DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 92984--------------------------------------------------
Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton
Retail Park.
DIR By: Lut
Date: October 6, 2025, 4:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
UKPC has responded to my appeal with the below evidence and
comments. I have 7 days to respond to their evidence. See images
link below
HTML https://postimg.cc/gallery/6nfRWLD
Please advise for response. Thank you.
#Post#: 93040--------------------------------------------------
Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton
Retail Park.
DIR By: b789
Date: October 6, 2025, 8:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can copy and paste the following into the POPLA response
webform:
--- Quote ---
> Appellant comments on operator evidence – UKPC
>
> This is a response to the operator’s evidence. The operator
has failed to rebut the core grounds of the appeal: (i) the
driver has not been identified; and (ii) the Notice to Keeper
(NtK) is not compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Their own evidence confirms the PoFA
defect relied upon in the appeal.
>
> 1. Keeper liability cannot arise because the NtK does not
specify a “period of parking”
>
> - PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to
“specify the period of parking to which the notice relates.” A
“period” means a duration, not a single instant.
> - UKPC’s evidence explicitly states: “The period of parking is
the time in which the vehicle was parked, which was at 19:23.”
That is a single timestamp, not a period.
> - In Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H],
the court held that merely recording an instant in time is
insufficient: there must be at least a short period of parking
specified. Without a period of parking, PoFA is not satisfied
and keeper liability cannot arise.
> - Because PoFA is not met, only the driver could be liable.
UKPC has not identified the driver.
>
> 2. No presumption that the keeper was the driver
>
> - The keeper has exercised the right not to name the driver.
> - There is no legal presumption that the registered keeper was
the driver (see VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9CC]).
> - With PoFA non-compliance and no identified driver, liability
cannot be transferred to the keeper.
>
> 3. Consideration period: no evidence it was exceeded or that
terms were accepted
>
> - UKPC relies on the Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP) clause 5.1 and Annex B, which confirms a motorist must
be allowed a reasonable consideration period to read the terms
and decide whether to stay or leave.
> - UKPC asserts the consideration period “may end earlier…
where there is evidence that the driver has accepted the terms,”
but provides no such evidence. Stating that the vehicle was
“near to the signage” and citing a single time of 19:23 does not
evidence contractual acceptance or any duration beyond the
minimum consideration period.
> - Without evidence of duration, UKPC has not shown that the
driver remained on site after considering the terms. A single
timestamp cannot show the driver exceeded the consideration
period or accepted a contract.
>
> 4. “Near signage” does not prove contract formation or
prominence of the charge
>
> - Contract formation requires clear offer, knowledge of terms,
and acceptance. Simply being “near to the signage” proves
neither acceptance nor a stay beyond the consideration period.
> - ParkingEye v Beavis requires that the charge be clearly and
prominently brought to the motorist’s attention. General
assertions that signage is “ample, clear and visible” do not
cure the lack of evidence of duration or acceptance at the
material time.
>
> 5. BPA Code boilerplate does not cure a statutory omission
>
> - Whether or not signage aligns with a trade association code
cannot repair a failure to meet PoFA Schedule 4. PoFA compliance
is a statutory requirement for keeper liability; it is not
optional.
> Conclusion and requested outcome
> - UKPC’s own evidence confirms that the NtK does not specify
any “period of parking,” only a single timestamp. That is fatal
to PoFA compliance under paragraph 9(2)(a). Keeper liability
cannot arise.
> - The driver has not been identified and there is no
presumption that the keeper was the driver.
> - UKPC has not proved that any consideration period was
exceeded or that a contract was accepted and then breached.
>
> For these reasons, the appeal should be allowed.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 93055--------------------------------------------------
Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton
Retail Park.
DIR By: Lut
Date: October 6, 2025, 9:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. Much appreciated.
#Post#: 99506--------------------------------------------------
Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton
Retail Park.
DIR By: Lut
Date: November 24, 2025, 5:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The POPLA appeal was unsuccessful. See report below.
Is there anything further I can do to fight this? Thanks.
Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Jamie Macrae
Assessor summary of operator case:
The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN)
due to not parking correctly within the markings of the bay.
Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds
of appeal. • The Notice to Keeper (NTK)) fails to comply with
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). • No presumption that
the Keeper was the driver. • Inadequate signage, no contract
formed, the amount of the PCN is not clear. • Lack of landowner
authority, no proof of the parking operator’s right to operate.
