DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 98643--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking-Parked in an area where no parking is allowed w
ith Disabled Badge–Snowhill Retail Park,Wakefield,WF1 2D
By: InterCity125 Date: November 18, 2025, 7:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What I also noticed when I examined the car park (using Google
Maps) was that there was no specific signage or road markings
which prohibited the driver from stopping where he / she did. ie
No double yellows / reds - No hatching - Or any other wording
leading a driver to consider that stopping their was prohibited.
You can broadly see this in the PCN.
#Post#: 98942--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking-Parked in an area where no parking is allowed w
ith Disabled Badge–Snowhill Retail Park,Wakefield,WF1 2D
By: rhbmcse Date: November 20, 2025, 5:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok - so the latest installment.
UKPC have responded to my POPLA with a whole barrage of
documentation to include
Copy of their Entrace Sign
Copy of their 'Main' Sign
A 'witness statement' with the landowner signature redacted
which 'presumably' grants UKPC authority to operate on their
land
A site plan of their current sign locations. Links below:
HTML https://ibb.co/5xCzqCH9
HTML https://ibb.co/GQQqnymn
HTML https://ibb.co/LhtLG78f
HTML https://ibb.co/SD2Fp0dL
Case and Summary - which reads (I apologise - you've probably
read these before but just for completeness) :
Site Name Snowhill Retail Park
Contravention Date/Time 17/10/2025 12:30
Lower Charge Rate £60.00
Contravention No Parking
On 17/10/2025, a parking event occurred relating to vehicle
registration XXXXXX.
The event was recorded by our ANPR cameras at Snowhill Retail
Park because the
vehicle was parked in an area where no parking is allowed.
The parking charge rate was £100.00, reduced to £60.00 if
payment was received
within fourteen days.
Following the parking event on 17/10/2025, UKPC had reasonable
cause to obtain
the details of the registered keeper from the DVLA for the
purposes of issuing a
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by post- a copy of this PCN is
included in this pack.
The PCN was issued on 25/10/2025
An appeal was received from the vehicle's registered keeper MR x
on
the 10/11/2025, which the appeals department investigated and
decided to reject.
Whilst UKPC note the comments, we cannot accept them as evidence
when
reviewing a parking charge notice. Clause 5.1 Annex B of the
Private Parking
Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) states that
unauthorised motorists will
not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a
consideration period
in spaces designated for specific users or where parking is not
allowed. In this case,
parking is not permitted, therefore, the appellant would not be
granted any period
of time to remain stationary within this area. While the signage
specifies “No
roadway parking”, UKPC maintains that this falls under the
broader term “No
Parking”, as the roadway is designated as a non-parking area.
Therefore, the two
terms are interchangeable in this context. The photographic
evidence shows that
the vehicle was parked partially on the roadway.
Please note that while the appellants state they did not receive
the Parking Charge
Notice until 07/11/2025, we have no control over any issues
relating to the postal
service. We can confirm that the relevant correspondence was
issued and sent
accordingly. In accordance with Paragraph 8(6) of Schedule 4 of
the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), a notice sent by post is
presumed—unless proven
otherwise—to have been delivered, and therefore 'given', on the
second working day
after the date of posting. For the purposes of this provision, a
'working day' excludes
Saturdays, Sundays, and public holidays.
Definition of parking Whether an individual can be said to have
'parked' as opposed
to merely 'stopped' or 'waited' is a question of fact to be
determined on the
circumstances of each case. However, for the purposes of parking
enforcement, the
terms 'parking' and 'waiting' are generally treated as
synonymous. In essence, a
motorist who 'waits' at a site for their own purposes is deemed
to have 'parked'
within the meaning of the applicable terms and conditions.
Accordingly, by parking,
Page 2 of 13
waiting, or otherwise remaining at the site, the appellant
became subject to the
terms and conditions in force, which apply uniformly to all
motorists irrespective of
the reason for their presence.
