DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 103380--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: TwistedEdge Date: December 20, 2025, 2:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=mickR link=topic=8866.msg103315#msg103315
date=1766238894]
[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
[/quote]It's in the second paragraph
#Post#: 103396--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: mickR Date: December 20, 2025, 4:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=TwistedEdge link=topic=8866.msg103380#msg103380
date=1766262991]
[quote author=mickR link=topic=8866.msg103315#msg103315
date=1766238894]
[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
[/quote]
It's in the second paragraph
[/quote]
so it is ::)
#Post#: 103412--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: TwistedEdge Date: December 21, 2025, 4:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks everyone.
Do I include this?
[quote]* 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. [/quote]
While it only says "Vehicle Duration" in the third box down –
which was pointed out to me – it does say the time allowed in
the header section.
Also, is there any point of mention their complete lack of
"careful consideration"? 🤔
#Post#: 103446--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: b789 Date: December 21, 2025, 10:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, include it, but tweak the wording so it is clearly about
PoFA 9(2)(a) and cannot be brushed off by “the allowed time is
in the header”.
PoFA 9(2)(a) requires the Notice to Keeper to specify the period
of parking to which the notice relates. A statement of a maximum
allowed stay, or the tariff/allowance in the header, is not the
same thing. It does not tell you the actual period of parking
being alleged.
Likewise, “vehicle duration” is UKPC’s label and is used to
describe time on site calculated from ANPR entry/exit images.
That can include time spent entering, queuing at a barrier,
circulating, waiting, or exiting, which is precisely why
“vehicle duration” is not automatically a “period of parking”.
The point you are making is therefore valid: UKPC have not
specified a period of parking as PoFA requires, and they cannot
cure that by pointing to an allowed time limit printed elsewhere
on the notice.
On the “carefully considered” wording, there is little value in
making it a separate POPLA point. POPLA only decide on evidence
and compliance, not on whether the rejection letter is a
template. If you mention it at all, keep it to one sentence in
passing (for example, that the rejection is generic and does not
address the specific PoFA/compliance issues raised) and then
move straight back to the substantive points.
#Post#: 104946--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: TwistedEdge Date: January 7, 2026, 7:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Today I received notice of the "evidence pack" from UKPC,
uploaded to Popla.
Five documents, roughly titled:
[list]
[li]UKPC Signage Plan [/li]
[li]T&Cs for rolling contract [/li]
[li]Case Summary [/li]
[li]Harbour Exchange redacted contract[/li]
[li]UKPC Evidence (.png that shows I am not on any excluded
list)[/li]
[/list]
I won't upload or copy anything unless anyone thinks it is
useful...
#Post#: 104956--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: DWMB2 Date: January 7, 2026, 9:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A redacted copy would be useful, your next step is to rebut
their evidence, so it would be useful to see what it actually
is.
#Post#: 104970--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: TwistedEdge Date: January 7, 2026, 10:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There's a lot, and I'm not sure how to upload PDF's, but this is
a copy-paste of the main body of their 'evidence' – there are
photos of signage taken in 2023 and a contract between the
management (not the owners) and UKCP:
[hr]
On 12/11/2025, a parking event occurred relating to vehicle
registration xxxxxxxx The event was recorded by our ANPR cameras
at Harbour Exchange because the vehicle was on site over the
permitted time of 1 hour.
The parking charge rate was £100.00, reduced to £60.00 if
payment was received within fourteen days.
Following the parking event on 12/11/2025, 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 12/11/2025
An appeal was received from the vehicle's registered keeper on
the 10/12/2025, 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. The site is managed by
ANPR systems which simply take images of vehicle registration
numbers entering and exiting a site; to calculate the total
amount of time on site. The vehicle was on site for 1 hour 38
minutes; a sufficient grace period has been provided for this
site.
Following the parking event, UKPC had reasonable cause to obtain
the details of the registered keeper so that a parking charge
notice could be issued by post. A copy of this notice is
included in this case summary, dated 18/11/2025. Issued 6 days
after the date of the parking event (where a Notice to Driver
was not served), the parking charge notice complies fully with
paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
in permitting the registered keeper to be held liable to pay
this unpaid parking charge.
The appellant has stated that the keeper liability warning is
not in the prescribed PoFA 2012 format. Section 9(2)(f) states
that the notice must warn the keeper that:
“if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after
that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid
parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid
in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the
driver and a current address for service for the driver, the
creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this
Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so
much of that amount as remains unpaid;”
Having reviewed the notice, I am satisfied that it specifies all
of this information. Although I appreciate that it may not be
stated verbatim, it contains the necessary information
nonetheless. The appellant has stated that there isn’t a clear
date that the period of parking. Having reviewed the notice, I
can see that it specifies the date as 12/11/2025.
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.
We have however provided a redacted copy, with sensitive
information covered. The redacted contract confirms our
authority in an ongoing agreement. If neither party terminates
the contract, as in this case, the contract will continue on a
rolling basis.