• The appellant has mentioned various county court cases. After
reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant
reiterates their grounds of appeal, expands on their grounds of
appeal, and raises new grounds of appeal not mentioned within
their initial submission.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and
independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by
both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly
by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has
complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car
park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an
appeal. The signs make it clear that motorists using the car
park must park within a marked bay, and if these terms and
conditions are not met a charge of £100 will be issued. The
parking operator has provided a series of photos of the parked
position of the vehicle on the day; it is evident the vehicle
was not parked wholly within the markings of a bay. As mentioned
above the appellant has raised a new ground of appeal, which
they did not mention within their initial submission when
commenting on the parking operator’s evidence. When extending an
invitation to the appellant to comment on the operator's
evidence, it wasn't intended as an opportunity for the appellant
to introduce new grounds for appeal or submit additional
evidence. Consequently, any new grounds for appeal mentioned in
their comments cannot be considered. I will now consider the
appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the
validity of the PCN. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012
is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability
to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer
is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain
rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be
liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and
address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the
necessary information and the parking operator has therefore
successfully transferred the liability onto the registered
keeper. As the appellant failed to provide details of the driver
to the parking operator, the parking operator was not able to
transfer liability for the PCN to the driver, therefore, the
liability remains with the appellant as the registered keeper.
While the appellant has mentioned various county court cases
within their appeal, however, as county court cases cannot set a
precedent, these will not be considered. This sector Code of
Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking
Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC).
It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of
Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently
withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1
October 2024. It is stipulated in the Code that the parking
operator needs to comply with all elements relating to signage
by 31 December 2026. Therefore, for any aspects of this case
relating to signage, I will be referring to version 9 of the BPA
Code of Practice. This is applicable for parking events that
occurred from 1 February 2024. The Private Parking Sector Single
Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking
operators need to comply with. Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code
of Practice states that there must be an entrance sign displayed
and maintained at the entrance to the site, to inform drivers
whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions or
prohibited. Section 3.1.2 of the Code contains the principles
the entrance sign must display, including whether public parking
is available and if a payment is required. Its design must also
comply with the standard format as described in Annex A. The
entrance sign must take into account the speed of vehicles
approaching the car park. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of
Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the
terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the
site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when
parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must
be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be
conspicuous and legible. Signs in general tend to have meaning,
and signs within a car park are there to explain relevant terms
to motorists wishing to park, such as the requirements to park
wholly within a marked bay. The parking operator has provided a
series of the site. I can see from the evidence pack there is an
entrance sign. Entrance signs are an important part of
establishing a contract and would put the driver on notice that
terms and conditions applied. Further, specific terms and
conditions signage are placed around this site, detailing the
terms of use. These signs are in contrasting colours, and I
believe they would have been clear and conspicuous to drivers
who wish to use the site. A parking operator is not obligated to
places signs at each and very bay. I am satisfied from the
evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the
requirements of the single Code of Practice and that the
motorist had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves
with the terms and conditions. It is the driver’s responsibility
to seek out the terms and conditions on arrival, and, if you
agree with them, stay or if you did not agree with them leave
the site. Whether the appellant read the terms and conditions is
irrelevant, the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity
to read them. The motorist became bound by the terms and
conditions of the site by parking at the site and entered into a
contract with the parking operator. Section 14.1 of the Code
states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of
a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a
parking charge can be issued. In response to this ground of
appeal, the operator has provided a license agreement document,
confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue
charges on the land, the appellant has failed to provide any
evidence to suggest otherwise. The Supreme Court considered
private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v
Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the
characteristics of a contractual penalty but nevertheless were
enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the
charging of overstaying motorists. It concluded that a charge in
the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance
to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large
lettering on the signage itself. While the specific facts of the
case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had
overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the
decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account,
I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine
pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to
the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount
in the appellant’s case, as well as the legibility of the
signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I
am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount
is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable. The Court’s
full judgement in the case is available online
(www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html) should the
appellant wish to read it. The signage at the site is clear that
failure to park within a marked bay, regardless of the reason,
would result in the issue of a PCN. By choosing to park outside
of a marked bay, the motorist has accepted the potential
consequence of incurring a PCN. After considering the evidence
from both parties, the motorist did not park within a marked bay
and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of
the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been
issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal. Any questions
relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to
the operator.
#Post#: 99516--------------------------------------------------
Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton
Retail Park.
DIR By: jfollows
Date: November 24, 2025, 6:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For now, little to do.
The POPLA assessor seems to have ignored some of your points,
but that’s not uncommon. The decision is not binding on you.
You will now get scary letters from debt collectors, which you
ignore. Then a Letter of Claim from a bulk litigator. At which
point, post it here and you will get advice.
Use the time to research the forum for similar UKPC cases. You
will see that if you follow advice on the process, they will try
and scare you with “court” and similar stuff, but will
discontinue before having to pay the court fee. In 99% of cases.
#Post#: 99517--------------------------------------------------
Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton
Retail Park.
