DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 90874--------------------------------------------------
Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton
Retail Park.
DIR By: Lut
Date: September 21, 2025, 4:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please see the following POPLA appeal draft and suggest any
amendments or additions to make. Thanks. Much appreciated.
Appeal Draft:
The appeal is based on the following grounds:
1. UKPC’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
2. No Presumption That the Keeper Was the Driver.
____
1. UKPC’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
• UKPC has not met the statutory requirements under Schedule 4,
Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
• The NtK issued only states that the vehicle was observed at
19:23, which is a single moment in time, not a period of
parking.
• Case law in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023)
[H6DP632H] confirms that PoFA requires a defined period of
parking, and a mere timestamp does not satisfy this requirement.
• Since UKPC has failed to comply with PoFA, Keeper liability
does not apply, and they can only pursue the driver, whom they
have not identified.
Accordingly, POPLA must rule that the PCN is unenforceable
against the Keeper.
2. No Presumption That the Keeper Was the Driver
• UKPC has made no attempt to identify the driver and is
attempting to hold the Registered Keeper liable without meeting
PoFA compliance.
• In VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9CC], the court reaffirmed that
there is no presumption in law that the Keeper was the driver.
• The Registered Keeper has exercised their right not to name
the driver, and no adverse inference can be drawn.
As UKPC has not identified the driver, and the Keeper is not
liable under PoFA, the PCN must be cancelled.
In conclusion, the PCN issued by UKPC is fundamentally flawed on
legal and evidential grounds. The NtK fails to comply with PoFA
due to the absence of a “period of parking,” making Keeper
liability impossible. And there is no presumption that the
Keeper was the driver, and UKPC has not identified the driver.
Given these significant deficiencies, I request that POPLA allow
this appeal and cancel the PCN in its entirety.
Signed,
[Registered Keeper's Name]
#Post#: 90974--------------------------------------------------
Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton
Retail Park.
DIR By: Lut
Date: September 22, 2025, 1:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Is anyone available to look over the above POPLA appeal and
recommend any amendments needed. I will need to submit it soon.
Thanks
#Post#: 90975--------------------------------------------------
Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton
Retail Park.
DIR By: jfollows
Date: September 22, 2025, 1:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Although the letter says you have 28 days, actually you have 33.
#Post#: 90986--------------------------------------------------
Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton
Retail Park.
DIR By: movano
Date: September 22, 2025, 2:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Why does NTK not comply with pofa? I'm confused
#Post#: 90987--------------------------------------------------
Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton
Retail Park.
DIR By: jfollows
Date: September 22, 2025, 2:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4
--- Quote ---
> A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for
the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) 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;
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 91108--------------------------------------------------
Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton
Retail Park.
DIR By: b789
Date: September 23, 2025, 10:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That POPLA appeal is a single point appeal. Throw the kitchen
sink at it. Use signage and put them to structure proof of a
valid contract flowing from the landowner that permits them to
operator and issue PCNs at the location.
There are plenty of recent POPLA appeals you can get that from
if you search the forum.
#Post#: 91167--------------------------------------------------
Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton
Retail Park.
DIR By: movano
Date: September 23, 2025, 1:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
>
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4
> [quote]A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper
for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) 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;
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
So, not specifying the vehicle make only reg is classed as not
compliant with pofa 2012?
#Post#: 91171--------------------------------------------------
Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton
Retail Park.
DIR By: jfollows
Date: September 23, 2025, 1:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Reply #10 above explains that no period of parking is specified.
#Post#: 91216--------------------------------------------------
Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton
Retail Park.
DIR By: Lut
Date: September 24, 2025, 4:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please see updated draft of POPLA appeal below for review. Is
there anything else to add or amend? Thank you.
The appeal is based on the following grounds:
1. UKPC’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
2. No Presumption That the Keeper Was the Driver.
3. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed
4. Lack of Landowner Authority – No Proof of UKPC’s Right to
Operate
____
1. UKPC’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
• UKPC has not met the statutory requirements under Schedule 4,
Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
• The NtK issued only states that the vehicle was observed at
19:23, which is a single moment in time, not a period of
parking.
• Case law in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023)
[H6DP632H] confirms that PoFA requires a defined period of
parking, and a mere timestamp does not satisfy this requirement.
• Since UKPC has failed to comply with PoFA, Keeper liability
does not apply, and they can only pursue the driver, whom they
have not identified.
Accordingly, POPLA must rule that the PCN is unenforceable
against the Keeper.
2. No Presumption That the Keeper Was the Driver
• UKPC has made no attempt to identify the driver and is
attempting to hold the Registered Keeper liable without meeting
PoFA compliance.
• In VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9CC], the court reaffirmed that
there is no presumption in law that the Keeper was the driver.
• The Registered Keeper has exercised their right not to name
the driver, and no adverse inference can be drawn.
As UKPC has not identified the driver, and the Keeper is not
liable under PoFA, the PCN must be cancelled.
3. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed
• The signage at this location is obscure and contains very
small text, making it difficult to read unless the driver
actively seeks it out to review the terms and conditions of
parking. Even if the driver attempts to read the sign, the
charge for breaching any terms is not “adequately” brought to
the attention of the driver or anyone attempting to read it.
• The parking charge of £100 is buried in a block of small
print, which does not meet the PoFA requirement for “adequate
notice”.
• In ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, the Supreme Court held
that a parking information must be clearly and prominently
displayed.
Since the terms were not adequately communicated, no contractual
agreement was formed, and therefore no breach occurred.
4. Lack of Landowner Authority – No Proof of UKPC’s Right to
Operate
• Under Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, UKPC must provide
strict proof that it has the landowner’s authority to issue PCNs
at this location.
• UKPC has not provided any evidence that it holds a valid
contract with the landowner.
• Any contract must include specific clauses permitting the
issuing and enforcement of PCNs.
• The proof must be a contractual right flowing from the
landowner. A signed statement from an agent of the landowner is
not evidence that the agent has the right to make a contractual
arrangement with the operator.
UKPC is put to strict proof that it has a legally binding
agreement to operate on this land. If no valid contract is
provided, this PCN must be cancelled.
In conclusion, the PCN issued by UKPC is fundamentally flawed on
multiple legal and evidential grounds.
• The NtK fails to comply with PoFA due to the absence of a
“period of parking,” making Keeper liability impossible.
• There is no presumption that the Keeper was the driver, and
UKPC has not identified the driver.
• The signage is inadequate, meaning no contract was formed.
• UKPC has not provided proof of landowner authority.
Given these significant deficiencies, I request that POPLA allow
this appeal and cancel the PCN in its entirety.
Signed,
[Registered Keeper's Name]
#Post#: 91241--------------------------------------------------
Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton
Retail Park.
DIR By: b789
Date: September 24, 2025, 6:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
All good. However, I would strengthen the PoFA failure by also
showing that in Brennan, no observation period also counters any
claim that a contract was ever formed...
--- Quote ---
> The appeal judgment in Brennan v PPS (2023) confirms that PoFA
requires a specified “period of parking,” not merely a
timestamp. HHJ Mitchell stated: “[i]Even if a minimum period was
recorded, that would be enough[/I]”.
>
> This must be read in light of the minimum consideration period
(typically 5 minutes). Without evidence that the vehicle was
parked for longer than this, there is no basis to infer
contractual acceptance. A timestamp alone is insufficient to
establish liability.
--- End Quote ---
Otherwise, good to go.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page