DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 59787--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
DIR By: b789
Date: February 26, 2025, 12:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You have until 19th March to submit a POPLA appeal. Before you
do that, you should submit a formal complaint to UKPA which they
are obliged to acknowledge and respond to. Send the following to
them at complaints@ukparkingadministration.com and CC in
yourself.
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Appeal Rejection and
PPSCoP Non-Conformance
>
> Dear UK Parking Administration,
>
> I am submitting a formal complaint regarding your handling of
my appeal for Parking Charge Notice (PCN) [PCN Number], issued
on [Date]. Your appeal rejection contains multiple breaches of
the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), including
a Level 4 non-conformance under Annex H, as well as breaches of
PoFA 2012 Schedule 4. Additionally, your Notice to Keeper (NtK)
contains procedural errors and non-compliances that invalidate
any reliance on keeper liability, making your enforcement action
unlawful.
>
> This complaint serves as a precursor to a formal complaint to
the British Parking Association (BPA) and the DVLA, as these
breaches also invalidate your compliance with the KADOE contract
for DVLA data access.
>
> 1. Deliberate Misrepresentation of Authority – PPSCoP Level 4
Non-Conformance
>
> Your appeal rejection falsely claims that failing to name the
driver could result in if the keeper names the driver and it
subsequently emerges that the driver was not suitably insured at
the material time, UKPA may consider referring the matter for
[b]criminal prosecution, a £5,000 fine, and 6–8 penalty points.
This is entirely false, misleading, and a coercive attempt to
pressure payment under duress.
>
> • There is no legal obligation for the registered keeper to
name the driver in a private parking matter.
> • There is also no basis in law for a criminal prosecution,
fine, or penalty points for failing to disclose a driver’s
identity UKPA to suggest that it has the authority to instigate
a criminal prosecution based on a civil parking charge.
> • UKPA is falsely implying legal consequences that do not
exist, which is a clear breach of the Consumer Protection from
Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR 2008), Schedule 1,
Paragraph 7.
>
> Annex H of the PPSCoP defines a Level 4 non-conformance as:
> [indent]“Deliberate misrepresentation of authority.”[/indent]
>
> This is a serious breach of consumer protection laws and
should result in suspension or expulsion from the ATA.
>
> 2. Breach of KADOE Contract – Report to DVLA
>
> The DVLA’s Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract requires
parking operators to fully comply with the PPSCoP. As your
rejection letter and Notice to Keeper fail to comply with
multiple PPSCoP provisions, your continued access to DVLA keeper
data is unlawful.
>
> Annex H explicitly states that breaches affecting compliance
with PoFA and the PPSCoP may warrant action against an
operator’s ability to request registered keeper data.
>
> This will be formally reported to the DVLA for investigation
into the validity of your KADOE contract and potential
suspension of access to registered keeper data.
>
> 3. Misleading and Prohibited Terminology – PPSCoP Level 3
Non-Conformance
>
> Your appeal rejection letter contains misleading statements
suggesting that:
>
> • A court will assume the keeper was the driver unless they
name the actual driver.
> • Failure to provide a driver’s details could result in legal
consequences that do not exist.
>
> Annex H of the PPSCoP explicitly classifies as a Level 3
non-conformance:
> [indent]“Using prohibited or misleading terminology on
correspondence and communication sent to motorists.”[/indent]
>
> Such misleading statements misrepresent legal liability and
violate consumer protection laws, requiring sanction points by
the BPA.
>
> 4. PoFA 2012 Breaches – Invalid Keeper Liability (PPSCoP Level
2 Non-Conformance)
>
> Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with Schedule 4 of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in the following
ways:
>
> Breach of PoFA 9(2)(a) – Failure to Specify the "Period of
Parking"
> • PoFA requires the NtK to explicitly state the "period of
parking".
> • Your NtK only provides ANPR entry and exit timestamps, which
do not equate to the actual "period of parking."
> • It is not for the recipient to infer the duration—it must be
clearly stated.
>
> Breach of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) – Failure to Provide Proper
Invitation to the Keeper
> • The NtK must invite the keeper to either pay the charge or
provide the driver's details.
> • Your notice fails to issue this invitation in the prescribed
format, meaning it cannot lawfully transfer liability to the
keeper.
>
> Annex H of the PPSCoP lists PoFA non-conformance as a
sanctionable offence:
>
> • Level 1 Non-Conformance (2+ Sanction Points) – Sending a
notice implying that they are pursuing the keeper using Schedule
4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act when they are outside of the
timescales.
> • Level 2 Non-Conformance (5+ Sanction Points) – Repeatedly
sending parking charge notices implying that they are pursuing
the keeper using Schedule 4 of PoFA when they are outside of the
timescales.
>
> Since your NtK fails fundamental PoFA requirements, UKPA is
unlawfully pursuing keeper liability, in breach of the PPSCoP.
