DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 104482--------------------------------------------------
UKPC Kingsley Village, Fraddon. Not parked within the markings
of bay or space.
DIR By: CAPRICE63
Date: January 4, 2026, 6:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Happy New Year.
I'd be grateful for any advice on the following please. I have
14 days from 24/12/25 to appeal.
I am the registered keeper and I received the Parking Charge
Notice on 2 Jan 2025.
On 21 Dec 2025 the driver visited the M&S store in Kingsley
Village, Fraddon, TR9 6NA.
It was a busy shopping day - the last Sunday before Xmas. It
was raining, and cars were backed up on the surrounding roads.
The sign on entry to the car park (image carparkentry_point,
close_up_entry) states '3 Hours Maximum Stay' and is difficult
to read from the position of the driver of the vehicle as the
sign is on the left. From the position of the driver and at the
distance on entry, whilst driving, the only legible words are '3
Hours Maximum Stay'.
The driver parked the car on the perimeter of the car park in a
space between several other cars parked along the same
perimeter.
There are no road markings on the road at the place where the
car was parked. There are no double yellow lines to indicate
'no parking'.
There is no sign at the parking place but there is one further
down which is not easily visible owing to its height (over 8ft.)
and the very small print.
As it was raining at the time the driver rushed into the store
for cover and was unable to notice any other signage that may
have been displayed around the car park.
The images of the signs around the car park were taken some days
later on 3rd Jan 2026. They seem a little confusing because
there are signs that say; 'Please be advised the parking time
limit is 3 hours - Kingsley Village', 'Please be advised the car
park gates are locked at 10pm and re-opened at 6am - Kingsley
Village - We are unable to gain access to these premises between
10pm and 6am', 'this property is managed by Savilles', 'This car
park is on private land and parking control is managed by UK
Parking Control Ltd.'
The keeper of the car contacted
retailcustomer.services@marks-and-spencer.com saying ".... I
trust you will contact UKPC to ensure they cancel the incorrect
parking charge".
The reply from M&S was "Kindly contact the Euro car park: 020
7563 3000 as they deal with the packing charge".
The keeper of the car also visited the M&S store and spoke to a
member of the management team who gave her name as Jasmine
McMorram (although her name badge was ABBIE). She said she
would contact UKPC to see what she could do but could not make
any promises.
There seems to be much confusion with signs that refer to UKPC,
Kingsley Village and Savilles and M&S staff referring to Euro
Car Park.
Photos show; the approach to the car park, the various signs,
the view from the parking spot, one showing no road markings at
the parking spot, cars parked around the perimeter, road
markings at other parts of the car park.
There are also photos of the Parking Charge and the photos
(UKPC_Photo01 - UKPC_Photo04) taken by someone that, I assume,
works for UKPC. There is also a photo showing the height of the
notice that is included in the photos of the Parking Charge.
Album:
HTML https://photos.app.goo.gl/Kxrd5pukUzjix9UK6
photos
HTML https://photos.app.goo.gl/Kxrd5pukUzjix9UK6
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
#Post#: 104490--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Kingsley Village, Fraddon. Not parked within the
markings of bay or space.
DIR By: jfollows
Date: January 4, 2026, 7:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So the “period of parking” as required by the legislation to
transfer the liability from the driver to the registered keeper
is ?
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4
--- Quote ---
> (1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for
the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with
this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
>
> (2)The notice must—
>
> (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was
parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 104513--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Kingsley Village, Fraddon. Not parked within the
markings of bay or space.
DIR By: CAPRICE63
Date: January 4, 2026, 9:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the reply [member=636]jfollows[/member].
From the legislation it appears that the letter from UKPC is a
fine for not parking in a marked bay.
Therefore, I assume I can ignore the letter or do I need to
appeal on the basis that it is not a parking charge?
Thanks
#Post#: 104531--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Kingsley Village, Fraddon. Not parked within the
markings of bay or space.
DIR By: Dave65
Date: January 4, 2026, 10:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The signage does show that there is no roadway parking and to
park in a marked bay.
However, with UKPC and Ecp as advised by b789 you would not be
paying anything to these two.
#Post#: 104536--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Kingsley Village, Fraddon. Not parked within the
markings of bay or space.
