DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 64606--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN- Not parked within the bay- Lower Precinct,
Coventry
DIR By: dalooah
Date: March 28, 2025, 7:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here's a link to google drive with all the documents they sent
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1TMHhwd32q8dqok-sXT3XIyDajn_QqTod?usp=drive_link
#Post#: 64631--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN- Not parked within the bay- Lower Precinct,
Coventry
DIR By: b789
Date: March 28, 2025, 9:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just copy and paste the following into the POPLA response
webform. It is within the 10,000 character limit for response to
the operators evidence.
--- Quote ---
> I respond to the operator's evidence as follows:
>
> 1. PoFA Compliance: UKPC states that the Notice to Keeper
complies with Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012. This is incorrect. The NtK only includes a
single timestamp (16:46) and does not specify a "period of
parking" as required by Paragraph 9(2)(a). This omission means
that the NtK is non-compliant, and the operator cannot pursue
the registered keeper. UKPC has made no attempt to explain how a
single moment in time constitutes a period of parking, nor have
they addressed the precedent set in Brennan v Premier Parking
Solutions (2023), which confirms that a period of parking is
required. Without a recorded duration, it is also impossible to
establish whether the vehicle remained on site longer than the
minimum consideration period that must be allowed before any
contractual terms can take effect. Simply regurgitating that the
NtK is PoFA compliant does not make it so. PoFA is not a “best
efforts” checklist. It is an all-or-nothing statute. You cannot
be “mostly PoFA compliant” any more than someone can be “mostly
pregnant.” It’s binary: you either fully comply, or you don’t.
As shown here, UKPC does not.
>
> 2. Presumption of Driver Identity: UKPC has not identified the
driver. Their comments imply an assumption that the keeper was
the driver, but they have not contested or rebutted the legal
position in VCS v Edward (2023) which makes clear that no such
presumption exists in law. As UKPC has not identified the
driver, and PoFA has not been complied with, the keeper cannot
be held liable.
>
> 3. Landowner Authority: UKPC has failed to provide any
evidence of landowner authority. Their evidence pack does not
include a contract, redacted or otherwise, no witness statement,
and no proof that they are authorised to operate on this land.
UKPC’s narrative merely asserts that a contract exists, but
nothing is provided to support this. This is a clear breach of
Section 14 of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP)). POPLA requires documentary evidence of
landowner authority, and UKPC has failed to provide it. The
appeal must be allowed on this basis alone.
>
> 4. Parent and Child Bay / Hatched Area: UKPC’s photographic
evidence shows the vehicle slightly encroaching into the hatched
area on one side and the rear protruding over the adjacent
pedestrian walkway. However, this was clearly the result of the
bay’s poor and impractical design. A large structural pillar
protrudes significantly into the bay itself, reducing its usable
space. UKPC has not addressed this obstruction, which physically
prevents a standard vehicle from parking fully within the marked
lines without some degree of overlap. The bay is marked as a
parent and child space, yet only has a hatched area on one side.
The adjacent bay on the other side is not a parent and child
bay, meaning there is no accessible buffer zone for loading or
unloading children or prams from that side. The driver had no
realistic option but to position the vehicle in a way that
allowed safe access from the passenger side, adjacent to the
non-parent bay. UKPC have not provided any signage or markings
to warn drivers that limited use of the adjacent hatched area or
slight protrusion due to unavoidable obstructions would result
in a PCN.
>
> This layout appears to be a deliberate entrapment setup: a bay
that visually invites parents to use it, but is physically too
narrow for practical use due to the fixed pillar, with
inadequate surrounding space. Rather than design their bays to
be fit for purpose, UKPC instead chooses to penalise drivers
forced into making reasonable adjustments to use the bay as
intended. This is unfair, and the alleged contravention is not
clearly established. The burden of proof remains with UKPC, and
they have failed to discharge it.
>
> 5. Exploitation of Poor Design for Enforcement Gain: Having
created a bay layout that is not fit for purpose—especially for
parents with children—UKPC has opted to exploit these
shortcomings rather than address them. The combination of a
pillar encroaching into the bay, a single hatched side, and no
warning signage about partial encroachment creates a situation
where compliant parking is physically impractical. UKPC’s
response is to ignore this reality and issue PCNs to drivers who
make reasonable adjustments to safely use the space.