>
> 5. Procedural Misstatement of Appeal Deadline – PPSCoP Level 3
Non-Conformance
>
> Your NtK incorrectly states that appeals must be received
within 28 days of issue, rather than 28 days from receipt.
>
> PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(e) states:
> [indent]“The parking operator must ensure that a notice
informs the recipient: that if the recipient appeals within 28
days of receiving the parking charge, the right to pay at the
rate applicable when the appeal was made must stand for a
further 14 days from the date they receive notification that
their appeal has been rejected.”[/indent]
>
> Your misstatement of the appeal deadline misleads motorists
into believing they have less time to appeal than they actually
do, violating their consumer rights.
>
> Annex H classifies this as a Level 3 non-conformance,
warranting 9 sanction points.
>
> Formal Complaint Resolution Required
>
> I request the following actions from you:
>
> A written response acknowledging and retracting the false
statements in your appeal rejection letter.
>
> Confirmation that you will cease issuing misleading threats
regarding keeper liability and criminal prosecution in future
correspondence.
>
> An explanation of how you intend to correct the multiple
PPSCoP and PoFA breaches identified in your NtK.
>
> Confirmation that you have reviewed your processes to ensure
full compliance with the PPSCoP and the KADOE contract.
>
> Failure to properly address this complaint will result in:
>
> • A formal complaint to the British Parking Association (BPA)
requesting an investigation and sanctions.
> • A formal complaint to the DVLA highlighting your breach of
the KADOE contract.
> • A referral to Trading Standards for misleading commercial
practices.
>
> I expect a full written response within 14 days. If you fail
to respond satisfactorily, I will escalate this matter without
further notice.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Name]
> [Your Contact Details][/b]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 59791--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 26, 2025, 12:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Your appeal rejection falsely claims that failing to name the
driver could result in criminal prosecution, a £5,000 fine, and
6–8 penalty points.
>
--- End Quote ---
That's not quite what it claims. It says that if they do name
the driver, and it were to emerge that said driver was not
suitably insured at the material time (how that'd emerge is
anyone's guess), then they will consider referring the matter
for criminal prosecution.
This is still dodgy and should be complained about, but it is
materially different to claiming that failing to name the driver
could result in prosecution, so I'm not sure the proposed
wording of point #1 properly reflects what UKPA actually said.
#Post#: 59794--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
DIR By: b789
Date: February 26, 2025, 1:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Edited above.
OP, do not copy and paste the strikeout text.
#Post#: 59884--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
DIR By: fizz90
Date: February 27, 2025, 9:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you all for your help and for the amendments - noted not
to send the text which has been struck through.
Do I also adapt this and send the same thing to POPLA as well?
Or do I wait for the complaint response from UKPA?
#Post#: 59896--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
DIR By: b789
Date: February 27, 2025, 10:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You have until 19th March to submit a POPLA appeal. Why the
rush? Send the formal complaint to UKPC for now. They are
required to respond within 14 days. If they haven't then you can
use that against them also.
#Post#: 59905--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
DIR By: fizz90
Date: February 27, 2025, 12:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Fab - thank you!
#Post#: 59915--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
DIR By: fizz90
Date: February 27, 2025, 2:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just to confirm:
1. Do I keep the items in bold as they are in the original?
2. Just for my understanding, point 4 around annex H - it says
they are outside of timescales - is this because the NtK they
have sent thus far is not valid and now they’re out of time to
send a valid one?
#Post#: 59930--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
DIR By: b789
Date: February 27, 2025, 7:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Highlight is for emphasis. Timescales are not mentioned. It is
about their failure to state the period of parking in the NtK.
#Post#: 59976--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
DIR By: fizz90
Date: February 28, 2025, 8:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for clarifying, I’ll add the bold back in as it took
it out when I copied and pasted.
It was this bit in the email in point 4 that I was referring to
which mentions timescales.
Annex H of the PPSCoP lists PoFA non-conformance as a
sanctionable offence:
• Level 1 Non-Conformance (2+ Sanction Points) – Sending a
notice implying that they are pursuing the keeper using Schedule
4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act when they are outside of the
timescales.
• Level 2 Non-Conformance (5+ Sanction Points) – Repeatedly
sending parking charge notices implying that they are pursuing
the keeper using Schedule 4 of PoFA when they are outside of the
timescales.
#Post#: 59980--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
DIR By: b789
Date: February 28, 2025, 8:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The wording of the PPSCoP states for Level 1 and Level 2
Non-Conformance that these are "examples". So, while it gives
the example of timescales, it is not restricted to just that. It
is saying that any PoFA non-conformance, in this case the
failure to comply with PoFA 9(2)(a), where they have failed to
specify the "period of parking", is a Level 1 breach for one
instance and a Level 2 breach for repeatedly doing so.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page