DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 104100--------------------------------------------------
UKPC Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay Strood,
Kent
DIR By: fanebaba
Date: December 30, 2025, 11:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
I've received a letter from UKPC with a PCN for parking outside
of the markings of the bay in Strood Retail Park, ME2 2AD.
I've appealed it saying I am the registered keeper and the car
was parked in that way only for a short while to unload donation
items for the Cancer Research Shop and only because the car next
to me was parked over the line of their own bay forcing me a bit
off to allow some space for unloading.
Please advise if there's any point for appealing this further or
if I should pay the discounted fine of £60.
Thank you.
Date of Event: 19/11/25
Date of Letter: 26/11/25
Link to PCN letter
HTML https://ibb.co/ccG4JXs0
The car outside the bay
HTML https://ibb.co/wFPVsGms
Google maps location
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/nfUcTziYCga1Bscp7
Parking Charge Details and Sign
HTML https://ibb.co/whNsbpB7
Appeal response from UKPC 12/12/2025
HTML https://ibb.co/jkHCLdGy
Thank you for your help.
Happy New Year!
#Post#: 104127--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay
Strood, Kent
DIR By: b789
Date: December 30, 2025, 5:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What, precisely, word for word, did you put in your appeal If
you've done anything like what you have just stated in your
opening post, you may have blabbed the drivers identity:
--- Quote from: fanebaba link ---
>
> I've appealed it saying I am the registered keeper and the car
was parked in that way only for a short while to unload donation
items for the Cancer Research Shop and only because the car next
to me was parked over the line of their own bay forcing me a bit
off to allow some space for unloading.
>
--- End Quote ---
Of course you never pay UKPC if you follow the advice you
receive here. However, we first need to know whether you have
blown the best defence by inadvertently identifying the driver.
The Keeper must always refer to the driver in the third person.
No "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that".
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant as it dos not
state a period of parking which means that it fails paragraph
9(2)(a).
Once you have shown us the exact wording of your initial appeal,
we can suggest a suitable POPLA appeal. There is no rush as you
have 33 days from the date of the initial appeal rejection to
submit your POPLA appeal. (14 January).
#Post#: 104134--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay
Strood, Kent
DIR By: fanebaba
Date: December 31, 2025, 1:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
Many thanks for your reply. This is my appeal word for word:
'Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to formally challenge this Parking Charge Notice.
I fully understand the requirement to park correctly within the
marked bay lines. However, on the day in question, this was not
possible through no fault of my own. The vehicle parked in the
bay next to my car was positioned across the dividing line and
encroaching into my bay. As a result, I had no safe or
reasonable way to park entirely within the lines while still
allowing my passenger to exit the vehicle.
My passenger was carrying items to donate to the Cancer Research
charity shop directly adjacent to the parking bays. Due to the
neighbouring car's position, if I had attempted to re-position
my vehicle strictly within the marked lines, my passenger would
have been physically unable to exit or unload the charity
donations. I therefore had to adjust my position slightly to
ensure safe access.
I would like to emphasise that I parked with care and
consideration, minimising any deviation from the bay markings as
much as the circumstances allowed. The situation was caused
solely by the improper parking of the adjacent vehicle, waich
left me with no practical alternative as you can see in the
pictures provided by the parking officer. Given these
circumstances, I respectfully request that the Parking Charge
Notice be cancelled. I believe this was an unavoidable
situation, and I acted responsibly and reasonably at all times.
Thank you for your understanding and consideration. I look
forward to your confirmation that the notice has been cancelled.
Yours faithfully'
#Post#: 104146--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay
Strood, Kent
DIR By: Dave65
Date: December 31, 2025, 4:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the driver was identified.
However, as b789 says this will be a drawn out process and most
likely will go to a court claim but would be defended and most
likely be discontinued.
#Post#: 104182--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay
Strood, Kent
DIR By: b789
Date: December 31, 2025, 10:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK. So you confirmed you were the Keeper but also admitted to
being the driver. For future reference, you must never, EVER,
admit to being the driver. There is no legal obligation on the
Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking
firm. Only the driver can liable.
However, in certain circumstances, as long as the operator has
fully complied with all the requirements of PoFA 2012, they can
transfer liability from the unidentified driver to the Keeper.
In most cases, and in particular yours, the Notice to Keeper
(NtK) is not fully compliant with PoFA as it fails to specify a
period of parking as required by paragraph 9(2)(a).
If the Keeper refuses to identify the driver, simply by only
referring to the driver in the third person, the operator cannot
transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known Keeper.
Unfortunately, your appeal handed them the liable party on a
plate because you identified yourself as the driver when there
was no legal obligation to do so.
So, we are where we are. What this means is that this will now
take much longer to conclude but is still easily won, as long as
you follow all the advice you receive here.
You now move on to the POPLA appeal. Whilst this supposed to be
an independent ADR, it isn't really. POPLA are funded by the
very firms they are supposedly adjudicating. The quality of
POPLA decisions are also very variable, with some assessors
being utter morons with clear lack of contract law knowledge.
There is no proper consistency in their decisions.
