DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 101152--------------------------------------------------
Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
DIR By: DontStandForNonsense
Date: December 5, 2025, 10:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A few days ago we received a Notice to Keeper and the reason
given was 'Driver left site designated for customer parking
only'
Crazy thing is, the driver was there as a customer! I know that
some of these retail parks have time limits because they had a
ticket for spending more than 2 hours at a site once, but this
time around, it was definitely much less than an hour.
They went to Decathalon to find a winter jacket for my daughter,
and then Hobbycraft for some christmas lights. They didn't end
up getting anything and drove out perhaps 40 minutes after
arrival.
Please see the NTK_Link
HTML https://photos.app.goo.gl/9Ha8RhBKdV3JuiVm7
Would really appreciate your help.
#Post#: 101249--------------------------------------------------
Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
DIR By: b789
Date: December 6, 2025, 7:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Before you continue with this, get it into your head that you
must NEVER, EVER identify the driver. You have clearly done so
to us, maybe inadvertently, but if you respond to the PCN like
that, you will have blabbed the drivers identity and thrown away
one of the best defences you will ever have for these charges!
UKPC have NO IDEA who the driver is unless you blab it to them.
Because of deficiencies in their Notice to Keeper (NtK) they
cannot rely on PoFA 2012 to transfer the liability from the
unknown driver to the known Keeper. The driver is always liable
and unless you, as the Keeper, refer to the driver in the third
person, you will have shot yourself in both feet with a single
shot! You never say silly things like "I did this or that", only
"the driver did this or that". Don't tell 'em your name Pike!
So, to the PCN itself... what evidence have they provided to
support their allegation that "driver left site designated for
customer parking"? I'll bet you that they have not provided ANY
evidence to support their allegation. Also, their NtK is not
fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA to be able to
hold the Keeper liable if the driver is not identified.
There is no legal obligation on the known keeper to reveal the
identity of the unknown driver to an unregulated private parking
firm and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which
means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot
transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove
anything from it:
--- 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.
--- End Quote ---
Come back the they reject the appeal and give you a POPLA code.
No initial appeal is ever successful because there is no money
in it for them if they accept.
#Post#: 101756--------------------------------------------------
Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
DIR By: DontStandForNonsense
Date: December 9, 2025, 3:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Before you continue with this, get it into your head that you
must NEVER, EVER identify the driver. You have clearly done so
to us, maybe inadvertently, but if you respond to the PCN like
that, you will have blabbed the drivers identity and thrown away
one of the best defences you will ever have for these charges!
>
> UKPC have NO IDEA who the driver is unless you blab it to
them. Because of deficiencies in their Notice to Keeper (NtK)
they cannot rely on PoFA 2012 to transfer the liability from the
unknown driver to the known Keeper. The driver is always liable
and unless you, as the Keeper, refer to the driver in the third
person, you will have shot yourself in both feet with a single
shot! You never say silly things like "I did this or that", only
"the driver did this or that". Don't tell 'em your name Pike!
>
> So, to the PCN itself... what evidence have they provided to
support their allegation that "driver left site designated for
customer parking"? I'll bet you that they have not provided ANY
evidence to support their allegation. Also, their NtK is not
fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA to be able to
hold the Keeper liable if the driver is not identified.
>
> There is no legal obligation on the known keeper to reveal the
identity of the unknown driver to an unregulated private parking
firm and no inference or assumptions can be made.
>
> The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA
which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they
cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver
to the known keeper.
>
> Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or
remove anything from it:
>
> [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.
--- End Quote ---
Come back the they reject the appeal and give you a POPLA code.
No initial appeal is ever successful because there is no money
in it for them if they accept.
[/quote]
Thank you. Is there a way for me to delete the OP so that I can
repost without the incorrect wording?
PS, I can imagine that this rogue operator are sending tickets
to genuine shoppers even though they used the site correctly
(less than max time allowed and without leaving the site). I
expect most will just pay them when in fact they should be
raising complaints to the landlord or whoever else.
#Post#: 101853--------------------------------------------------
Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
DIR By: b789
Date: December 10, 2025, 7:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just use the "report to a moderator" and state what you want
them to do with your OP.
#Post#: 101868--------------------------------------------------
Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: December 10, 2025, 9:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If possible please don't use the Report to Moderator function
for this as it sends email notifications to all 5 of us.
I wouldn't worry too much about having accidentally revealed who
was driving here. UKPC are issuing around 1,500 charges a day -
they'll not be expending time trawling this forum for the
extremely small minority who put up a fight.
#Post#: 102180--------------------------------------------------
Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
DIR By: DontStandForNonsense
Date: December 12, 2025, 8:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> If possible please don't use the Report to Moderator function
for this as it sends email notifications to all 5 of us.
>
> I wouldn't worry too much about having accidentally revealed
who was driving here. UKPC are issuing around 1,500 charges a
day - they'll not be expending time trawling this forum for the
extremely small minority who put up a fight.
>
--- End Quote ---
Oki doki :)
Thank you
#Post#: 103202--------------------------------------------------
Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
DIR By: DontStandForNonsense
Date: December 19, 2025, 7:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Before you continue with this, get it into your head that you
must NEVER, EVER identify the driver. You have clearly done so
to us, maybe inadvertently, but if you respond to the PCN like
that, you will have blabbed the drivers identity and thrown away
one of the best defences you will ever have for these charges!
