DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 99210--------------------------------------------------
UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: TwistedEdge Date: November 21, 2025, 11:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Received a parking charge from UKPC – for overstaying in a car
park where the security guard let the driver through the
barrier, a blue badge holder.
He took the car details at the desk and stated it was fine
without specifying any time limit.
The driver displayed the blue badge, parked in a disabled spot –
but apparently overstayed – although the driver cannot recall
any signage, and trusted the security guard who said it was
fine...
In hindsight, there is a 'maximum 1 hour' sign – but I am
wondering whether there is a claim for reasonable adjustments
under the equality act?
What's the best approach at this point?
[img width=583
height=800]
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/PfRW5Lrv/fronty.jpg[/img]
[img width=568
height=799]
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/fLgwYQJ5/backy.jpg[/img]
#Post#: 99266--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: b789 Date: November 22, 2025, 2:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Luckily for you, this is a UKPC PCN. You may be lucky and
successfully appeal it, but in all likelyhood, this will drag on
for 9-12+ months and will end when they finally discontinue a
county court debt claim.
The one thing I can guarantee with greater than 99.9% certainty,
is that if you follow the advice here, you will not be paying a
penny to UKPC.
Whilst you can argue “reasonable adjustment”, it will not work
for the appeals process. It may work in a court claim, but it
would never reach a hearing stage as any claim, if not struck
out first, will be discontinued before any trial fee has to be
paid.
As an initial appeal is futile, I advise you to simply appeal in
in order to get a POPLA code. Whilst their Notice to Keeper
(NtK) is generally PoFA compliant, never give them the drivers
details anyway.
Simply appeal to UKPC as the Keeper only with the following:
[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. UKPC 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.
UKPC have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.[/quote]
#Post#: 99337--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: TwistedEdge Date: November 22, 2025, 11:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for that. I will send this, unaltered.
Out of curiosity, which part "does not fully comply with ALL the
requirements of PoFA 2012"?
#Post#: 99369--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: b789 Date: November 22, 2025, 8:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
PoFA 9.2(a) as there is no mention of the “period of parking”.
All that NtK mentions is a “vehicle duration”, whatever that may
be.
#Post#: 103228--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: TwistedEdge Date: December 19, 2025, 10:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have received this response to my appeal - this is word by
word copy and paste
[quote]Thank you for your recent communication concerning
parking charge..
---- details removed--------
We have carefully considered your appeal based on the
information provided and the evidence supporting the parking
charge. In this instance having completed our assessment, we
consider the parking charge to have been correctly issued, as
the vehicle was on site over the permitted time.
Our appeals process is now concluded, you may now choose one of
the following options:
1) Pay the parking charge detailed above at the rate of £100.00
to UK Parking Control Ltd. PLEASE REFER OVERLEAF FOR PAYMENT
OPTIONS AND ADDRESS DETAILS.
2) Make an appeal to the independent adjudicator POPLA (Parking
on Private Land Appeals) using the verification code provided
above. Please note that if you wish to appeal to POPLA, you will
lose the right to pay the discounted rate of £60.00 even if you
are within the timeframe, and should POPLA reject your appeal
you will be required to pay the full amount of £100.00.
If you opt to pay the parking charge you will be unable to
appeal with POPLA. Appeals to POPLA must be made within
twenty-eight days from the date of this letter. To appeal with
POPLA, please visit www.popla.co.uk. If you are unable to access
the internet, you may appeal by post – this must be done using a
POPLA postal form which may be obtained by contacting POPLA by
phone (0330 159 6126) or post (PO Box 1270, Warrington, WA4
9RL).
By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman
Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative
dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with
your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their
alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish
to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.
3) If you choose to do nothing, the parking charge will
automatically increase after thirty-five days from the date of
this letter and the matter will be passed to our debt resolution
partner, at which point you will be liable to pay an additional
charge of £70, in accordance with the terms and conditions of
parking.
