DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 70976--------------------------------------------------
UKPC NTK not parked correctly within markings of parking bay. Va
lley park croydon
By: Torenaga Date: May 11, 2025, 5:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone.
I received an NTK from UKPC due to the car not being parked
within the parking bay markings.
The driver of the car went to the shops, and parked the car.
While they were parking they had to leave a bit of space as
another car had parked over the drivers bay slightly, so the
driver parked over to have some extra room.
The driver said that there was no ticket left on the car by the
attendant who issued the ticket. But this could just be
standard practice with these type of tickets from private firms.
I have now received this NTK now and would like to know how to
proceed with this.
In the pictures on the UKPC site the car that was parked next to
it had moved.
I have attached the NTK and removed personal details. Not sure
if I had to remove any more details.
Kind regards
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 70978--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK not parked correctly within markings of parking bay
. Valley park croydon
By: DWMB2 Date: May 11, 2025, 5:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
UKPC tickets can usually be beaten if you're prepared to put in
the effort to fight them all the way.
Looking at the actual contravention, I don't think you've much
of an argument there. The way the driver parked is effectively
blocking the next bay, and UKPC can argue they're protecting a
legitimate interest of the landowner by issuing a charge.
If they want to recover the charge from you as the keeper of the
vehicle, they need to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4
of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (there's a link in my
signature under this post). One of those requirements is to
'specify' the period of parking. Their notice merely states a
single time, which isn't sufficient (Brennan v Premier Parking
Solutions).
You could appeal along the lines of the below as the keeper:
[indent]Dear Sirs,
I have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: _____) for
vehicle registration mark _____, in which you allege that the
driver has incurred a parking charge. I note from your
correspondence that you claim to be able to hold me liable under
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("the Act"),
but this is not true. You have failed to specify a period of
parking as required by 9(2)(a) of the Act.
I am appealing as the registered keeper. There is no obligation
for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so. I am
therefore unable to help you further with this matter, and look
forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled.
If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA
code.
Yours
[/indent]
They will almost certainly reject this appeal, but you can then
appeal to POPLA. You've a better chance at POPLA, but they too
can be a bit rubbish. If they reject, the next step is a
potential court claim in the County Court (small claims track).
These claims are almost always discontinued before a hearing, if
defended with our help - see here: DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE
PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS
HTML https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations
#Post#: 70980--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK not parked correctly within markings of parking bay
. Valley park croydon
By: Torenaga Date: May 12, 2025, 2:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much for the reply DWMB2.
Yes I am willing to take this all the way and put in the effort.
I will send off the appeal you have posted and await the
rejection letter as I'm also sure they will reject.
Kind regards
#Post#: 77076--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK not parked correctly within markings of parking bay
. Valley park croydon
By: Torenaga Date: June 18, 2025, 2:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have now recieved the notice of rejection.
Which they have supplied a popla code.
What would be the next steps from here?
Kind regards
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 77991--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK not parked correctly within markings of parking bay
. Valley park croydon
By: Torenaga Date: June 24, 2025, 12:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Any update on how i can appeal to popla please?
I want to appeal before the time runs out :)
Kind regards
#Post#: 78035--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK not parked correctly within markings of parking bay
. Valley park croydon
By: b789 Date: June 24, 2025, 4:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just search the forum for other POPLA appeals and put something
together. I doubt that a POPLA appeal will be successful in this
case but it doesn't matter. An unsuccessful POPLA appeal is not
binding on you and has no prejudice on anything going forward.
If you follow the advice, you won/t be paying a penny to UKPC.
#Post#: 78046--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK not parked correctly within markings of parking bay
. Valley park croydon
By: Torenaga Date: June 24, 2025, 4:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok, thank you very much for the reply, I will take a look now.
#Post#: 78974--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK not parked correctly within markings of parking bay
. Valley park croydon
By: Torenaga Date: June 30, 2025, 3:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have searched around on this forum and MSE (I hope this is
allowed) and the main popla appeal which seems to be the closest
to my case in an appeal I assume would be this.
1. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is
pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability'
to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are
confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on
the evidence received. No presumption can be made about
liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person
(with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is
insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to
drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am
exercising my right not to name that person.
Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no
other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout
(as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission
regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it
has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking
charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.
As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to
name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an
operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies
regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact
remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or
evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be
deemed to be the liable party.
The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot
use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I
have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and
show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They
cannot.
Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA
2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry
Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:
Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule
4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it
provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper
of the vehicle.
There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered
keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never
suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the
recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the
driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted
that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for
example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the
driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the
police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a
keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name
the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with
then keeper liability does not generally pass.''
Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking
charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator
is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in
September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to
transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold
the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I
am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the
evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable
to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I
must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed
to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore
liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this
basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal
raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this
appeal.''
2. Insufficient and unclear signage in the area the vehicle was
parked
There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at
all. It is submitted that the driver parked in an area with
insufficient signage.
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to
strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land
then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the
contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site
agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including
exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine
resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto'
charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this
operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the
landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of
a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is
contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge
Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts
with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce
the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding
land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner
only).
Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often
being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the
case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might
in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it
is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the
services provided by each party to the agreement.
Nor would it define vital information such as charging
days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I
believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the
BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and
bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting
evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has
authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the
landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be
assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template
private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the
actual landowner agreement).
Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements
and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any
outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the
written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent)
prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that
the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and
enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of
operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that
may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining
signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the
agreement.
Would this be ok to send to popla as i assume they will most
probably reject anything i send them.
Kind Regards
#Post#: 79001--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK not parked correctly within markings of parking bay
. Valley park croydon
By: b789 Date: July 1, 2025, 2:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That is from POPLA appeals that are over 10 years old. Your
first point is a rambling about the Keeper not being liable to
identify the driver but does not explain what that is relevant
in this case.
Explain why the Keeper cannot be liable under PoFA and then you
can also explain why the driver cannot be liable because there
is no evidence that a contract was formed. PoFA paragraph
9(2)(a) states:
[indent]A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper
for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance
with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked
and the period of parking to which the notice relates;[/indent]
Where is that section complied with in the NtK? There is not
even a mention of the word "period" in the NtK. Therefore, the
notice is not fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA
and so the Keeper cannot be liable.
This is backed up in persuasive case law which the POPLA
assessor should be familiar with by now. In Scott 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=g30khcux&dl=0<br
/>where it was concluded that a single timestamp does not
constitute a valid "period of parking" under Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).
With the above established, you can then argue that there is no
evidence that the vehicle was parked for longer than the minimum
consideration period to show that a contract was formed with the
driver. This is a critical point in challenging the
enforceability of a PCN.
The PPSCoP section 5.1 explains that there must be a
consideration period before a PCN can be issued. The
consideration period requirements are explained in Annex B1. It
is a minimum of 5 minutes unless there are more than 500 spaces
in the car park, in which case it is a minimum of 10 minutes.
This is to allow the driver the time required to identify and
read signs that display the parking terms and conditions, or the
consequences of choosing to park where public parking is not
invited, the time required to identify and comply with
requirements for payment and the time required for a driver to
leave the controlled land if they decide not to accept the terms
and conditions.
So, without a "period of parking" evidenced, there can be no
driver liability or Keeper liability. You lead on those two
points and then throw in signage and landowner authority as
backups, just in case you get one of the more moronic POPLA
assessors.
Here are some example points you could use:
[quote]1. The Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with Paragraph
9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by the operator fails to
comply with the mandatory requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a) of
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). This
paragraph requires that the NtK must “specify the vehicle, the
relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking
to which the notice relates”.
In this case, the NtK merely states a single timestamp: 12:11pm
on 01/05/2025. This is a point in time, not a “period of
parking”. There is no start and end time, no duration, and not
even a reference to the word “period” in the notice.
As confirmed in 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=g30khcux&dl=0,<br
/>a single timestamp alone does not satisfy the statutory
requirement. The failure to specify a period of parking renders
the NtK non-compliant, and therefore the operator cannot pursue
the registered keeper under PoFA.
2. No evidence of contract formation due to absence of a
consideration period
Even if PoFA were not engaged, the operator has provided no
evidence that a contract was formed with the driver. Under
Section 5.1 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of
Practice (2024)
HTML https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/sector_single_Code_of_Practice_Version_1.1_130225.pdf,<br
/>a minimum consideration period must be allowed before any
assumption of contractual parking can be made. This period
allows the driver to read the signage, assess the terms, and
decide whether to accept them. The Code states that a driver
remaining on site for more than 5 minutes may be deemed to have
accepted the terms, but there is no evidence that the vehicle
remained for that long. Without such evidence, there is no basis
to conclude that the driver accepted any contractual terms, and
therefore no liability can arise.[/quote]
With the above points made, you can then assert that you cannot
be liable as the Keeper and the unidentified driver cannot be
liable either.
For the purpose of throwing in the kitchen sink for the appeal,
add the following points for good measure:
[quote]3. Signage incapable of forming a contract
If, despite the clear absence of keeper liability under PoFA and
the lack of any evidence that a contract was formed with the
driver, the assessor is still minded to consider the charge,
then the operator is put to strict proof that the signage at the
site was sufficiently clear, prominent, and unambiguous to form
a legally binding contract. I contend that it was not.
4. No evidence of landowner authority
The operator is put to strict proof that they have a valid,
contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner
that authorises them to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue
legal action in their own name.
I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the
PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner)
HTML https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/sector_single_Code_of_Practice_Version_1.1_130225.pdf,<br
/>which sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be
evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled
land. In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator
to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which
includes:
[indent]• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific
permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising
consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the
Code.[/indent]
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition
precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance
with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that
contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The
document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons,
with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties
to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing
clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific
site.[/quote]
#Post#: 79104--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK not parked correctly within markings of parking bay
. Valley park croydon
By: Torenaga Date: July 1, 2025, 10:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
How embarrassing, thank you so much.
I will get onto it right away and sort out this appeal.
Kind regards
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page