Even if POPLA is not successful, it doesn't matter. Their
decision is not binding on you and you certainly don't pay. It
just means that the process then moves on through the useless
debt recovery stage to the county court small claim. That is a
good thing, because it is the only stage where you are likely to
get a truly independent look at your case by a district judge.
However, I can tell you with greater than 99.9% certainty, that
a claim from UKPC that is issued through DCB Legal, will never
reach a hearing with a judge. As long as the advice given to you
here and the template defence, the claim will either be struck
out or discontinued. You just have to follow the advice.
For now, you have 33 days from the date of the initial appeal
rejection to submit your POPLA appeal. So, 14 January is the
deadline.
Use the following as your POPLA appeal:
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper of vehicle [VRM]. I appeal to POPLA
against UK Parking Control Ltd (“the Operator”) in respect of
Parking Charge Notice [PCN NUMBER], issued in relation to an
alleged contravention on 19/11/2025 at Strood Retail Park, ME2
2AD. Liability is denied in full. This appeal concerns
substantive issues of contract formation, evidential
sufficiency, the meaning of “parking”, and the Operator’s
compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Private
Parking Single Code of Practice (“PPSCoP”) and established
principles of contract law.
>
> The Operator bears the burden of proof and is put to strict
proof of: (i) the precise location and factual circumstances of
the alleged contravention; (ii) that a contract was capable of
being formed and was in fact formed, including evidence that any
mandatory consideration period had expired before enforcement;
(iii) that the alleged conduct amounted to “parking” rather than
a brief stop for unloading; (iv) that the sum demanded is
recoverable as a contractual charge rather than an unenforceable
penalty or damages dressed up as a contractual sum; and (v) that
the Operator has proper standing and landowner authority to
contract with motorists and to pursue charges in its own name.
Mere assertion is not evidence.
>
> 1. STRICT PROOF: CONSIDERATION PERIOD – UKPC HAS NO EVIDENCE
IT HAD ENDED (PPSCoP SECTION 5.1 AND ANNEX B)
>
> UKPC is alleging a contractual parking charge for “not parked
correctly within the markings of the bay or space”. However, the
PPSCoP makes clear that before any contract can be treated as
accepted, the driver must first be allowed a consideration
period.
>
> PPSCoP Section 5.1 requires operators to allow a consideration
period for the driver to read the terms and conditions and
decide whether to accept them or leave. PPSCoP Annex B further
explains that the consideration period is fundamental because it
is the point at which the driver is taken to have accepted the
terms and conditions, and it explicitly states that a
consideration period is not a free period of parking. Annex B
also requires that, where there is evidence the consideration
period has expired, the operator should retain evidence to show
how the consideration period had ended.
>
> In this case, the Operator has produced no evidence capable of
demonstrating that the vehicle remained in situ beyond the
mandatory consideration period, nor any evidence showing when or
how the consideration period ended. Evidence that a vehicle was
stationary at a particular moment does not establish that the
consideration period elapsed, nor that the driver accepted the
terms rather than leaving.
>
> Therefore, even if the still image shows the vehicle slightly
outside the bay markings, UKPC is put to strict proof of
compliance with PPSCoP Section 5.1 and Annex B by producing
retained evidence showing how the consideration period had ended
before enforcement. If UKPC cannot evidence expiry of the
consideration period, the charge was issued prematurely and in
breach of the PPSCoP, and POPLA must allow the appeal.
>
> 2. STRICT PROOF: UNLOADING IS NOT “PARKING” – JOPSON v
HOMEGUARD (2016) [B9GF0A9E] IS PERSUASIVE APPEAL AUTHORITY
>
> The alleged “parking” event was, in fact, a brief stop for
unloading. In Jopson v Homeguard (2016) [B9GF0A9E] (County Court
appeal, HHJ Harris QC), the court drew a clear and principled
distinction between “parking” and brief stopping for the
purposes of loading or unloading. The judge explained that the
ordinary meaning of “parking” does not extend to short-duration
stops that are part of the normal and reasonable use of land,
such as loading or unloading, as opposed to leaving a vehicle
parked for a period of time.
>
> Whilst Jopson is not binding on POPLA, it is persuasive
authority. A legally trained assessor will understand that
persuasive authority, especially a County Court appeal decision
with reasoned analysis, is relevant and should be taken into
account. POPLA is invited to apply that persuasive distinction
here.
>
> UKPC is therefore put to strict proof that the vehicle was
“parked”, rather than briefly stopped for unloading. In any
event, the Operator is also put to strict proof that any alleged
breach occurred only after the PPSCoP consideration period had
ended and a contract had been accepted. If the Operator cannot
prove expiry of the consideration period prior to enforcement,
the appeal must be allowed regardless of the vehicle’s position.
>
> If the Operator’s evidence does not demonstrate when and how
the consideration period ended, POPLA cannot properly conclude
that a contract was accepted or that enforcement was
permissible.
>
> 3. FAILURE TO PROVE ADEQUATE SIGNAGE – NO CONTRACT FORMED
>
> In the alternative, and without prejudice to the primary
grounds above, the Operator has failed to prove that any
contract could have been formed due to inadequate signage.