DIR By: b789
Date: November 24, 2025, 7:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Typical intellectually malnourished response for another POPLA
moronic assessor. That decision is riddled with legal and
factual errors. It shows the assessor either didn’t understand
PoFA or ignored it entirely. Here’s a breakdown of where it went
wrong and how you could frame a complaint to POPLA and to your
MP for evidence of why POPLA’s independence is questionable):
Key errors in the POPLA decision
1. Fundamental misunderstanding of PoFA keeper liability
The assessor states: “The PCN in question has the necessary
information and the parking operator has therefore successfully
transferred the liability onto the registered keeper”. This is
factually wrong.
PoFA Sch 4 para 9(2)(a) expressly requires the NtK to “specify
the period of parking to which the notice relates”. The
operator’s own evidence says: “The period of parking is the time
in which the vehicle was parked, which was at 19:23.”
That is a single timestamp, not a period. In Brennan v Premier
Parking Solutions (2023), the appeal court confirmed that a
single moment does not meet this requirement, and without it,
keeper liability cannot arise. The assessor has therefore failed
to apply statute correctly. Whilst no binding, it is in fact
persuasive.
2. Misapplication of the burden of proof
PoFA places the burden entirely on the operator to meet each
statutory condition before transferring liability to the keeper.
The assessor wrongly assumes liability automatically transfers
if the keeper doesn’t name the driver. That is contrary to law.
If the operator hasn’t met PoFA, there is nothing to transfer.
The correct legal position is: if any element of Schedule 4 is
not satisfied, only the driver can be liable — and if the driver
isn’t identified, the case fails.
3. Failure to address the appellant’s primary ground
The central issue — lack of a “period of parking” — was the
first and most critical point of appeal. The assessor did not
address it at all. They simply stated that PoFA “has the
necessary information” without analysing what that information
was. That’s not adjudication; it’s rubber-stamping.
4. Improper dismissal of relevant case law
The assessor’s statement that “county court cases cannot set a
precedent” misunderstands their persuasive value if they are
appellate decisions. POPLA routinely relies on county court
authorities such as ParkingEye v Beavis (which itself arose from
the county court).
Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions is a persuasive authority
directly interpreting the same paragraph of PoFA in identical
circumstances. It should have been considered.
5. Procedural unfairness regarding rebuttal comments
POPLA’s process allows appellants to comment on operator
evidence. The assessor incorrectly stated that any new points
could not be considered.
In reality, appellants are entitled to rebut new assertions
raised by the operator. That is not introducing “new grounds”
but directly responding to the operator’s evidence. Refusing to
consider that response deprived the appellant of a fair hearing.
6. Irrelevant focus on signage and bay markings
The issue of PoFA compliance is a statutory gateway question. If
keeper liability fails, all signage and “driver conduct”
arguments become irrelevant because the keeper cannot be held
liable. This morons decision skips over that entirely.
Summary (for complaint wording)
The decision fails to address or apply the statutory
requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012. The assessor wrongly concluded that keeper liability
transferred despite the NtK lacking a “period of parking”,
contrary to paragraph 9(2)(a) and confirmed by the persuasive
appellate case of Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023).
POPLA also misapplied the burden of proof, ignored the central
issue, and refused to consider rebuttal comments that directly
addressed the operator’s evidence. The outcome therefore lacks
legal and procedural validity.
So what now? You DO NOT pay. The POPLA decision is NOT binding
on you. This will now progress through debt recovery to a county
court claim, which if you follow the advice you receive here,
will end up being discontinued if it is not struck out first.
You can safely ignore all debt recovery letters you will now
receive. Debt collectors are not a party to any contract
allegedly breached by the driver and are powerless to do
anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on
the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.
Come back when ou receive a Letter of Claim (LoC).
#Post#: 99541--------------------------------------------------
Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton
Retail Park.
DIR By: Lut
Date: November 24, 2025, 8:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you both for the advice. Will follow suggested course of
action mentioned.
#Post#: 110721--------------------------------------------------
Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton
Retail Park.
DIR By: Lut
Date: February 22, 2026, 6:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, I still haven't received my letter of claim from what I can
tell. Obviously a few letters with scare tactics as predicted
have arrived to pay up but just wondering how long it usually
takes for LoC to arrive or if I may have missed it?
Thanks again.
#Post#: 110730--------------------------------------------------
Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton
Retail Park.
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 23, 2026, 1:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Relax - this is likely to drag on for months.
Nothing to worry about.
#Post#: 117810--------------------------------------------------
Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton
Retail Park.
DIR By: Lut
Date: May 5, 2026, 8:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://ibb.co/dwtZRZsD[/img]
HTML https://ibb.co/dwtZRZsD
Hi, I received the letter of claim and attached it in the above
link. Please see and let me know of next steps. Thank you.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page