In the present case, the appellant contends that the display of
a Blue Badge should
have entitled them to park in the location in question. However,
it must be
emphasised that the possession of a Blue Badge does not confer
an unconditional
right to park, nor does it override the specific terms and
conditions applicable to all
users of a private car park. It is incumbent upon the motorist
to ensure they are fully
informed as to where and under what circumstances the Blue Badge
is valid. Further
clarification on this point can be found within the Blue Badge
Handbook, particularly
in relation to provisions governing ‘off-street’ parking.
Accordingly, the appellant
remained bound by the site's terms and conditions, regardless of
the display of a
Blue Badge.
The contract between UK Parking Control Ltd and the landowner
(or their managing
agent) authorising UKPC to provide parking management, and
therefore issue
parking charges to vehicles breaching the terms of parking, is
confidential and we
are unable to provide a copy for reasons of commercial
sensitivity. As a member of
the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme, UKPC
is regularly
audited to ensure that all relevant contracts are in place. UKPC
will provide a copy
of the contract to the court if they require it. At this stage
we have included a
witness statement that confirms the agreement authorising UKPC
to issue parking
charges at Snowhill Retail Park. This statement complies fully
with the Code of
Practice and confirms our authority in an agreement.
Although the BPA Code of Practice outlines what authorisation
must set out, we
have also shown that beyond checking documentation; there is
equipment, signage
and on occasion personnel on site to manage the function of
enforcement and this
cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. I am sure that
if the parking
operator was not allowed to issue charges on site the landowner
would not permit
the parking operator to keep its signage on site nor would the
landowner allow
motorists to park on its land without authorisation.
UKPC must maintain a consistent approach when issuing and
upholding a charge. In
this instance, this vehicle had been parked on site in direct
breach of the terms and
conditions of parking on site as stated on signage. The vehicle
was parked in close
proximity to UKPC signage, please see all photographic evidence
to support this.
UK Parking Control signage complies fully with section 3 of the
British Parking
Association Code of Practice and we reject the suggestion that
it is vague or
misleading. Entrance signage advises motorists that terms of
parking apply, and that
notices within the car park should be checked to identify the
full terms and
conditions. These notices are placed throughout the car park. It
is ultimately the
responsibility of the motorist to ensure they identify the terms
of parking, and then
decide whether to park their vehicle, or leave the site if they
are unable to meet
those terms.
The parking charges issued by UK Parking Control Limited are
based on a
contractual agreement between UKPC and the driver, as detailed
on the signage
displayed in the car park. The signage states the terms and
conditions of parking and
explains that a parking charge will be payable if the terms are
not met by the driver.
We ensure that signage is ample, clear and visible, wholly in
line with the British
Page 3 of 13
Parking Association Code of Practice. It is settled law that a
driver is deemed to
have accepted the terms and conditions of parking by the act of
parking and leaving
a vehicle.
Ultimately, it is fundamentally the responsibility of the
motorist to identify the terms
of parking when leaving their vehicle on private land. If they
feel they are unable to
adhere to the terms, they may leave the site before agreeing to
those terms.
There are sufficient signs advising drivers that parking in this
area may result in a
parking charge being issued. MR X's the vehicle was parked in an
area
where no parking is allowed; consequently, the parking charge
was issued correctly.
A letter was sent to MR X informing him of our decision on the
17/11/2025.
So I now have 7 days to provide my "Comments on the operator
evidence"
I'd appreciate any advice as to what these comments should be,
or whether they make any difference or not. I could of course
mention that there was no road marking to indicate that I could
not park there as has been mentioned above. Awaiting your
expert advice.
Best regards,
Rob.
#Post#: 99475--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking-Parked in an area where no parking is allowed w
ith Disabled Badge–Snowhill Retail Park,Wakefield,WF1 2D
By: rhbmcse Date: November 24, 2025, 3:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
I've not heard anything else back from the forum
following my last post but as [member=26]b789[/member] has said
- "it's only POPLA".
