DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 84220--------------------------------------------------
UKCPS Ltd PCN Driver Observed Leaving Site Bentley Bridge
Leisure Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: bobisnotmyname
Date: August 5, 2025, 7:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, looking for some advice please.
Upon entering the Bentley Bridge car park, the driver found a
space, parked up, and went for a appointment nearby. They then
went to the Aldi on the site and left before the 3hr parking
window was up.
On 4th August, the registered keeper received a PCN through the
post dated 30th July 2025 claiming that on the 28th July the
driver was observed leaving the site and is therefore liable to
pay a Parking Charge of £100 within 28 days.
Car park on Google Maps
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bentley+Bridge+Leisure+Park/@52.5956673,-2.0929428,18.22z/data=!4m15!1m8!3m7!1s0x48709bfe3093e5ad:0x3369381eba018f08!2sBentley+Bridge+Retail+Park,+Wolverhampton+WV11+1TZ!3b1!8m2!3d52.5955802!4d-2.0925779!16s%2Fg%2F12hkw_rn4!3m5!1s0x48709bfe4a9ab697:0xe9acb74d25468fff!8m2!3d52.5963498!4d-2.0916379!16s%2Fm%2F0405jm7?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDczMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D<br
/>- The sign photo I have is the low res one below taken by
someone from UKCPS (below).
Pics of NTK:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/hJSCaQe.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/vbUL7FU.jpeg
Download of photos from the UKCPS website:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/tqzxsDu.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/rzRwJnP.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/slAwzYj.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/udzKs9n.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/PTClPXg.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/IAHr2kO.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/VHUCp0U.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/hiA2opD.jpeg
#Post#: 84221--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Ltd PCN Driver Observed Leaving Site Bentley
Bridge Leisure Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 5, 2025, 7:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This charge relates to the period of parking specified above
it says, but there is no period of parking.
The whole thing about leaving the site is unenforceable anyway.
Dont identify the driver (you havent) and someone will likely
be along soon with words for your appeal.
#Post#: 84271--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Ltd PCN Driver Observed Leaving Site Bentley
Bridge Leisure Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: b789
Date: August 5, 2025, 11:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's a joke, isn't it? And their evidence to back up their
allegation? Also, as their Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA
compliant, they cannot hold the Keeper liable, only the driver,
who is unknown to them.
Easy one to deal with
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. UKCPS 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.
UKCPS have no hope should you try and litigate this, so you are
urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the
PCN.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 85074--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Ltd PCN Driver Observed Leaving Site Bentley
Bridge Leisure Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: bobisnotmyname
Date: August 11, 2025, 3:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks very much, have submitted the appeal and will report back
on the outcome.
#Post#: 85078--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Ltd PCN Driver Observed Leaving Site Bentley
Bridge Leisure Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: b789
Date: August 11, 2025, 3:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It will be rejected. No initial appeal is ever accepted by any
unregulated private parking firm. The point of this appeal is to
put them on notice that they are not dealing with low-hanging
fruit on the gullible tree who will simply pay up out of
ignorance and fear.
#Post#: 85179--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Ltd PCN Driver Observed Leaving Site Bentley
Bridge Leisure Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: roythebus
Date: August 11, 2025, 1:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Odd that they've not taken a picture of the driver in the car
entering the car park or a picture of the driver leaving the car
park, presumably on foot.
#Post#: 85206--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Ltd PCN Driver Observed Leaving Site Bentley
Bridge Leisure Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: b789
Date: August 11, 2025, 3:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They never do. Even if they did, how do they identify the person
in the photo? They can't!
#Post#: 85255--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Ltd PCN Driver Observed Leaving Site Bentley
Bridge Leisure Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: ixxy
Date: August 12, 2025, 1:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
'It will be rejected. No initial appeal is ever accepted by any
unregulated private parking firm. ' which unless the BPA are
lying through their teeth is fundamentally not true. In 2024 52%
of initial appeals were granted by BPA members. However the PCN
in this case is fundamentally flawed and the point of not
knowing who the person leaving site actually is and confirming
they are the driver, assuming there is actually a photo, is a
very good one.
#Post#: 85320--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Ltd PCN Driver Observed Leaving Site Bentley
Bridge Leisure Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: b789
Date: August 12, 2025, 7:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ixxy link ---
>
> 'It will be rejected. No initial appeal is ever accepted by
any unregulated private parking firm. ' which unless the BPA are
lying through their teeth is fundamentally not true. In 2024 52%
of initial appeals were granted by BPA members.
>
--- End Quote ---
The BPA are quite adept at distorting the facts to suit their
own version of the 'truth'. I challenge anyone to go through
this and other forums and show us where anything approaching
even 1% of initial appeals are upheld. For all intents and
purposes, I stand by the statement that no initial appeal is
ever accepted by any unregulated private parking firm, is
fundamentally true.
#Post#: 85322--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Ltd PCN Driver Observed Leaving Site Bentley
Bridge Leisure Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 12, 2025, 7:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't be surprised if 'successful appeals' in that context
included landowners instructing cancellations, but I acknowledge
that is speculation on my part.
Let's remain focused on the task in hand folks, which is
supporting the OP with their case.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page