DIR By: CAPRICE63
Date: January 4, 2026, 11:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your reply [member=1555]Dave65[/member].
I thought I'd searched most of this site but your answer helped
me search deeper.
Now, as I see it, as per b789 quote
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/ukcps-ntk-for-not-parked-correctly-within-the-markings-of-the-bay-or-space/msg101023/#msg101023<br
/>I will reply to UKPC with:
--- 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 ---
#Post#: 104541--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Kingsley Village, Fraddon. Not parked within the
markings of bay or space.
DIR By: jfollows
Date: January 4, 2026, 11:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, and it’s not a “fine”.
#Post#: 104556--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Kingsley Village, Fraddon. Not parked within the
markings of bay or space.
DIR By: CAPRICE63
Date: January 4, 2026, 2:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Much appreciated. Thank you for your time.
#Post#: 105968--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Kingsley Village, Fraddon. Not parked within the
markings of bay or space.
DIR By: CAPRICE63
Date: January 15, 2026, 3:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Latest update. I am now at the same stage as mentioned in this
post and I've replied in the same way.
Letter asking for driver details
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/ukcps-ntk-for-not-parked-correctly-within-the-markings-of-the-bay-or-space/msg102544/#msg102544
Let's see what happens next.
#Post#: 107499--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Kingsley Village, Fraddon. Not parked within the
markings of bay or space.
DIR By: CAPRICE63
Date: January 27, 2026, 8:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I've just received the next letter with the option to "Make an
appeal to the independent adjudicator POPLA (Parking on Private
Land Appeals)".
I'll do a search on here then put some words together for an
appeal to POPLA?
Thanks
Letter text
--- Code ---
Dear Mr christopher,
Thank you for your recent communication concerning parking
charge reference .
Date:
Reference:
Registration:
POPLA Reference:
27 January 2026
We have carefully considered your appeal based on the
information provided and the evidence supporting the parking
charge. In this instance having
completed our assessment, we consider the parking charge to
have been correctly issued, as the vehicle was not parked
correctly in the bay markings.
Our appeals process is now concluded, you may now choose one
of the following options:
1) Pay the parking charge detailed above at the rate of £60.00
to UK Parking Control Ltd. PLEASE REFER OVERLEAF FOR PAYMENT
OPTIONS AND
ADDRESS DETAILS.
2) Make an appeal to the independent adjudicator POPLA
(Parking on Private Land Appeals) using the verification code
provided above. Please note that if
you wish to appeal to POPLA, you will lose the right to pay
the discounted rate of £60.00 even if you are within the
timeframe, and should POPLA reject
your appeal you will be required to pay the full amount of
£100.00. If you opt to pay the parking charge you will be unable
to appeal with POPLA. Appeals
to POPLA must be made within twenty-eight days from the date
of this letter. To appeal with POPLA, please visit
www.popla.co.uk. If you are unable to
access the internet, you may appeal by post – this must be
done using a POPLA postal form which may be obtained by
contacting POPLA by phone (0330
159 6126) or post (PO Box 1270, Warrington, WA4 9RL).
By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman
Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative
dispute resolution service
that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we
have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute
resolution service. As such
should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as
explained above.
3) If you choose to do nothing, the parking charge will
automatically increase after thirty-five days from the date of
this letter and the matter will be passed
to our debt resolution partner, at which point you will be
liable to pay an additional charge of £70, in accordance with
the terms and conditions of parking.
Further charges will be claimed if court action is taken
against you, any unpaid court judgement may adversely affect
your credit rating.
Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department
UK Parking Control Limited
--- End Code ---
#Post#: 107700--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Kingsley Village, Fraddon. Not parked within the
markings of bay or space.
DIR By: CAPRICE63
Date: January 28, 2026, 8:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here's my draft POPLA appeal.
I'd be grateful for any feedback.
I think the fact that there is no evidence that “the
consideration period [had] expired” is key and maybe I should
state this first?