>
> UKPC’s failure to design accessible bays or to provide signage
clarifying enforcement boundaries strongly suggests that
enforcement is not based on genuine management, but on
opportunistic ticketing. There is no evidence that UKPC has
taken steps to make this site functional or fair for users of
these bays, despite their clear knowledge of the layout’s
limitations. This undermines any suggestion that the charge
serves a legitimate interest and instead reflects a model based
on entrapment.
>
> 6. Signage and Photographic Evidence: UKPC has included
photographs of signage taken at the time of the alleged
contravention, but these images do not assist their case. The
signage fails to meet the legal requirements for forming a
contract or for establishing keeper liability under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Specifically, it does not
comply with Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 4, which requires that
“adequate notice” be given of the parking charge. In this case,
the charge is buried within a dense block of tiny text and is
neither prominent nor clearly legible from a driver’s
perspective. It is not adequately brought to the attention of
the motorist and cannot form the basis of a contractual
agreement.
>
> UKPC relies on ParkingEye v Beavis as though it is a blanket
justification for enforcement, but this is a misapplication of
the case. In Beavis, the parking charge was the most prominent
element on the sign—clearly visible, bold, and unmistakable.
That is not the case here. A comparison between the UKPC sign
and the Beavis sign makes it immediately obvious that the latter
met the “adequate notice” standard, whereas the former does not.
>
> Furthermore, POPLA has previously upheld numerous appeals
where UKPC signage was found to be non-compliant with both PoFA
and the BPA Code of Practice. The signs in this case suffer from
the same fundamental defects: poor layout, inadequate font size,
and failure to make key terms—particularly the
charge—sufficiently prominent. UKPC has failed to show that any
contract could have been formed, and therefore cannot
demonstrate that a contravention occurred.
>
> 7. Legitimate Interest and ParkingEye v Beavis: UKPC attempts
to rely on ParkingEye v Beavis, but this case does not
automatically legitimise every £100 charge. That case was
context-specific, relating to free parking overstays in a busy
retail car park. Here, there is no evidence of obstruction, loss
of amenity, or abuse of parking time. The vehicle was parked
responsibly in a wide bay designated for families, in a way that
ensured safe access for children. UKPC has not shown how issuing
a penalty-style charge in this case serves any genuine or
proportionate interest.
>
> 8. Generalised Assertions: UKPC repeatedly rely on boilerplate
language rather than addressing the specific context of this
case. They refer to signage and enforcement “throughout the car
park” but do not show a site map, illumination, or confirm where
the signs were located relative to the vehicle. Assertions that
the driver could have parked elsewhere are not evidence. The
operator must prove the terms were properly conveyed and that
the driver breached them—this has not been done.
>
> In conclusion, UKPC has failed to prove valid PoFA compliance,
failed to prove landowner authority, failed to provide adequate
signage evidence from the material date, failed to justify the
charge under Beavis, and failed to rebut the specific arguments
made in my appeal. I respectfully request that POPLA allow this
appeal and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 64633--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN- Not parked within the bay- Lower Precinct,
Coventry
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 28, 2025, 9:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> 3. Landowner Authority: UKPC has failed to provide any
evidence of landowner authority. Their evidence pack does not
include a contract, redacted or otherwise, no witness statement,
and no proof that they are authorised to operate on this land.
UKPC’s narrative merely asserts that a contract exists, but
nothing is provided to support this. This is a clear breach of
Section 14 of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP)). POPLA requires documentary evidence of
landowner authority, and UKPC has failed to provide it. The
appeal must be allowed on this basis alone.
>
--- End Quote ---
A heavily redacted one is provided in the Google Drive link
#Post#: 64644--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN- Not parked within the bay- Lower Precinct,
Coventry
DIR By: b789
Date: March 28, 2025, 10:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Missed that. In which case amend section 3 of the response to:
--- Quote ---
> 3. Landowner Authority: The operator has failed to provide a
valid contract or sufficient evidence of landowner authority, as
required under Paragraph 7.1 of the Private Parking Single Code
of Practice (PPSCoP). The burden is on the operator to
demonstrate that they have written authorisation from the
landholder permitting them to manage the land, issue Parking
Charge Notices (PCNs), and pursue payment in their own name.