I'll reply to them stating that my original comments still
stand, highlighting the lack of response from them within a 14
day time frame and also throw in that I'd reasonably expect that
if parking were disallowed on the roadway then there should be
some kind of standard recognised marking, in this case, Double
yellow lines with key markings indicating that parking is not
permitted, even for disabled users.
I don't expect any joy, but I'll jump through the hoops and go
from there.
Thanks all,
Br,
Rob.
#Post#: 99480--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking-Parked in an area where no parking is allowed w
ith Disabled Badge–Snowhill Retail Park,Wakefield,WF1 2D
By: jfollows Date: November 24, 2025, 3:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Simply, you need to rebut any of the points that they make that
you don’t agree with, and if there are points in your appeal
which have not been discussed by them you can imply that they
therefore agree with them. So worth thinking about this as you
process their response, in addition to restating your original
appeal points.
#Post#: 99494--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking-Parked in an area where no parking is allowed w
ith Disabled Badge–Snowhill Retail Park,Wakefield,WF1 2D
By: b789 Date: November 24, 2025, 4:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Copy and paste this, for what it's worth:
[quote]I wish to comment on the operator’s evidence as follows.
1. Keeper liability and late service of the NtK
UKPC rely on the “deemed service” provision in Schedule 4 PoFA
and simply state that the notice was “issued and sent
accordingly.” They have provided no proof of posting (for
example, a certificate of posting or any individual
track-and-trace record) showing that this specific NtK entered
the postal system on the date they claim. A generic assertion
that they sent it is not proof of the date on which it was
actually posted.
By contrast, I have positively stated the actual date of
receipt. PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(6) creates only a
rebuttable presumption that a notice is delivered on the second
working day after posting. That presumption is expressly subject
to “unless the contrary is proved.” My evidence of the actual
date of receipt, together with the absence of any proper proof
of posting from UKPC, is sufficient to displace that
presumption.
In any event, even if POPLA prefers to treat the NtK as “deemed”
delivered, I remind the Assessor that I have not admitted to
being the driver. UKPC must prove strict compliance with PoFA to
hold the keeper liable. Any doubt about service or timing falls
against the operator. If PoFA is not fully complied with, the
keeper cannot be held liable and the appeal must be allowed on
that basis alone.
2. “Parking”, “waiting” and loading – mis-statement of the law
UKPC state that for parking enforcement the terms “parking” and
“waiting” are treated as synonymous and that any motorist
“waits” for their own purposes is deemed to have parked. That is
not an accurate statement of the law.
The county court appeal decision in Jopson v Homeguard Services
[2016] B9GF0A9E makes it clear that “parking” is conceptually
different from a brief stop for loading/unloading or for a short
unavoidable interruption. The Judge expressly held that the
concept of parking does not include the time “needed for getting
in or out [of the vehicle], loading or unloading it” and that
merely stopping for a few moments to carry items is not parking
at all. My case is entirely analogous: the vehicle was
stationary for just over one minute solely in order to load
pre-ordered heavy goods and then immediately left.
UKPC’s own evidence shows a total duration on site of around 1
minute 5 seconds. This is textbook “loading” in the Jopson
sense, not “parking”. No contract to pay a parking charge could
have arisen from such a fleeting loading stop on a roadway in a
retail park.
3. Equality Act 2010 and reasonable adjustments
UKPC accept that a Blue Badge was displayed but say that a Blue
Badge does not give an unconditional right to park and refer to
the Blue Badge handbook. That misses the point. I am not
claiming that the Blue Badge itself overrides their terms. The
relevant law here is the Equality Act 2010 and the operator’s
duty as a service provider to make reasonable adjustments for
disabled customers.
On the day in question:
- The driver is disabled and a Blue Badge holder.
- All disabled bays were occupied, including by vehicles not
displaying a Blue Badge.
- The short stop was solely to load heavy goods as close as
possible to the collection point, then leave.
Expecting a disabled driver to park further away (even if a bay
were available) and manually carry heavy items over distance is
not a reasonable expectation and is precisely the type of
disadvantage the Equality Act is designed to prevent. A brief
stop of around a minute in a roadway, for no other purpose than
loading, is an obvious and proportionate “reasonable adjustment”
to any general “no parking” policy in that area.
