DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 105025--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: TwistedEdge Date: January 7, 2026, 3:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=DWMB2 link=topic=8866.msg105023#msg105023
date=1767822112]
You need to adjust the privacy settings so they're viewable to
the public - it's asking me to sign in.
[/quote]sorry about that, I tried to be clever by shortening the
links – they should work now :)
#Post#: 105216--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: TwistedEdge Date: January 9, 2026, 9:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
How does this sound for my planned comments:
[quote]
I have reviewed the operator’s evidence pack and make the
following comments.
1. Keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
The operator asserts that the Notice to Keeper “complies fully”
with Schedule 4 of PoFA but does not demonstrate strict
compliance with the mandatory wording required by paragraph
9(2)(f). No explanation or analysis is provided to rebut the
appellant’s submission that liability has not been validly
transferred from the driver to the keeper. Mere assertion is
insufficient where strict compliance is required.
2. Driver not identified
The operator has provided no evidence identifying the driver.
The appellant has not admitted to being the driver, and the
operator’s evidence does not rebut this point. In the absence of
established keeper liability, the charge remains unenforceable.
3. Landowner authority (standing)
The operator relies on a redacted agreement with a managing
agent rather than a contract signed by the landowner. No
evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the managing
agent had authority from the landowner to delegate enforcement
rights to the operator. Assertions of authority are not proof,
and the chain of authority remains unproven.
4. Permission granted by the landowner’s agent
The operator dismisses permission granted by on-site security as
being given by a “third party” but does not address the
principles of agency. The security guard controlling access at a
barrier was acting on behalf of the landowner or its agent. The
operator’s evidence does not rebut that permission was granted
or explain why such permission should be disregarded.
5. Equality Act 2010
The operator’s evidence does not meaningfully address the
Equality Act 2010. Assertions that ANPR systems cannot recognise
Blue Badges or that there is no automatic exemption do not
discharge the statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments. No
evidence is provided to show that reasonable adjustments were
considered or made in this case.
6. Signage
The signage evidence consists of generic photographs from 2023
and plans which do not demonstrate that clear, prominent, and
legible signage was in place and visible to a driver before
parking at this barrier-controlled site on the material date.
This does not rebut the appellant’s signage challenge.
Conclusion
The operator’s evidence does not rebut the appellant’s grounds
of appeal. Keeper liability has not been established, driver
identity has not been proven, landowner authority remains
unsubstantiated, permission by an authorised agent has not been
addressed, and Equality Act duties have not been met. The appeal
should therefore be allowed.[/quote]
#Post#: 105218--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: DWMB2 Date: January 9, 2026, 9:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think point #3 could be even more explicit - their contract is
so redacted as to be almost meaningless - they've completely
redacted the name of the landowner, so you've no idea who they
claim that is, and whether the entity named is even the owner of
the land.
#Post#: 105286--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: TwistedEdge Date: January 9, 2026, 6:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you.
I submitted the comments with the suggestion added – just a
matter of waiting now.
#Post#: 112036--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: TwistedEdge Date: March 4, 2026, 8:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
POPLA APPEAL REJECTED:
This is the statement – the text was like one overwhelming
block, so I broke it down to make it easier to read:
[quote]The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that
allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the
registered keeper if the driver or hirer is not identified.
Parking operators must 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
driver’s details were not provided within the given timescale
stated on the Notice to Keeper (NTK).
The Single 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 is effective for all parking events that occur on or after
1st October 2024. Parking operators have until 31st December
2026 by which to comply with the signage standards set out in
The Single Sector Code of Practice.
As such, I will consider the signage standards as set out in the
BPA Code of Practice Version 9 and refer to the Single Sector
Code of Practice for all other relevant issues to summarise my
reasons. 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 this case, the appellant has questioned landowner
authority of which the operator has responded to be providing
the landowner contract.
After review, I am satisfied that this complies with section
14.1 of the Single Code and the operator has authority to manage
the site and issue PCN’s to those who do not comply with the
terms and conditions. Section 19.2 of the BPA’s Code says
operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a
motorist is entering onto private land.