>
> The only material supplied is a partial, heavily redacted
document labelled as a "Services Contract" dated 19th August
2021, along with a similarly redacted “Contract Change Request
Form” dated 31st March 2022. The purported contract is
explicitly marked as comprising 38 pages, yet only 5 pages have
been disclosed. The vast majority of the content has been
blacked out, including sections that would be necessary to
establish the operator’s authority, such as the scope of
services, permitted enforcement rights, site-specific terms, or
whether the operator is permitted to pursue charges in their own
name. The change request form only references a restriction
related to motorcycle bays and has no bearing on enforcement
rights.
>
> It is therefore wholly unclear whether the operator is
authorised to issue PCNs at this location at all, let alone
enforce them. The level of redaction renders the document
ineligible as proof of standing. A court would be unlikely to
give any weight to such a document, as the terms on which the
operator relies are not visible, nor is it even clear that this
redacted agreement relates to the area where the alleged parking
contravention took place.
>
> Unless and until a contemporaneous, unredacted agreement is
produced, clearly showing the operator’s rights and obligations,
the operator cannot be said to have met the evidential standard
required to establish standing.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 74846--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN- Not parked within the bay- Lower Precinct,
Coventry
DIR By: dalooah
Date: June 4, 2025, 3:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've just heard back from POPLA and I'm incredibly surprised-
the appeal has been successful! Thank you to everyone who has
posted on this thread, your help has been invaluable- it is
greatly appreciated!!
#Post#: 74854--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN- Not parked within the bay- Lower Precinct,
Coventry
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: June 4, 2025, 7:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Do you mind posting their response please, it's super useful for
all those on here.
#Post#: 74865--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN- Not parked within the bay- Lower Precinct,
Coventry
DIR By: dalooah
Date: June 5, 2025, 2:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have copied and pasted the decision:
Decision: Successful
Assessor Name:
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for not
parking correctly within the markings of the bay or space.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds
of appeal. • The notice to keeper (NTK) fails to comply with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). The NTK 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. • No presumption that the keeper was
the driver can be made. • The parking bay is a parent and child
bay. The hatched area forms part of the bay for use of the
driver and the minors inside the vehicle. The signage on site
does not indicate this is not the case. • The parking bay had an
obstruction within it. There is a pillar that protrudes into the
bay and thus, UKPC have not upheld their duty to provide
suitable parking spaces. • There has been no genuine
pre-estimate of loss. In Parking Eye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67,
the Supreme Court held that a parking charge must serve a
legitimate interest beyond mere deterrence and given that, 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. • The signage on site is
inadequate and so no contract was formed. The signage is
positioned high up and a small font size used. • The lighting
conditions are poor, making it difficult to read unless the
driver actively seeks it out and even if the driver attempts to
read the sign, the charge for breaching any terms is not
“adequately” brought to their attention. The parking charge of
£100 is buried in a block of small print, which does not meet
the POFA requirement for “adequate notice”. • There is a lack of
landowner authority and no proof of UKPC’s right to operate
here. Any contract must include specific clauses permitting the
issuing and enforcement of PCNs. 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. After
reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated
their case. They have said the bay is marked as a parent and
child space, yet only has a hatched area on one side. The
adjacent bay on the other side is not a parent and child bay,
meaning there is no accessible buffer zone for loading or
unloading children from that side. The driver had no realistic
option but to position the vehicle in a way that allowed safe
access from the driver side, adjacent to the non-parent bay.
This layout appears to be a deliberate entrapment setup and
unfair. They have said having created a bay layout that is not
fit for purpose-especially for parents with children, UKPC has
opted to exploit these shortcomings rather than address them.
They have said UKPC have made no attempt to explain how a single
moment in time constitutes a period of parking, nor have they
addressed the precedent set in Brennan v Premier Parking
Solutions (2023), which confirms that a period of parking is
required. Without a recorded duration, it is impossible to
establish whether the vehicle remained on site longer than the
minimum consideration period that must be allowed before any
contractual terms can take effect. The appellant has said the
operator has failed to provide a valid contract or sufficient
evidence of landowner authority, as required under Paragraph 7.1
of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The
only material supplied is a partial, heavily redacted document
labelled "Services Contract" dated 19/8/21, along with a
similarly redacted “Contract Change Request Form” dated
31/03/22. The purported contract is explicitly marked as
comprising 38 pages, yet only 5 pages have been disclosed. The
vast majority of the content has been blacked out, including
sections that would be necessary to establish the operator’s
authority. Therefore, it is wholly unclear whether the operator
is authorised to issue PCNs at this location at all, let alone
enforce them. The appellant has also said UKPC relies on
ParkingEye v Beavis as though it is a blanket justification for
enforcement, but this is a misapplication of the case. In
Beavis, the parking charge was the most prominent element on the
sign—clearly visible, bold, and unmistakable. That is not the
case here. They have said UKPC also attempts to rely on
ParkingEye v Beavis, but this case also does not automatically
legitimise every £100 charge. That case was context-specific,
relating to free parking overstays in a busy retail car park.