UKPC have produced no evidence that they considered, let alone
made, any reasonable adjustment for a disabled customer, nor
that they have any written policy dealing with such situations.
Instead they seek to apply a rigid “no parking” rule to disabled
and non-disabled motorists alike. That is the very definition of
a policy which places disabled motorists at a substantial
disadvantage.
POPLA may say it cannot adjudicate the Equality Act directly,
but it is at least relevant to the overall fairness of the
charge and whether UKPC’s rigid reliance on a “no parking” term
is reasonable when applied to a disabled motorist engaged in a
legitimate loading activity for just over a minute.
4. De minimis and the Single Code of Practice
UKPC rely on Clause 5.1 and Annex B of the Private Parking
Sector Single Code of Practice and assert that “unauthorised
motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5
minutes” in areas where parking is not allowed. That is a
selective and misleading use of the Code.
Annex B and Clause 5.1 explain that a consideration period
exists so that drivers can find a space (or decide not to park)
and read and understand the terms and conditions, or the
consequences of entering an area where public parking is not
invited. The Code also makes clear that operators must take into
account factors such as layout, traffic flow, and the time
required to identify and read signage. It is not intended to
legitimise an instantaneous £100 charge for a 65-second stop
where the driver is simply loading goods and/or trying to
understand the restrictions.
The new Single Code also recognises that disabled motorists may
require longer periods than others, both for consideration and
for grace. It cannot be correct that an able-bodied motorist in
a “normal” bay is effectively afforded 5 minutes’
“consideration” in some contexts, while a disabled driver
engaged in an essential loading activity in a roadway of a
retail park is given zero tolerance for a one-minute stop.
On any sensible view the duration here is de minimis. In 1
minute and 5 seconds it is not realistically possible to: enter,
spot and interpret signage, understand the unusual and onerous
“no roadway parking” term, identify that all disabled bays are
full (some abused by non-Blue-Badge vehicles), and then somehow
find and use an alternative method of loading heavy goods. The
time is so trivial that it should fall within a reasonable
consideration/grace period even before one takes account of
disability.
5. Signage and the nature of the “contract”
UKPC have produced photographs of their entrance sign, main
signs and a signage plan. However, the issue here is not whether
there are generic UKPC signs on the site, but whether the
signage at the precise location of the stop is clear, prominent
and capable of forming a contract for this particular alleged
contravention.
Their own case summary accepts that the sign in question states
“No roadway parking.” That is forbidding wording. It does not
offer parking on certain terms for a price; it appears to be a
prohibition: “you may not park here.” A sign that simply
prohibits parking does not create a contractual licence to park
in return for paying a charge. If anything, it suggests that any
vehicle remaining there in defiance of the prohibition would be
a trespasser. Only the landowner, not UKPC, could seek damages
for trespass, and no actual loss has been evidenced.
Furthermore, the operator has not shown that, from the driver’s
position on the roadway, these “No roadway parking” signs were
obvious, at eye level, and readable in the few seconds
available. A small sign high up on a post, with terms in small
print, is not “clear and prominent” for a driver momentarily
stopping to load. In such circumstances it is unreasonable to
assert that the driver entered into a clear and binding contract
to pay £100 for a stop lasting around one minute.
UKPC’s blanket assertion that its signage “complies fully” with
the Code and that they are audited by the BPA is not evidence of
clear contractual terms at this particular location. POPLA must
assess what the driver could realistically see and understand
within 65 seconds in a busy retail roadway, not rely on
generalities.
6. Landowner authority
UKPC have not produced the actual contract with the landowner,
only a brief witness statement with the signatory’s details
redacted. That document is not a contract; it is merely an
assertion that a contract exists. It does not allow any
verification of its scope, duration, signatory capacity, or
whether it actually covers “no roadway parking” enforcement at
this specific location on the material date.