The operator has provided an image of the entrance sign that
tells motorists they are entering a car park where terms and
conditions apply so I am therefore satisfied this complies with
section 19.2 of the BPA’s code of practice and motorists are
warned accordingly on entry to the car park. An entrance sign is
only there to warn motorists that they are entering private land
and terms and conditions are applicable. A motorist is not
expected to read the entrance sign in full while driving so the
terms and conditions are not included. However, they are
expected to read the signs throughout the site having been
warned they apply on entry.
Section 19.3 of the BPA’s Code says parking operators need to
have signs that clearly set out the terms. The parking operator
has provided images of the signs which are placed throughout the
car park and advise of the terms of parking. The terms and
conditions shown on these signs state, “Visitor parking only,
1-hour maximum stay”. They also inform motorists that a £100 PCN
charge will be issued to those who do not comply. The driver
remained at the site for 1 hour and 38 minutes, so a PCN was
issued for a 38 minute overstay.
The appellant has started that the driver is disabled and the
operator has failed to consider this which is a breach of the
Equality Act 2010. I acknowledge their comments; however, the
operator was unaware of any personal disabilities prior to the
parking event.
The appellant appealed to the operator as the registered keeper
and said the driver had a valid blue badge without explain how
their disability may have affected their ability to comply with
the term and conditions.
This was rejected because the terms and conditions do not state
there are any concessions for disabled badge holders and the
appellant failed to provide them with anything to consider. I
must also advise the appellant that, when looking at appeals,
POPLA can only consider if the PCN has been issued correctly in
line with the terms and conditions of the site in question.
POPLA cannot allow an appeal based on mitigating or personal
circumstances as this is the operator’s decision at the first
point of appeal on how they wish to progress after the terms and
conditions were breached. After considering the evidence from
both parties, the driver exceeded the maximum stay time, so
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.[/quote]
I'm not going to give in and pay it just like that, so what are
my options? 🤔
#Post#: 112041--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: jfollows Date: March 4, 2026, 8:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It’s likely that UKPC will firstly engage DCBL as debt
collectors to send you threatening letters. Other than
confirming this when it happens, they should be ignored
completely.
UKPC will then use DCB Legal to send you a Letter of Claim. Come
back when you get this.
Search the forum for lots of cases involving these companies to
familiarise yourself with what they do.
You will have to deal with court paperwork, because DCB Legal
hope either that you are frightened by it into paying up, or you
ignore it and they get a judgement in default against you.
It’s 99% certain the DCB Legal will discontinue the court case
before having to pay the court fee if it is defended. That will
be in a number of months.
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/harbour-exchange-pcn-despite-being-permitted-parking-longer-than-permitted-no-pc/msg31658/#msg31658<br
/>is the same place and companies, but the circumstances are not
the same of course.
#Post#: 112070--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
By: TwistedEdge Date: March 4, 2026, 11:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=jfollows link=topic=8866.msg112041#msg112041
date=1772636248]
It’s likely that UKPC will firstly engage DCBL as debt
collectors to send you threatening letters. Other than
confirming this when it happens, they should be ignored
completely.
UKPC will then use DCB Legal to send you a Letter of Claim. Come
back when you get this.
Search the forum for lots of cases involving these companies to
familiarise yourself with what they do.
You will have to deal with court paperwork, because DCB Legal
hope either that you are frightened by it into paying up, or you
ignore it and they get a judgement in default against you.
It’s 99% certain the DCB Legal will discontinue the court case
before having to pay the court fee if it is defended. That will
be in a number of months.
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/harbour-exchange-pcn-despite-being-permitted-parking-longer-than-permitted-no-pc/msg31658/#msg31658<br
/>is the same place and companies, but the circumstances are not
the same of course.
[/quote]
Thank you.
I just had a letter from UKPC demanding £100, with a threat to
add a further £70 to the bill.
I will ignore it and wait for them to go through a debt
collector.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page