DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 56538--------------------------------------------------
UKPC Parking Notice - Not Parked Correctly within the Markings -
Beckton Triangle Retail Park
DIR By: AyGee
Date: February 4, 2025, 5:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am the registered keeper of a vehicle that received a parking
charge at the car park listed in the title.
When the driver of the vehicle entered the car park, they had an
elderly relative an a newborn infant in the vehicle. There was
no possibility of fitting into a spot and being able to get both
out.
Unfortunately the driver did not take pictures of any signage.
The attached PCN was received by post.
I have read that most UKPC tickets are unenforceable and would
like help appealing this. Thank you
HTML https://i.imgur.com/3VYMOtb.jpeg
#Post#: 56557--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking Notice - Not Parked Correctly within the
Markings - Beckton Triangle Retail Park
DIR By: b789
Date: February 4, 2025, 7:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Not to worry. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant
as it fails to comply with paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA because it
does not state the "period of parking".
For now, follow this advice... 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 Keeper (NtK) 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 NtK 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#: 57060--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking Notice - Not Parked Correctly within the
Markings - Beckton Triangle Retail Park
DIR By: AyGee
Date: February 7, 2025, 4:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, that's done.
#Post#: 60332--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking Notice - Not Parked Correctly within the
Markings - Beckton Triangle Retail Park
DIR By: AyGee
Date: March 3, 2025, 5:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have had the following response
Thank you for your recent communication concerning parking
charge reference .
We have carefully considered your appeal based on the
information provided and the evidence supporting the parking
charge. In this instance having
completed our assessment, we consider the parking charge to have
been correctly issued, as the vehicle was not parked within bay
markings.
Our appeals process is now concluded, you may now choose one of
the following options:
1) Pay the parking charge detailed above at the reduced rate of
£60.00 to UK Parking Control Ltd. PLEASE REFER OVERLEAF FOR
PAYMENT OPTIONS
AND ADDRESS DETAILS.
2) Make an appeal to the independent adjudicator POPLA (Parking
on Private Land Appeals) using the verification code provided
above. Please note that if
you wish to appeal to POPLA, you will lose the right to pay the
discounted rate of £60.00, and should POPLA reject your appeal
you will be required to pay
the full amount of £100.00. If you opt to pay the parking charge
you will be unable to appeal with POPLA. Appeals to POPLA must
be made within
twenty-eight days from the date of this letter. To appeal with
POPLA, please visit www.popla.co.uk. If you are unable to access
the internet, you may
appeal by post – this must be done using a POPLA postal form
which may be obtained by contacting POPLA by phone (0330 159
6126) or post (PO Box
1270, Warrington, WA4 9RL).
By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman
Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative
dispute resolution service
that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we
have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute
resolution service. As such
should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as
explained above.
3) If you choose to do nothing the parking charge will
automatically increase after thirty-five days from the date of
this letter to £100.00 and the matter
will be passed to our debt recovery agent, at which point you
will be liable to pay an additional charge of £70, in accordance
with the terms and conditions
of parking, and further charges will be claimed if court action
is taken against you. Any unpaid court judgement may adversely
affect your credit rating.
#Post#: 60495--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking Notice - Not Parked Correctly within the
Markings - Beckton Triangle Retail Park
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 4, 2025, 5:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The next step is a POPLA appeal. This should be along similar
lines, but more detail. Your audience here is the POPLA
assessor, not UKPC. They have no prior knowledge of the case so
you should run them through each point on which you intend to
rely. You may wish to have a go at drafting something up for us
to comment on. For the non-case-specific points (PoFA etc.),
have a search on here for other UKPC POPLA appeals to get an
idea of how to approach this.
#Post#: 60521--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking Notice - Not Parked Correctly within the
Markings - Beckton Triangle Retail Park
DIR By: AyGee
Date: March 4, 2025, 6:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you
Draft as follows
POPLA Verification Code: [Verification Code]
UKPC PCN Number: [PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Vehicle Registration]
Response to UKPC Evidence Submission and Reaffirmation of Appeal
Points
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and have
reviewed the evidence submitted by UKPC. I submitted an appeal
to UKPC without any basis. my appeal is as follows: -
Keeper Liability – Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012
Original Appeal Argument:
UKPC has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act
(PoFA) 2012, meaning they cannot transfer liability for the
alleged parking charge from the driver to the registered keeper.
Under Schedule 4 of PoFA, strict conditions must be met before
the keeper can be held liable for a parking charge incurred by
the driver. UKPC's failure to comply with several key
requirements renders the Notice to Keeper (NtK) non-compliant,
meaning they cannot hold the registered keeper liable for the
charge.