We have provided the T&C’s in relation to the rolling contract.
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.
Any comments, assurances, or representations made by a third
party do not override the parking restrictions in place within a
car park governed by clearly displayed terms and conditions.
Drivers are required to rely on the signage on site, which forms
the basis of the parking contract, regardless of any statements
made by individuals who are not a party to that contract.
Furthermore, the appellant has provided no evidence to
demonstrate that they were granted permission to park beyond the
maximum permitted stay of one hour. In the absence of such
evidence, the vehicle was subject to the standard parking
restrictions, which were exceeded.
For the avoidance of doubt, the purpose of entrance signs is
solely to advise motorists they are entering into private land
and there are parking conditions they must be aware of. Our
signage conforms to the guidelines set out within the code, and
we are audited regularly by the BPA for those standards; the
signs must be provided to make it easy for motorists to find out
what the terms and conditions are and that the signs contain the
specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are
given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving
their vehicle. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and
written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see,
read and understand. The BPA audits have confirmed that we
follow this to their standard.
Please see attached a signage plan showing the signage
locations, the entrance signage proof and onsite signage proof.
We feel it reasonable to suggest that the driver was advised
sufficiently of the terms & conditions of parking on site.
The appellant states that the vehicle was displaying a valid
Blue Badge and that the driver is disabled and therefore
protected under the Equality Act 2010.
hey further claim that a security guard granted permission to
remain on site for longer than the maximum stay as a reasonable
adjustment. This assertion is not supported by evidence. The
parking charge was issued using Automatic Number Plate
Recognition (ANPR) technology, which records vehicle entry and
exit times. The ANPR system does not recognise or record the
display of Blue Badges, nor does it record any alleged verbal
permissions. Furthermore, the appellant has provided no evidence
to substantiate the claim that permission was granted by a
security guard to remain on site beyond the maximum permitted
stay.
In the absence of corroborating evidence, this claim cannot be
accepted.
For clarity, although it is not strictly required, evidence has
been provided to show that the
vehicle registration mark (VRM) is not listed on the authorised
parking system for this site. This confirms that no prior
approval or arrangement existed for the vehicle to remain beyond
the standard permitted stay.
While UKPC recognises its obligations under the Equality Act
2010, the Act does not provide an automatic exemption from
parking terms and conditions, nor does it remove the requirement
for motorists to comply with clearly displayed time limits.
Reasonable adjustments must be identifiable, proportionate, and
supported by evidence. In this case, the appellant has failed to
demonstrate that a reasonable adjustment was requested, agreed,
or implemented. As such, the vehicle remained subject to the
standard parking terms and conditions, which were exceeded.
Accordingly, the parking charge was correctly issued and does
not constitute discriminatory treatment.
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 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 over
the maximum time permitted may result in a parking charge being
issued. MR XXXXXXXXX vehicle was on site over the permitted time
of 1 hour; consequently, the parking charge was issued
correctly.
A letter was sent to informing him of our decision on the
19/12/2025.
[hr]
If I can work out where to upload the files properly I will
#Post#: 104975--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: DWMB2 Date: January 7, 2026, 10:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=TwistedEdge link=topic=8866.msg104970#msg104970
date=1767802714]
If I can work out where to upload the files properly I will
[/quote]
A repository such as DropBox or Google Drive works well.
#Post#: 105021--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: TwistedEdge Date: January 7, 2026, 3:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Done it!
I've got a few thoughts, but will wait to see what anyone else
thinks before I come up with any bad ideas...
Summary: (the one I copied above)
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/3xp3pzt0vgg3h1eaustio/case-summary_Redacted.pdf?rlkey=h34ueysturyv24wr4ew35gytb&st=ruxe8flf&dl=0
Contract:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/j52hk6dvbi1yu2lmlpt8j/Harbour-Exchange-redacted-contract.pdf?rlkey=pn5gijf969y6dtcuhkt000hso&st=hotb4ne8&dl=0
T&C:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/mjonqpt2pe47hxd5hepmt/T-C-s-for-rolling-contract.pdf?rlkey=so9hmyi5vdbs2bkzxrs0ruiq4&st=rznm59ty&dl=0
Signage Plan:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ztl83xefxteervprw23hy/UKPC-Signage-Plan-Harbour-Exchange-Isle-of-Dogs-v.1.pdf?rlkey=3g3w9n3pqzabrghhy8je9s7a8&st=ltvvp0js&dl=0
Lack of exemption "proof":
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ck7utgxqc6mt3ci9azu4t/UKPC-evidence.png?rlkey=pbf5v2wrepagylinscjft9q58&st=k9g30loy&dl=0
#Post#: 105023--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: DWMB2 Date: January 7, 2026, 3:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You need to adjust the privacy settings so they're viewable to
the public - it's asking me to sign in.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page