Further charges will be claimed if court action is taken against
you, any unpaid court judgement may adversely affect your credit
rating. [/quote]
What's the best next step? 🤔
#Post#: 103236--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: jfollows Date: December 19, 2025, 11:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They haven’t “carefully considered” anything, they have rejected
your appeal because they know this means you may well pay them,
which is their only desired outcome.
You need to construct a POPLA apeal, in which you need to guide
the assessor through the key points, but there are many sample
examples here. I suggest you have a search and then post your
intended appeal here. Note that even if POPLA rejects your
appeal you are under no obligation to pay.
#Post#: 103297--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: TwistedEdge Date: December 20, 2025, 3:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Strangely I received another, follow up email at around 2am –
dated today.
[quote]
Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Following a full review of your appeal regarding Parking Charge
Notice (PCN) reference xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, we regret to inform you
that your appeal has been unsuccessful.
The outstanding balance of £100.00 must be paid
within 14 days from the date of this email. If
payment is not received within this timeframe, your case will be
referred to a debt recovery agency, and the balance will
increase to £170.00.
To make payment, please visit Pay Parking Charge - UKPC
(
HTML https://paycharge.co.uk/)
and enter your reference number:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Kind regards,
UKPC
[/quote]
Their rejection letters are worse than the council's. 🙄
#Post#: 103303--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: TwistedEdge Date: December 20, 2025, 4:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for replies thus far. I'm not massively confident doing
this, so maybe someone can help and tell me if the following
works?
[quote]
## POPLA Appeal
POPLA Verification Code: xxxxxxxxxx
Parking Charge Reference: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Operator: UK Parking Control Ltd
Appellant: Registered Keeper
Introduction
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I am
submitting this appeal to POPLA in respect of the Parking Charge
Notice issued by UK Parking Control Ltd. I deny that the charge
is enforceable and set out below the grounds on which this
appeal should be allowed.
1. No keeper liability – failure to comply with Schedule 4 of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
UK Parking Control Ltd have not established keeper liability
under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
While the Notice to Keeper includes wording referring to
potential keeper liability after 28 days, it nevertheless fails
to comply fully with the mandatory requirements of PoFA and does
not validly transfer liability from the driver to the registered
keeper.
In particular:
* The Notice to Keeper does not correctly or fully set out the
mandatory warning required by paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 in
the prescribed form.
* The Notice to Keeper fails to strictly comply with PoFA, which
requires full and exact compliance; partial or paraphrased
compliance is insufficient.
* UKPC’s own wording and approach demonstrates reliance on
driver liability rather than a clear and unequivocal transfer of
liability to the keeper under Schedule 4.
* The Notice to Keeper does not specify the required “period of
parking” as mandated by paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4.
Instead, it refers only to a “vehicle duration”, which is not a
defined term in PoFA and does not necessarily represent a period
when the vehicle was parked, as opposed to time spent entering,
exiting, or waiting on site. Am unsure of this point as the
duration is mentioned in the header
As strict compliance with PoFA is required in order to establish
keeper liability, and as the Notice to Keeper does not meet that
standard, UKPC may only pursue the driver. The appellant has not
identified the driver and is under no obligation to do so.
POPLA has consistently held that where an operator fails to
strictly comply with PoFA, keeper liability does not arise and
the appeal must be allowed.
2. The operator has failed to identify the driver
UKPC have provided no evidence as to the identity of the driver.
The appellant has not admitted to being the driver, and no
presumption exists in law that the registered keeper was the
driver.
As keeper liability has not been established, and the driver has
not been identified, the charge is unenforceable.
3. Failure to make reasonable adjustments – breach of the
Equality Act 2010
The vehicle was displaying a valid Blue Badge. The driver is
disabled and therefore protected under the Equality Act 2010.
Under sections 20 and 29 of the Equality Act 2010, service
providers have a positive duty to make reasonable adjustments to
avoid placing disabled persons at a substantial disadvantage.
In this case:
* A security guard controlling access to the site permitted
entry after being informed that the disabled driver would
require longer than the standard maximum stay.
* This permission was reasonably understood to be a reasonable
adjustment to accommodate disability-related needs.
* Issuing a parking charge after permission was granted is a
failure to make reasonable adjustments and constitutes
discriminatory treatment.