UKPC’s NtK fails PoFA on the following points:
(i) Paragraph 9(2)(e): PoFA requires that the NtK must include
an “invitation” for the keeper to pay the charge. Specifically,
it must “invite” the keeper to pay the charge or provide the
name and address of the driver. The wording on UKPC’s NtK does
not contain this necessary invitation, which is a critical
requirement under PoFA.
(ii) Paragraph 9(2)(f): PoFA mandates that the NtK must include
a warning to the keeper that if, after 28 days, neither payment
nor driver details are provided, the keeper will become liable.
UKPC’s NtK fails to provide this warning clearly and in the
correct format.
(iii) Paragraph 9(2)(a): The NtK must specify the relevant land
on which the vehicle was parked. UKPC’s vague description of the
location is insufficient under PoFA, as it does not clearly
identify where the vehicle was allegedly parked, nor does it
specify a defined area.
(iv) Paragraph 9(2)(b): PoFA requires that the NtK must inform
the keeper of the reason for issuing the charge. In this case,
UKPC fails to make the alleged breach of contract clear in their
NtK. The NtK must inform the keeper why the parking terms were
allegedly breached, but this is not sufficiently communicated.
Given these failures, UKPC has not complied with the
requirements of PoFA, meaning they cannot transfer liability to
the keeper.
Unanswered:
UKPC has not provided a any rebuttal showing how they have
complied with the specific points of PoFA listed above. PoFA
compliance requires meeting every one of the detailed conditions
in Schedule 4, and they have demonstrably failed to do so.
Without strict compliance with PoFA, UKPC cannot hold the keeper
liable, and this charge is therefore unenforceable.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, UKPC has failed to address or rebut the key
points of my original appeal. Their evidence submission does not
provide sufficient proof of the following:
Non-compliance with PoFA 2012, meaning they cannot hold the
registered keeper liable.
No evidence that the registered keeper was the driver.
Based on this points, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold
my appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
#Post#: 62056--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking Notice - Not Parked Correctly within the
Markings - Beckton Triangle Retail Park
DIR By: AyGee
Date: March 12, 2025, 5:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
POPLA Appeal question please
I assume that my Grounds for Appeal are 'other'
Thank you
#Post#: 62057--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking Notice - Not Parked Correctly within the
Markings - Beckton Triangle Retail Park
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 12, 2025, 5:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Correct.
#Post#: 62059--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking Notice - Not Parked Correctly within the
Markings - Beckton Triangle Retail Park
DIR By: AyGee
Date: March 12, 2025, 5:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you
#Post#: 63927--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking Notice - Not Parked Correctly within the
Markings - Beckton Triangle Retail Park
DIR By: AyGee
Date: March 24, 2025, 6:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
UKPC have responded to my POPLA appeal
On the 22/01/2025, our parking operative issued a parking charge
virtually to
vehicle registration [] at Beckton Triangle Retail Park. The
parking charge
was issued because the vehicle was not parked within bay
markings
Following the parking event on 22/01/2025, 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 24/01/2025
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 keeper Mr A on the
07/02/2025, which the appeals department investigated and
decided to reject.
The basis of the appeal was a basic online template stating that
he denies liability,
but also refuses to name the driver. He also states how he would
be making a
complaint about 'predatory conduct' and that the Notice to
Keeper did not comply
with PoFA 2012 along with other statements.
As can be seen from the parking operative's photos, the vehicle
is parked over the
bay markings and into a secondary bay, thus obstructing the use
of that bay by any
patron of the retail park. It would not be presumed 'predatory'
to issue a PCN to
those whom have cause hindrance to other members of the public,
and contravened
the terms and conditions of parking on site.
We do note the comments made in regards to our NTF being
non-PoFA compliant,
however as you can see from the further evidence provided this
is fallacy. The
charge was issued correctly, as the vehicle is not parked
correctly within the
markings of the bay. Seeing as Mr A refused to name the driver
of the vehicle,
and the decision was made to continue the charge after the 28
day period, the
charge is compliant with PoFA in that regard and we have
continued to hold Mr
A liable for the charge.
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.
UK Parking Control signage complies fully with section 18 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.
There are sufficient signs advising drivers that parking outside
of bay markings may
result in a parking charge being issued. Mr A's vehicle was not
parked within the bay markings; consequently, the parking charge
was issued
correctly.
They have also kindly shared their 'evidence'
HTML https://i.ibb.co/8nTg40g2/Evidence-of-Po-FA-compliance.png
HTML https://ibb.co/KcRxzXx7
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 6
DIR Next Page