of the defined area. The vehicle is parked
over onto the hatched markings which are not part of the bay.
Hatched areas marked in a car park, are done so to prevent
motorists from parking in these areas, as they may be deemed
inappropriate for parking for various reasons, including that it
may cause obstruction to road users for the purposes of access.
The back wheels are also protruding on to the pedestrian
walkway. While I appreciate there may have been a pillar at the
bay, this did not mean that the appellant was exempt from the
requirement of parking within the bay. If this meant that the
appellant was unable to park correctly they could have parked in
an alternative location.
The appellant chose to park in a manner which was not in
compliance with the parking contract, and therefore accepted
they could potentially receive a PCN. Ultimately, it is the
motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and
conditions of the car park.
Following the parking event, UKPC had reasonable cause to obtain
the details of the registered keeper so that a parking charge
notice could be issued by post. A copy of this notice is
included in this case summary, dated 13/01/2025. Issued 3 days
after the date of the parking event (where a Notice to Driver
was not served), the parking charge notice complies fully with
paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
in permitting the registered keeper to be held liable to pay
this unpaid parking charge.
Page 2 of 31
The highest court in the UK, the Supreme Court, has
unambiguously confirmed that parking charges issued on private
land are fully enforceable. In the case of ParkingEye v Beavis
[2015] UKSC 67 their Lordships stated that private parking
charges were enforceable because they served a legitimate
interest and were in the interests of the public generally. The
case confirmed that the amount of the charge does not have to
reflect any loss that might have been caused by breach of the
terms and conditions of parking. The Supreme Court decision is
binding law on all other courts throughout the UK.
The contract between UK Parking Control Ltd and the landowner
(or their managing agent) authorising UKPC to provide parking
management, and therefore issue parking charges to vehicles
breaching the terms of parking, is confidential and we are
unable to provide a copy for reasons of commercial sensitivity.
We have however provided a redacted copy, with sensitive
information covered. The redacted contract confirms our
authority in an ongoing agreement. If neither party terminates
the contract, as in this case, the contract will continue on a
rolling basis. We have provided the T&C’s in relation to the
rolling contract.
UKPC must maintain a consistent approach when issuing and
upholding a charge. In this instance, this vehicle had been
parked on site in direct breach of the terms and conditions of
parking on site as stated on signage. The vehicle was parked in
close proximity to UKPC signage, please see all photographic
evidence to support this.
UK Parking Control signage complies fully with section 3 of the
British Parking Association Code of Practice and we reject the
suggestion that it is vague or misleading. Entrance signage
advises motorists that terms of parking apply, and that notices
within the car park should be checked to identify the full terms
and conditions. These notices are placed throughout the car
park. It is ultimately the responsibility of the motorist to
ensure they identify the terms of parking, and then decide
whether to park their vehicle, or leave the site if they are
unable to meet those terms.
The parking charges issued by UK Parking Control Limited are
based on a contractual agreement between UKPC and the driver, as
detailed on the signage displayed in the car park. The signage
states the terms and conditions of parking and explains that a
parking charge will be payable if the terms are not met by the
driver. We ensure that signage is ample, clear and visible,
wholly in line with the British Parking Association Code of
Practice. It is settled law that a driver is deemed to have
accepted the terms and conditions of parking by the act of
parking and leaving a vehicle.
Ultimately, it is fundamentally the responsibility of the
motorist to identify the terms of parking when leaving their
vehicle on private land. If they feel they are unable to adhere
to the terms, they may leave the site before agreeing to those
terms.
There are sufficient signs advising drivers that not parking
within bay markings may result in a parking charge being issued.
REGISTERED KEEPER NAME the vehicle was not parked correctly in
the bay markings; consequently, the parking charge was issued
correctly.
A letter was sent to REGISTERED KEEPER NAME informing of our
decision on the 14/03/2025.
#Post#: 64601--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN- Not parked within the bay- Lower Precinct,
Coventry
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 28, 2025, 6:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ideally share a copy of it, with personal info redacted, on a
service like Dropbox or Google Drive.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page