I will include some of the attached photos with the appeal.
photos
HTML https://photos.app.goo.gl/Kxrd5pukUzjix9UK6
Thanks
--- Quote ---
> Re. POPLA Reference: xxxxxx
>
> I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxx and I dispute the
above-referenced Parking Charge. The NtK (Notice to Keeper) is
not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA (Protection of
Freedoms Act) which means that they cannot transfer liability
for the charge to the keeper. I therefore dispute the charge on
the following grounds :
> 1. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act
> 2. Inadequate signage/Ambiguous Signage
> 3. No evidence of parking
> 4. No evidence of Landowner authority
>
> Non-Compliance with POFA
>
> Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) is binary (“MUST” means all or
nothing)
>
> Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) does not say the notice should
include certain things. It says: “The notice must — (a)… (b)…
(c)… (d)… (e)… (f)… (g)… (h)… (i)…”. “Must” is compulsory. PoFA
9(2) is a statutory gateway to keeper liability: either every
required element is present or the gateway never opens. There is
no such thing as “partial” or even “substantial compliance” with
9(2). Like pregnancy, it is binary: a notice is either
PoFA-compliant or it is not. If one required limb is missing,
the operator cannot use PoFA to pursue the keeper. End of.
>
> Here the missing limb is 9(2)(a). That sub-paragraph requires
the NtK to specify 'the period of parking to which the notice
relates'.
>
> What this NtK actually does is specify one moment in time -
that being '21/12/2025 at 11:12:14'. This does not demonstrate
any 'period' which is defined as a length or interval of time
with a specific start and end.
>
>
> Ambiguous Signage
>
> I refer to Section 3 (signs and surface markings) of the
Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice Version 1.1 dated
17 February 2025 – the “COP”
>
> The commentary states “Signs and surface markings must be ....
unambiguous to drivers.”
>
> Section 3.1.2 states “The size and positioning of the sign
must take into account the expected speed and direction of
travel of vehicles approaching the entrance and must be visible
(i.e. not be obscured e.g. by foliage or other objects). The
design of entrance signs must comply with the requirements
detailed at Annex A”.
>
> The keeper has identified that the entrance sign is on the
left of the vehicle and is not legible from the driver's seat of
a vehicle entering from the road into the development except for
the words “P 3 Hours Maximum Stay”.
>
> Section 3.1.2 NOTE 2: states “Where cameras are installed
operators, are reminded of their obligations to inform motorists
that personal data is being obtained and/or retained.”
>
> The keeper has identified that nothing on the entrance sign
informs motorists that personal data is being obtained and/or
retained.
>
> Section 3.1.3 states “Signs within controlled land displaying
the specific terms and conditions applying must:”
>
> “a) be placed within the controlled land, such that drivers
have the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving
their vehicle;”
>
> The keeper has identified that there is no signage at the
place where the car appears to be parked (see photos in NtK
letter and also photos taken by the keeper at a later date).
>
> “b) be sufficiently large to be visible from a distance and
legible on approach;”
>
> The keeper has identified that the signage identified in the
NtK is not visible from the position of the car shown in the
NtK. Furthermore, the signage identified in the NtK is at a
height which makes it impossible to be read without the aid of a
step ladder (see photo of Keeper standing by the sign post).
>
> “f) ........ be clearly readable by a driver, having regard to
the likely position of the driver in relation to the sign;”
>
> See keeper's responses at Section 3.1.2, and also a and b
above.
>
>
> “h) display the parking tariff of sums payable, or indicate
where the tariff is displayed if separate, or the duration of
permitted free parking as appropriate;”
>
> The keeper has identified that none of the signs refer to
“Free Parking” or a “Tariff for Parking”
>
> “i) be clear, unambiguous ........”
>
> The keeper has identified that there is conflicting signage at
the site which indicate “Parking time limit is 3 hours” without
any conditions attached. Another sign identifies the property
“is managed by Savills” - see photos.
>
>
> Section 3.1.4 states “Signs informing drivers that a parking
charge may be applicable and of the level of that charge must do
so in a font of comparable size and boldness to the main body
text on the sign, and where included on signs also displaying
the parking tariff a font no smaller than the tariff
text/numbers.”
>
> The keeper has identified that none of the signs refer to
“Free Parking” or a “Tariff for Parking”
>
>
> Section 3.1.6 states “Signs must be designed and installed so
as to be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions
during which the controlled land may legitimately be accessed,
at a height that takes account of whether the signs are intended
to be viewed from the vehicle (including by headlight in the
hours of darkness) or having left the vehicle by a driver on
foot or in a wheelchair. ...