>
> A parking charge can only be recovered as a contractual term
if the terms were clearly and prominently brought to the
driver’s attention before any alleged acceptance. This requires
signage that is legible, prominent, and positioned so that a
driver can read and understand the terms in time to decide
whether to enter, stop, or leave.
>
> The Operator has produced no evidence showing:
>
> [indent]• the location of the signs in relation to where the
vehicle was observed;
> • the orientation of the signs relative to a driver’s line of
sight;
> • the font size, prominence, or readability of the terms;
> • what a driver would actually see on approach or at the
stopping position.[/indent]
>
> A generic assertion that “signage is displayed on site” is not
evidence of communication of contractual terms.
>
> The Operator is put to strict proof that:
>
> [indent](a) a compliant entrance sign was in place at the
material time, meeting the requirements of the BPA Code of
Practice v9, such that a driver on approach is clearly alerted
that the land is private, controlled, and subject to terms;
> (b) there were a sufficient number of prominent, adequately
positioned terms signs throughout the site, including in the
area where the vehicle was observed, so that a driver would
reasonably be expected to see them;
> (c) those terms signs were oriented and positioned to be seen
from a driver’s likely stopping/parking position and in the
immediate vicinity on foot; and
> (d) the core terms, and in particular the parking charge
itself, were prominently displayed and legible (not concealed
within dense or small-print text) at the material time.[/indent]
>
> The Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye v Beavis turned on
unusually prominent and clear signage, coupled with a specific
commercial justification. It does not permit operators to impose
a £100 charge on the basis of unclear, obscure, or unreadable
terms. Absent strict proof that the charge was prominently
displayed and legible at the material time, no contract can be
established and the appeal must be allowed.
>
> 4. FAILURE TO EVIDENCE LANDOWNER AUTHORITY AND STANDING
(PPSCoP SECTION 14.1)
>
> The Operator is put to strict proof that it had the necessary
landowner authority and standing to issue PCNs and to pursue
recovery in its own name at Strood Retail Park, ME2 2AD on
19/11/2025. This is a strict requirement, because an operator
that lacks authority from the landholder has no standing to
contract with motorists or to enforce parking charges.
>
> The Operator must therefore produce a contemporaneous written
agreement flowing from the landowner (or a party with properly
evidenced landholder rights) which was in force on the material
date. Whilst the Operator may redact genuinely commercially
sensitive financial information, any redaction must not obscure
the identity of the contracting parties, the land boundary, the
scope of authority, the duration of the agreement, or the
Operator’s authority to issue PCNs and pursue recovery in its
own name.
>
> A generic “authority statement”, witness template, or a
single-page agreement bearing signatures alone is not evidence
of standing and does not demonstrate compliance with the
mandatory requirements of the PPSCoP.
>
> In accordance with PPSCoP Section 14.1 (a–j), the Operator
must evidence, as a minimum, written authorisation that clearly
defines:
>
> [indent](i) the identity of the landowner and the contracting
parties, and the basis on which the signatory has authority to
bind the landowner;
> (ii) the start date, end date, and any renewal provisions
confirming the agreement was live on 19/11/2025;
> (iii) the land boundary and the exact area of operation,
supported by a site plan/boundary map;
> (iv) the scope of the Operator’s authority, including whether
it may issue PCNs, the circumstances in which it may do so, and
any restrictions;
> (v) any exemptions, permissions, or user classes and how these
are administered;
> (vi) the terms relating to signage responsibilities and
standards at the site; and
> (vii) explicit authority for the Operator to pursue charges to
recovery, including in its own name (not merely as an agent), if
that is what is claimed.[/indent]
>
> If the Operator cannot produce a compliant contemporaneous
contract (and boundary map) meeting PPSCoP Section 14.1, POPLA
must find that the Operator has failed to prove standing. In
those circumstances, no contract can be enforced by the Operator
and the appeal must be allowed.
>
> Conclusion
>
> The Operator has failed to discharge the burden of proof. It
has not demonstrated that the mandatory PPSCoP consideration
period had expired before enforcement, nor that a contract was
accepted. The alleged conduct amounts, on the evidence, to
unloading rather than “parking” within the ordinary meaning of
that term, as explained in Jopson v Homeguard (2016), which
POPLA is invited to treat as persuasive authority.
>
> In the alternative, the Operator has failed to prove that any
contract could have been formed due to inadequate signage, and
has further failed to evidence the landowner authority and
standing required by PPSCoP Section 14.1.
>
> In the absence of strict proof on these fundamental matters,
the charge is unenforceable. POPLA is therefore respectfully
invited to allow the appeal.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 104801--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay
Strood, Kent
DIR By: fanebaba
Date: January 6, 2026, 12:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks for your help. I've submitted the appeal to POPLA
today.
All the best in the new year!
#Post#: 114096--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay
Strood, Kent
DIR By: fanebaba
Date: March 23, 2026, 8:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello, as expected POPLA's appeal was unsuccessful and now UKPC
is demanding £100. I'm entering the debt recovery stage now
waiting for their threatening letters.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1