DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 104084--------------------------------------------------
UKCPS Ltd PCN – Driver Observed Leaving Site – Bentley Bridge Le
isure Park, Wolverhampton, Again
By: Stardog Date: December 30, 2025, 10:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi 1st time post, advice required.
10/09/25 Upon entering the Bentley Bridge car park, the driver
found a space, parked up, had a stroll around and went for a
coffee within Cineworld complex in Starbucks, and have receipt.
Around 15/09/25 received Notice to keeper from UKCPS Parking
Charge for "observed leaving site".
Decided to go down the "No correspondence at all route" (though
I did reach out to Starbucks and Cineworld to no avail) and see
where this goes, deciding a day in court at worst. However this
may not have been the correct approach in hindsight.
Several letters later and debt recovery are insinuating UKCPS
can issue a CCJ as seen in latest document. Having seen another
poster get their PCN rescinded for the same "contravention" at
the same car park using the ISA appeal letter is it too late to
start dialogue or should I even start dialogue at this stage. I
am the registered keeper the vehicle.
Images,
HTML https://ibb.co/4gRfczVh
HTML https://ibb.co/zVD9JPN1
HTML https://ibb.co/tw1pY83n
HTML https://ibb.co/Vc10q4ZV
HTML https://ibb.co/Psx15Ry9
Photographic evidence,
HTML https://ibb.co/pjHgKzd1
#Post#: 104090--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Ltd PCN – Driver Observed Leaving Site – Bentley Bridg
e Leisure Park, Wolverhampton, Again
By: Brenda_R2 Date: December 30, 2025, 10:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is this a duplicate of THIS?
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/ukcps-ltd-pcn-driver-observed-leaving-site-bentley-bridge-leisure-park-wolverham/
#Post#: 104091--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Ltd PCN – Driver Observed Leaving Site – Bentley Bridg
e Leisure Park, Wolverhampton, Again
By: Stardog Date: December 30, 2025, 10:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No, this is a separate incident.
#Post#: 104101--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Ltd PCN – Driver Observed Leaving Site – Bentley Bridg
e Leisure Park, Wolverhampton, Again
By: jfollows Date: December 30, 2025, 11:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No, this is a different thread for a different incident.
#Post#: 104129--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Ltd PCN – Driver Observed Leaving Site – Bentley Bridg
e Leisure Park, Wolverhampton, Again
By: b789 Date: December 30, 2025, 5:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You need to stop panicking. For starters, what evidence have
they shown you to prove their allegation of "Driver observed
leaving site"? None.
Secondly, no one, especially a bottom-dwelling firm of debt
collectors are powerless to do anything, certainly not "issue a
CCJ". You can safely ignore all debt collectors as they are not
apart to any contract allegedly breached by the driver and are
powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the
low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of
ignorance and fear.
The signage at Bentley Bridge Leisure Park attempts to create a
contractual parking arrangement, but the specific allegation
relied upon here has no realistic prospect of success if tested
in court.
The sign states that the driver “must remain on site throughout
the entire period of parking”, yet it fails to define what “the
site” actually is. There is no map, boundary description, or
explanation of whether the site is limited to the car park
itself or includes the wider leisure complex. In a location
marketed and presented as a leisure park with a cinema, food
outlets and coffee shops, an ordinary motorist would reasonably
understand those facilities to form part of the same site. A
contractual term that depends entirely on an undefined boundary
is inherently uncertain and cannot be enforced with confidence.
The allegation itself is “driver observed leaving site”. UKCPS
have produced no evidence to support this beyond photographs of
a stationary vehicle and a photograph of the sign. Those images
do not show a person, do not show any movement, and do not show
any boundary being crossed. An assertion of “observation”
without contemporaneous notes, timestamps, a clear vantage
point, or an explanation of how the operative determined that
the site boundary was crossed is not evidence of a breach. It is
a bare allegation.
Further, if an operative genuinely observed a person about to
breach a contractual term that would trigger a £100 charge, a
reasonable and fair operator would have intervened or issued a
warning. The fact that no warning was given strongly suggests
that the purpose of the term is not site management but
entrapment. This supports the conclusion that the term is
applied in a predatory manner, allowing a motorist to
unknowingly incur a charge that could have been avoided
instantly.
In this case, the driver was a genuine customer of the leisure
complex, remaining within it and purchasing refreshments. That
factual background directly contradicts the allegation of
“leaving site” and exposes the weakness of UKCPS’s position.
Taken together, the undefined contractual term, the absence of
evidence, the failure to warn, and the credible explanation for
remaining within the leisure park mean that UKCPS would be
unable to prove any breach. On that basis, the claim would be
bound to fail if pursued to court. Sadly, you will not have your
"day in court" as this will never reach a hearing. They will
pursue this up to the point they have to pay the £27 trial fee
and will then discontinue, if the claim isn't struck out first.
It is too late to try and appeal anyway and the IAS are the
equivalent of brown smelly stuff you avoid stepping in. This
will take its course and for now, all you have to do is use the
useless debt collector letters as emergency toilet paper or
shred them to use as hamster bedding. No one cares about useless
debt recovery letters.
Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and we will
advise from there and also when the inevitable claim form
arrives. If you follow the advice, you will not be paying a
penny to these scammers.
As for your unfounded fear of a CCJ, you need to read the
following article I wrote to try and educate the low-hanging
fruit who don't properly understand the CCJ process:
[quote]These unregulated private parking firms and their pet
debt collectors thrive on one thing: the public’s ignorance of
how County Court claims and CCJs actually work. They know that
if they can make you believe that “a claim” or a “debt recovery”
letter somehow wrecks your credit rating, you will panic and pay
them. The gullible tree is full of low-hanging fruit, and they
make a very good living shaking it.
Here is the reality, which you should read and take a “life
lesson” from...
A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a private firm is not a fine.
It is just a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of
contract by the driver. At that stage, nothing touches your
credit file.
If you are not successful in appealing the PCN – and appeals are
almost never successful at the initial stage and rarely at the
secondary, supposedly “independent” (but not) appeal – most
low-hanging fruit do not understand that those decisions are not
binding on them and they should never just pay. Many do,
however, because they are ignorant of the process and fearful of
imaginary consequences.
If you then get “debt recovery” letters from so-called debt
collectors, those are just more speculative invoices dressed up
in scary language designed to prey on your ignorance and fear.
Debt collectors have no legal powers whatsoever to come to your
door, take goods, or report anything to credit reference
agencies. You could receive fifty of those letters and your
credit rating would be unchanged.
As part of the modus operandi of these unregulated firms, the
next formal step is usually a Letter of Claim (LoC). That is
just a threat that they may start a County Court claim. Even
then, your credit record is still untouched. It is simply a
threat of legal action, not the result of it. Just more attempts
to intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into
paying out of ignorance and fear.
Only if they go ahead and issue a County Court claim do you
enter the court (judicial) process. A Claim Form comes from the
court, not from a useless and powerless debt collector. Getting
a claim issued against you does not, by itself, affect your
credit rating. A claim is simply an allegation that you owe
money. You have the right to defend it. As long as you read your
post, acknowledge the claim in time, and either defend it or
settle it, your credit file remains untouched.
A County Court Judgment (CCJ) only arises if the court actually
makes a judgment against you. That happens either because you
defended and were unsuccessful at a hearing, or because you
ignored the claim and the parking firm got judgment in default.
Even then, you still have a crucial safety net that the
low-hanging fruit do not realise exists. If you pay the full
judgment sum within 30 days of the date of judgment, the CCJ is
not registered on your credit file. It is expunged completely
from the record. It is as if it never happened as far as lenders
are concerned.
A CCJ only appears on your credit record if you fail to pay
within that 30-day window. That is the point at which it gets
recorded and can affect your ability to obtain credit. Up to
that point, no amount of tickets, no stack of debt recovery
letters, no Letter of/Before Claim, and not even the issuing of
a County Court claim has any impact on your credit history.
Bailiffs are a separate step again. They cannot simply be sent
because you have ignored an unregulated private parking invoice
or a useless debt recovery letter. Bailiffs (enforcement agents)
only become relevant after there is a CCJ and it has not been
paid.
For most smaller PCN CCJs, it is not even worth the creditor’s
time and cost to instruct bailiffs, especially when the amount
is under £600 and stuck in the slower County Court enforcement
system. But the key point is this: no unpaid CCJ, no lawful
bailiff.
So when people say things like “I had a debt recovery letter so
I might not get a mortgage now” or “if I defend, I will get a
CCJ,” they are simply wrong. It is precisely that ignorance and
fear that these firms trade on. They rely on ordinary motorists
incorrectly assuming that a red-letter demand automatically
means ruined credit and bailiffs at the door.
There is nothing in the advice given here that will affect your
credit record. On the contrary, proper advice is what keeps you
away from CCJs. If you engage with the process, defend where
appropriate, and, in the extremely rare instance where you are
unsuccessful defending a claim, pay any judgment within 30 days,
your credit file will remain completely unaffected and no
bailiff will lawfully darken your doorstep over a private
parking charge.
These companies rely on being able to intimidate the low-hanging
fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and
fear.[/quote]
#Post#: 104179--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Ltd PCN – Driver Observed Leaving Site – Bentley Bridg
e Leisure Park, Wolverhampton, Again
By: Stardog Date: December 31, 2025, 9:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks b789, for confirming my suspicions, I'll let this roll on
until LoC arrives and post back.
#Post#: 106086--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Ltd PCN – Driver Observed Leaving Site – Bentley Bridg
e Leisure Park, Wolverhampton, Again
By: soccercaptain60 Date: January 15, 2026, 12:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have the same PCN - issued for leaving site. Will also await
LoC
#Post#: 106091--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Ltd PCN – Driver Observed Leaving Site – Bentley Bridg
e Leisure Park, Wolverhampton, Again
By: DWMB2 Date: January 15, 2026, 12:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=soccercaptain60
link=topic=9313.msg106086#msg106086 date=1768500675]
I have the same PCN - issued for leaving site. Will also await
LoC
[/quote]
If one turns up and you would like advice on it, make sure you
start your own thread.
*****************************************************