> NOTE 2: If there is more than one sign, all should be
consistent with regards to typeface style, size and weight,
colour and layout.”
>
> See keeper's responses at Section 3.1.2, and also a, b and i
above.
>
>
> Section 3.3 states “Where relevant obligations require drivers
to park within delineated parking bays, surface markings must be
applied and maintained in such a manner as to be clearly visible
to drivers in all lighting and weather conditions as might
apply. NOTE: ... it is good practice to use surface markings
to display symbols indicating restricted uses,”
>
> The keeper has identified that where the car is shown as
parked on the NtK there are no restrictions to parking and it
would appear, from the other cars in the photo on the NtK, that
there may have been parking available. The keeper has included
photos showing some of the car park roads where there are white
line marks but there are no similar white line marks where the
car is shown as parked in the NtK. Note, there are other
sections of the car park that have double yellow lines to
indicate 'no parking'
>
>
> Duration of parking period
>
> Section 5 states “As a matter of contract law, drivers need to
be given an appropriate opportunity to understand and decide
whether to accept the terms and conditions that apply should
they choose to park a vehicle on controlled land.”
>
> Section 5.1 states “Where a parking operator assumes a vehicle
is parked based on time alone they must allow a consideration
period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set
out at Annex B.”
>
> Annex B states “It is important to note that where there is
evidence the consideration period has expired the minimum period
of
> time for the consideration is not relevant however, the
operator should retain evidence to show how the consideration
period had ended.
> The significance of whether the consideration has expired is
fundamental as it is the point the driver has accepted the terms
and conditions attached to the controlled land in question. A
consideration period is not a free period of parking.”
>
> Annex B.1 states “The minimum consideration and grace periods
listed in Table B.1 must be applied by parking operators.
> NOTE: The consideration period may end earlier than the times
prescribed in Annex B where there is evidence that the driver
has accepted the terms and conditions applying (whether or not
they have chosen to read them), which may for example be
evidenced by
> the driver parking the vehicle and leaving the premises,
paying the applicable parking tariff, or remaining stationary
for more than 5 minutes.”
>
> The Keeper has stated above that the NtK actually only
specifies one moment in time - that being '21/12/2025 at
11:12:14'. However, none of the photographs on the website
'
HTML https://ukpcappeals.co.uk/Appeal/Review'
include a timestamp of
'11:12:14'.
>
> Furthermore, there is no evidence that “the consideration
period [had] expired”. In order to evidence any expired
consideration period the NtK must provide two time-stamped
photos of the car in the exact same position where the
time-stamps are a minimum of 5 minutes or 10 minutes apart
(dependent on the size of the car park). Also, there is no
evidence that the driver had accepted the terms and conditions
i.e. there is no evidence the driver parking the vehicle and
left the premises or that the car remained stationary for more
than 5 minutes.
>
>
> The signage at this location fails on all the above criteria.
>
> Considering the signage in place at this particular site
against the requirements of the COP and PoFA, it is beyond any
doubt that the signage is not sufficient to give adequate notice
of the charge and bring the parking charge to the attention of
the motorist.
>
>
> No evidence of parking
>
> I have seen examples of these ‘Notice to Keeper’ letters shown
to me by friends. It seems to be common practice to include
photos of the vehicle entering and leaving the site, together
with a time stamp. Whilst evidence of entering and leaving site
is not evidence of parking, UKPC have failed to include even
this basic information in their notice.
>
> I require full unredacted copies of photographs of the vehicle
entering and leaving the site which conform to Section 7.3 of
the COP. Without these, we only have UKPC’s word that an
infringement has potentially been committed.
>
> No evidence of Landowner authority
>
> The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of
contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority
flowing from the landowner of the “relevant land” to the
operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to
the landowner’s definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of
operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to
complaints nor that both the landowner and operator are in full
compliance with planning permission granted against a Traffic
Management Plan.
>
> Section 14 of the COP defines the mandatory requirements and
I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance. As this
operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant
land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the
contract with the landowner, to prove that they have the right
to enforce the charge in court in their own name.
>
> I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page