DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 79719--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK not parked correctly within markings of parking
bay. Valley park croydon
DIR By: Torenaga
Date: July 5, 2025, 1:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I sent off the appeal to popla on Tuesday the 1st of July 2025
as follows
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], 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), 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.
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), 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:
• 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.
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.
And popla has already responded with an email saying they have
recieved the evidence pack from UKPC.
Popla says I have 7 days to comment on the evidence uploaded by
UKPC. Shall I post up all the evidence on this site that they
have submitted or is it just a thing of waiting it out as
commenting won't make a difference to popla's decision?
Kind regards
#Post#: 79722--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK not parked correctly within markings of parking
bay. Valley park croydon
DIR By: b789
Date: July 5, 2025, 2:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Upload the operators evidence on Google Drive or DropBox and
make sure that it is accessible to everyone. Just redact any
personal information on whatever you upload.
#Post#: 79731--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK not parked correctly within markings of parking
bay. Valley park croydon
DIR By: Torenaga
Date: July 5, 2025, 4:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://1drv.ms/f/c/0301c7ded840f899/EqIQrCGoGuJEi4gy5WX2twUBFonzDbDcfe6nwuf7L_uvPg
This is the upload on one drive.
Kind regards
#Post#: 79733--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK not parked correctly within markings of parking
bay. Valley park croydon
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 5, 2025, 4:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Some initial observations of their contract documents:
1) The client's details are entirely redacted:
They've redacted absolutely every detail relating to the
signatory to the agreement, including the name of the company.
There's therefore no way of knowing if the company who signed
the agreement have any suitable proprietary interest in the
land.
2) The site-specific contract is incomplete:
The site specific contract they have provided
(""Valley+leisure+park+redacted+contract (1).pdf") is apparently
30 pages long, according to the footnote. They have provided
just 4 pages of this, and only 1 of the 6 schedules, omitting
important information such as Schedule 5 (Property specific
schedules) and Schedule 6 (Site specific requirements).
3) Mismatch between site-specific contract and the 'general'
T&Cs:
UKPC have provided 2 contract documents - 3 if you include the
signage plan but this is not relevant to my point. Contract
Document #1 ("Valley+leisure+park+redacted+contract (1).pdf") is
a site specific contract, signed by UKPC and their client
(whoever that is, see point #1). Contract Document #2
("T&C'S+for+rolling+contract.pdf"), contains UKPC's boilerplate
T&Cs for rolling contracts, presumably applicable to all sites
they operate.
Firstly, Contract Document #2 is not referenced in Contract
Document #1, and is unsigned, so there's no evidence that these
T&Cs have been agreed to by the client/landowner.
Secondly, Contract Document #2 did not exist at the time that
the contract was signed. How do we know this? Contract Document
#1 is dated 21st July 2015. However, on page 1 of Contract
Document #2 there is reference to "the Parking (Code of
Practice) Act 2019", which didn't exist in 2015. So these
general T&Cs clearly weren't agreed to on 21st July 2015 when
the contract was signed - no evidence has been provided to show
the landowner has agreed to them at some date since.
#Post#: 79743--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK not parked correctly within markings of parking
bay. Valley park croydon
DIR By: Torenaga
Date: July 6, 2025, 4:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the quick reply DWMB2.
Should I write that in the "comment on the evidence"?
Regards
#Post#: 79746--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK not parked correctly within markings of parking
bay. Valley park croydon
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 6, 2025, 4:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They're points you can cover. Your comments on the evidence
should pick holes in their case. Find anything that undermines
their arguments, and anything that bolster yours.
You cannot make any fresh appeal grounds but can draw attention
to any shortcomings in their case.
You only have 10,000 characters so it needs to be somewhat
brief.
When's your deadline for responding?
#Post#: 79747--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK not parked correctly within markings of parking
bay. Valley park croydon
DIR By: Torenaga
Date: July 6, 2025, 5:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I understand, thank you.
I have 7 days from the 4th of July
Regards
#Post#: 79768--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK not parked correctly within markings of parking
bay. Valley park croydon
DIR By: b789
Date: July 6, 2025, 8:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In their statement, UKPC state: "[i]In this instance the
motorist is not present in the vehicle or near the signage, so
we would contest that means an event has taken place.[/I]" Just
put them to strict proof that is the case.
If PoFA don't cancel the charge, don't worry about it. This
would never see the inside of a courtroom.
#Post#: 87558--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK not parked correctly within markings of parking
bay. Valley park croydon
DIR By: Torenaga
Date: August 28, 2025, 9:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Everyone.
I've finally heard back from Popla yesterday and to no surprise
they have not cancelled the invoice.
I have posted all the correspondence that popla and UKPC have
sent me. Was very surprised at how UKPC had sent me an invoice
within 15 mins of popla sending out my unsuccessful appeal to me
via email.
Are they sure they are not connected somehow? :) .
I have linked the pages here, please let me know if it is a bit
confusing as I did it via screenshot on my phone.
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2rq1Y2o
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2rq1Y2o
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2rq84QU
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2rq7pNK
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2rq7rBa
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2rq6jKZ
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2rq1XYh
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2rq7rzX
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2rq6jGC
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2rq7pGx
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2rq6jFv
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2rq84HK
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2rq1XV6
Where do I go with this from here?
Kind regards
#Post#: 88630--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK not parked correctly within markings of parking
bay. Valley park croydon
DIR By: Torenaga
Date: September 6, 2025, 2:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just bumping this just to find out if I should just be ignoring
this for now.
Kind regards
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page