DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 87525--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Ltd PCN – Driver Observed Leaving Site – Bentley
Bridge Leisure Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: bobisnotmyname
Date: August 28, 2025, 4:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi again all, thanks for your help with the appeal text, and
interesting discussion on this case and appeals. Received this
back from UKCPS. I assume the next step is a fruitless appeal to
the IAS? (Interesting that the same images of the car have been
included, plus some extra images of the site and signs, but none
of any potential driver or passengers).
Any assistance with what to put would be very much appreciated.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/DX9KPmz.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/D5ufGDd.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/ZJmhNlX.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/PktXVZq.jpeg
#Post#: 89071--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Ltd PCN – Driver Observed Leaving Site – Bentley
Bridge Leisure Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: bobisnotmyname
Date: September 9, 2025, 4:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just checking what my next steps should be re the appeal
rejection above? Appreciate any help I can get. Thanks
#Post#: 89073--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Ltd PCN – Driver Observed Leaving Site – Bentley
Bridge Leisure Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: b789
Date: September 9, 2025, 5:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just use this generic IAS appeal:
Generic IAS appeal
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any
liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
>
> The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must
establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract
was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has
lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices
(PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to
provide the following:
>
> [indent]1. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate
signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact
location of the alleged contravention. This must include a
detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and
legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must
demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant
with the IPC Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the
alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font
size, positioning, and the communication of key terms.
>
> 2. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease
flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to
manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own
name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of
the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly 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.
>
> 3. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or
manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and
calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was
present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily
on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace
period as defined by the PPSCoP.
>
> 4. Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is
attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply
with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA
renders keeper liability unenforceable.
>
> 5. Strict proof that the NtK was posted in time for it to have
been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section
8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record
of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice
having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail
Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)
>
> 6. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors
or barristers.” Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions
are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no
transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a
motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual
supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this
really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict
proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186),
no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and
prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation
(ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that keeper liability
under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions
are met.[/indent]
>
> If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements
and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the
operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to
the growing concern that this appeals service is neither
independent nor genuinely legally qualified.
>
> In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require
full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of
practice, and basic contractual principles.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 94972--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Ltd PCN – Driver Observed Leaving Site – Bentley
Bridge Leisure Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: bobisnotmyname
Date: October 21, 2025, 6:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
Thanks again for the help and advice, just following up, got
this back from the IAS (which I understand is a rare positive
outcome?).
----------
Dear x,
Thank you for your appeal. Due to further information UKCPS Ltd
has confirmed they will no longer be pursuing the matter and the
parking charge has been cancelled.
Parking Charge Number (PCN): xxxxx
Vehicle Registration: xxxxx
Date Issued:
Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service
Independent Appeals Service
The IPC, PO Box 662, Macclesfield, SK10
9NR
#Post#: 94976--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Ltd PCN – Driver Observed Leaving Site – Bentley
Bridge Leisure Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: jfollows
Date: October 21, 2025, 6:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good news, thanks for telling us.
It looks like UKCPS play the odds, they reject valid appeals but
if then they see a robust appeal to the IAS they realise they’re
ultimately going to lose so they cut their losses.
At the end of the day it’s only about money to them, and once
they see they’re going to have to spend more pursuing their
victims, they work out that it’s better to give up.
#Post#: 104076--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Ltd PCN – Driver Observed Leaving Site – Bentley
Bridge Leisure Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: Stardog
Date: December 30, 2025, 8:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi there, I have had a PCN from also parking at the above
mentioned Bentley Bridge for "leaving site". Though I chose the
ignoring all communication route, as I had been unwell, and
couldn't be *rsed, thinking I'll have my day in court. The
latest correspondence from the debt recovery is threatening me
with UKCPS issuing a CCJ, which I don't believe is strictly
speaking possible. Am I too late to appeal to whoever with the
generic IAS appeal letter. My grounds for denial was I was in
the adjacent Cineworld complex of which this car park is
managed, and have receipts. A previous watertight appeal for
a separate PCN was denied, hence my different approach this
time.
#Post#: 104078--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Ltd PCN – Driver Observed Leaving Site – Bentley
Bridge Leisure Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: jfollows
Date: December 30, 2025, 8:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please start your own, separate thread for this question.
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
--- Quote ---
> 1. We operate a "one case, one thread" rule. This means that
you should keep any posts relating to one case (one incident of
speeding, one PCN, etc) to a single thread. Do not start
multiple topics on the same case.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page