The operator’s promise that they “will provide a copy of the
contract to the court if they require it” does nothing to assist
POPLA, whose task is to assess the evidence actually produced
now. A redacted witness statement from an unidentified person is
not “strict proof” of authority in circumstances where the
operator seeks to impose £100 charges for a non-parking loading
stop on a roadway.
7. Blue Badge and private land
Finally, UKPC’s reference to the Blue Badge handbook is
misplaced. I fully accept that the statutory Blue Badge scheme
does not of itself grant rights on private land. However, the
presence of a clearly displayed Blue Badge in the operator’s own
photographs is clear evidence that the driver is disabled. That
engages the Equality Act duty to make reasonable adjustments and
supports the proposition that an extra minute for loading heavy
goods near the entrance is not only fair but required.
The operator’s approach here – ignoring disability, ignoring the
trivial duration, and strictly enforcing a “no roadway parking”
rule against a disabled customer loading goods for just over a
minute – is unreasonable and discriminatory. The charge should
not be upheld in those circumstances.
Conclusion
In summary:
- PoFA keeper liability is not properly established, and I have
not admitted to being the driver.
- Jopson v Homeguard makes clear that brief loading is not
“parking,” directly contradicting UKPC’s attempt to treat
“waiting” and “parking” as synonymous.
- The driver is disabled; a Blue Badge was displayed; all
disabled bays were full; a one-minute loading stop near the
collection point is a reasonable adjustment under the Equality
Act.
- The duration of 1 minute 5 seconds is plainly de minimis and
falls within any fair consideration/grace period, particularly
for a disabled motorist.
- The signage is forbidding (“No roadway parking”) and incapable
of forming a contract for a £100 charge, and its prominence at
the exact location is not proved.
- Landowner authority has not been strictly proved; a short
redacted witness statement is not equivalent to a contract.
For all of the above reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA
upholds my appeal and instructs UKPC to cancel this Parking
Charge Notice.[/quote]
#Post#: 107853--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking-Parked in an area where no parking is allowed w
ith Disabled Badge–Snowhill Retail Park,Wakefield,WF1 2D
By: rhbmcse Date: January 29, 2026, 6:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
I’ve finally received the decision from POPLA and, as predicted
by b789, it was unsuccessful. The assessor seems to have brushed
aside the legal arguments quite dismissively.
Key points from the Assessor’s summary:
PoFA/Late Service: He claimed that because I provided no
"evidence" of the late delivery (other than my statement), the
14-day rule was met based on the "date of issue."
Jopson v Homeguard: He dismissed this entirely, stating it is
"not a Supreme Court case and does not set the precedent." He
also claimed no evidence of loading was provided.
Equality Act: He stated that UKPC wouldn't have been aware of
the disability at the time and that POPLA cannot determine if
discrimination occurred as only a court can do that.
Consideration Period: He ruled that because the vehicle was not
in a marked bay, no consideration period applies at all.
I have now received a demand from UKPC for £100, threatening
debt recovery and an extra £70 charge if not paid within 28
days.
I am still standing my ground as per the advice here. What are
my next steps? Do I simply ignore the inevitable "Debt Recovery
Plus" letters and wait for a Letter Before Claim, or is there a
specific "Rejection of POPLA Decision" letter I should send to
UKPC?
Many thanks,
Rob.
#Post#: 109429--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking-Parked in an area where no parking is allowed w
ith Disabled Badge–Snowhill Retail P
By: rhbmcse Date: February 11, 2026, 5:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi folks. I've had no further responses from the experts
(@b789) regarding this. I'd rather not pay £100 that I'm
staring at right now. Could somebody please guide me through my
next move?
#Post#: 109452--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Parking-Parked in an area where no parking is allowed w
ith Disabled Badge–Snowhill Retail Park,Wakefield,WF1 2D
By: DWMB2 Date: February 11, 2026, 7:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The ball is is UKPC's court. If you're up for fighting this all
the way, ignore their debt collectors letters, and come back
when you receive a Letter of Claim.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page