The Equality Act duty overrides any contractual terms or
signage. A private parking operator cannot enforce time limits
rigidly where doing so disadvantages a disabled person and no
reasonable adjustment has been made.
4. Permission granted by the landowner’s agent – no contract
capable of being formed
The security guard managing access to the site was acting as an
agent of the landowner.
By permitting entry after being informed of the need for
extended time, the landowner (via its agent) authorised the
stay. Any alleged contract based on signage is overridden by
explicit permission from an authorised representative.
Under established principles of agency and estoppel, a party
cannot penalise a motorist for acting in reliance on permission
granted by the landowner’s agent.
Accordingly, no breach of contract occurred.
5. Inconsistent and discriminatory enforcement
A second vehicle, also displaying a valid Blue Badge and
permitted entry by security under similar circumstances, did not
receive a Parking Charge Notice.
This inconsistent enforcement demonstrates that extended stays
for disabled motorists were permitted at the site and that
UKPC’s enforcement was selective and unreasonable.
Targeting one disabled motorist while allowing another to park
without penalty amounts to unfair and discriminatory treatment.
Conclusion
UK Parking Control Ltd have failed to establish keeper
liability, have not identified the driver, and have acted in
breach of the Equality Act 2010 by failing to make reasonable
adjustments and by enforcing the charge inconsistently despite
permission being granted by the landowner’s agent.
For all of the above reasons, the appeal must be allowed and the
Parking Charge Notice cancelled.
[/quote]
#Post#: 103315--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: mickR Date: December 20, 2025, 7:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=b789 link=topic=8866.msg99369#msg99369
date=1763864550]
PoFA 9.2(a) as there is no mention of the “period of parking”.
All that NtK mentions is a “vehicle duration”, whatever that may
be.
[/quote]
unless im mistaken there's no "invitation to pay" either
#Post#: 103354--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: b789 Date: December 20, 2025, 10:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you’re relying on PoFA wording failures, state what the
Notice to Keeper says (or fails to say) and why that does not
meet the mandatory requirements.
Also add two core POPLA points that you’ve currently missed:
A) No evidence of landowner authority (standing)
UKPC are put to strict proof that they have the necessary
authorisation to operate and to issue PCNs at Harbour Exchange
Square, and to pursue payment and/or appeals in their own name.
A generic “site agreement”, witness statement, or a contract
with a managing agent is not sufficient unless it is shown to be
contemporaneous and to flow from the landowner and to confer the
necessary rights. The operator must produce an unredacted (save
for financials) contemporaneous contract or chain of authority
in force on the material date which expressly grants them:
1. authority to manage parking at this location,
2. authority to issue PCNs,
3. authority to pursue payment and enforce in their own name
(including litigation, if relied upon).
If UKPC cannot produce this, they have no standing and the
charge must fail.
B) Inadequate proof of signage and terms (strict proof required)
UKPC must prove, with contemporaneous photographs from the
material date (or at least from the same period) that clear,
readable signs were in place and visible to a driver upon entry
and throughout the area where the vehicle was parked.
This is a barrier-controlled site where access is managed by
security. The operator is therefore put to strict proof of:
1. the exact signs relied upon, their locations, and whether
they were visible before parking,
2. that the key terms (including any maximum stay and the £100
charge) were prominent, legible, and capable of being read
without leaving the vehicle and searching for signage,
3. that any signs were not obscured, unlit, high-mounted, or
positioned such that a driver would not reasonably see and read
them.
Stock photos, close-up photos of a sign without context, or
photos taken months/years later are not adequate proof of the
signage in place at the material time.
Put “No keeper liability (PoFA)” first. Then add “No
standing/landowner authority” and “Signage/terms not proven”
immediately after. Keep the Equality Act/security-permission
point, but drop any “another Blue Badge didn’t get a PCN” point
entirely.
Don't worry too much about POPLA. If it isn't successful, then
it doesn't matter as their decision is not binding on you. It
would then go to a county court claim which I can guarantee with
greater then 99.9% certainty it would either be struck out or
discontinued.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page