>
> UKPC have NO IDEA who the driver is unless you blab it to
them. Because of deficiencies in their Notice to Keeper (NtK)
they cannot rely on PoFA 2012 to transfer the liability from the
unknown driver to the known Keeper. The driver is always liable
and unless you, as the Keeper, refer to the driver in the third
person, you will have shot yourself in both feet with a single
shot! You never say silly things like "I did this or that", only
"the driver did this or that". Don't tell 'em your name Pike!
>
> So, to the PCN itself... what evidence have they provided to
support their allegation that "driver left site designated for
customer parking"? I'll bet you that they have not provided ANY
evidence to support their allegation. Also, their NtK is not
fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA to be able to
hold the Keeper liable if the driver is not identified.
>
> There is no legal obligation on the known keeper to reveal the
identity of the unknown driver to an unregulated private parking
firm and no inference or assumptions can be made.
>
> The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA
which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they
cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver
to the known keeper.
>
> Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or
remove anything from it:
>
> [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.
--- End Quote ---
Come back the they reject the appeal and give you a POPLA code.
No initial appeal is ever successful because there is no money
in it for them if they accept.
[/quote]
They replied with:
Link to actual letter
HTML https://photos.app.goo.gl/SFifQwLD1Kxi59A6A
Thank you for your recent correspondence in relation to parking
charge reference 3087153261105.
To assist us in making a decision regarding your appeal, please
confirm the full name and address of the driver to our Appeals
Department within seven days of the date of this letter.
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 discusses the
recovery of unpaid parking charges. It allows parking operators
to hold the registered
keeper liable to pay unpaid parking charges if the operator has
not been provided the name and a serviceable address of the
driver.
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.
This information may be confirmed by submitting another appeal
on our website at www.ukpcappeals.co.uk, or by post to the
address overleaf. Please
ensure that if writing to us by post that you include the
parking charge reference number and vehicle registration.
Failure to provide this information will give us no alternative
other than to make our final decision based on the previous
information received. At this stage
a POPLA verification code will be provided. The parking charge
has been placed on hold whilst under appeal and may be settled
in full at the current PCN rate of £60.00.
Yours sincerely,
#Post#: 103210--------------------------------------------------
Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
DIR By: b789
Date: December 19, 2025, 8:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can email them back with the following response:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Re: PCN [insert reference] – Driver Details Not
Required
>
> Dear UKPC Appeals Department,
>
> Thank you for your template fishing attempt.
>
> Your request for the driver’s details is noted and declined.
You have already been informed that I am the keeper, and that
your Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the mandatory
requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012. As such, you cannot transfer liability from the
unidentified driver to me.
>
> If your staff are unable to understand why your NtK is
non‑compliant, I suggest you review Schedule 4 more
carefully. Keeper liability is a strict statutory regime:
partial or almost compliance is not compliance. You do not get
to rely on PoFA unless you meet every requirement, which you
have not.
>
> Your continued attempts to obtain the driver’s identity are
noted. I will not be assisting you in curing your own statutory
defects.
>
> You now have two options:
>
> [indent]1. Issue a POPLA code, or
> 2. Cancel the PCN and save us both further wasted
time.[/indent]
>
> If you require guidance on my position, you may refer to the
response famously given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).
>
> I look forward to your POPLA code or your confirmation of
cancellation.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 103222--------------------------------------------------
Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
DIR By: DontStandForNonsense
Date: December 19, 2025, 9:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for this.
Sent :)
#Post#: 110780--------------------------------------------------
Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
DIR By: DontStandForNonsense
Date: February 23, 2026, 9:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> You can email them back with the following response:
>
> [quote]Subject: Re: PCN [insert reference] – Driver Details
Not Required
>
> Dear UKPC Appeals Department,
>
> Thank you for your template fishing attempt.
>
> Your request for the driver’s details is noted and declined.
You have already been informed that I am the keeper, and that
your Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the mandatory
requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012. As such, you cannot transfer liability from the
unidentified driver to me.
>
> If your staff are unable to understand why your NtK is
non‑compliant, I suggest you review Schedule 4 more
carefully. Keeper liability is a strict statutory regime:
partial or almost compliance is not compliance. You do not get
to rely on PoFA unless you meet every requirement, which you
have not.
>
> Your continued attempts to obtain the driver’s identity are
noted. I will not be assisting you in curing your own statutory
defects.
>
> You now have two options:
>
> [indent]1. Issue a POPLA code, or
> 2. Cancel the PCN and save us both further wasted
time.[/indent]
>
> If you require guidance on my position, you may refer to the
response famously given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).
>
> I look forward to your POPLA code or your confirmation of
cancellation.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
Hello,
So I just received a letter from a debt collection company
HTML https://photos.app.goo.gl/c34SoWeUXdWx3d1N9
for this ticket
which confused me because I did not recall hearing back from
them about my appeal. I then went into my email and searched
'UKPC'. They had rejected the appeal but, it had gone into my
email junk folder. I had thought they would reply by post. Here
is their Rejection 7th January 2026
HTML https://photos.app.goo.gl/iShV3P6rBXAfjdTi9.
The debt recovery letter arrived in the post like the original
ticket, but interestingly their rejection letter with 28 days to
contest was sent by email with no postal copy.
I'm really annoyed about this because I think this is very
underhanded.
WOuld really appreciate help with this.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 5
DIR Next Page