Here, there is no evidence of obstruction, loss of amenity, or
abuse of parking time. UKPC has not shown how issuing a
penalty-style charge in this case serves any genuine or
proportionate interest. They have said the existence of an
undated signage plan does not confirm that it was implemented
correctly or that all intended signs were installed. According
to the document entitled "Signage Plan," there are only
parent-and-child bays on Level 2 and UKPC’s photos show the
vehicle next to the lifts, where a “Number 5” (420x600mm) sign
was meant to be placed on a pillar. However, none of the
attendant’s photos show this supposed sign. This demonstrates
that the signage plan was not fully implemented and as a result,
it should be disregarded. Additionally, UKPC’s case summary
includes signage photos taken no later than 2023—some as early
as 2021. These outdated images do not reflect the signage’s
condition on the date of the alleged contravention. They were
also taken in the summer, in bright daylight, whereas the
alleged contravention occurred on 10/01/25 in Coventry, when
sunset was at 4:15 PM, meaning poor lighting within the carpark
and outside darkness would have impacted visibility of any
signage. The appellant has said POPLA have previously upheld
appeals where UKPC signage was found to be non-compliant with
both POFA and the BPA Code of Practice.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: It
is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with
sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut the appellant’s
claims and prove that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN)
correctly. This PCN has been issued for not parking correctly
within the markings of the bay or space. When parking on private
land, the parking contract is between the motorist and the
operator through the terms on its signs. The signage at this
site states all vehicles must only be parked within marked bays.
The parking operator has provided images of the appellants
vehicle parked on site, not wholly within a marked bay. The
appellant has said in their appeal that the charge for breaching
any terms is not “adequately” brought to their attention. They
have said the parking charge of £100 is buried in a block of
small print, which does not meet the POFA requirement for
“adequate notice”. The appellant has also said UKPC relies on
ParkingEye v Beavis as though it is a blanket justification for
enforcement, but this is a misapplication of the case. In
Beavis, the parking charge was the most prominent element on the
sign—clearly visible, bold, and unmistakable. That is not the
case here. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of
Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to
comply with. Section 19.4 of the Code of Practice states that if
parking operators intend to use the keeper liability provisions
in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, the
signs must give adequate notice of the charge. Furthermore, the
Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a
high-profile case, Parking Eye v Beavis, and decided that the
parking charge amount must be brought to the motorist’s
attention within the signage. From the evidence of the signage
on site provided by the parking operator, I can see that the
consequence of not complying with the terms and conditions is in
one of the smaller font sizes used on the signage. This is also
the same colour as the rest of the text, and it is not in a
different font or bold, nor has anything else been used to make
it stand out. This information is visible when looking at a pdf
image of the signage, but the parking operator’s images of the
signage on site, show this information is in a small font and in
amongst other text, and therefore I am not satisfied it is
adequately brought to the attention of motorists. I appreciate
the parking operator has separate signage on site that displays
information about the £100 PCN, and this text is in a larger
font size and in capital letters, however this only says a PCN
will be issued if you fail to pay, and this is not the reason
this PCN has been issued. Therefore, in this instance, I
acknowledge the reason the PCN was issued, however I am not
satisfied that the operator has adequately rebutted the
appellant’s grounds for appeal. I can only conclude that the PCN
was issued incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other
issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to
allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required
further consideration. Accordingly, I allow this appeal.
#Post#: 74891--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PCN- Not parked within the bay- Lower Precinct,
Coventry
DIR By: b789
Date: June 5, 2025, 5:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
UKPC signs NEVER adequately bring notice the charge to the
driver.
A win nevertheless. Which POPLA assessor came to this
conclusion?
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page