DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 107703--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Kingsley Village, Fraddon. Not parked within the
markings of bay or space.
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 28, 2026, 8:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> I think the fact that there is no evidence that “the
consideration period [had] expired” is key and maybe I should
state this first?
--- End Quote ---
I'd be tempted to lead with this point, it's arguably less
technical than some of the PoFA based points, and cuts to the
heart of the issue - they've not demonstrated that the driver
entered into a contract at all.
--- Quote from: CAPRICE63 link ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm not sure this is a strong point. There is no requirement to
use ANPR or to evidence when the vehicle entered or left the
site. They are required to 'specify' a period of parking (as per
your other point), which must be at least as long as the
relevant consideration period (unless they can demonstrate that
the consideration period can legitimately be ended early, which
I don't think they can in this case).
#Post#: 107704--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Kingsley Village, Fraddon. Not parked within the
markings of bay or space.
DIR By: CAPRICE63
Date: January 28, 2026, 8:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the prompt response [member=103]DWMB2[/member]
#Post#: 107940--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Kingsley Village, Fraddon. Not parked within the
markings of bay or space.
DIR By: CAPRICE63
Date: January 29, 2026, 2:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've amended as per [member=103]DWMB2[/member] comments.
--- Quote ---
> Re. POPLA Reference: xxxxx
>
> 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. No contract
> 2. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act
> 3. Inadequate signage/Ambiguous Signage
> 4. Duration of parking period
> 5. No evidence of Landowner authority
>
>
> 1. No Contract
> The NtK states “The Terms and Conditions of the car park were
[] agreed to by the driver when the vehicle was parked on
private land”. However, for a contract to have been agreed
certain conditions must have been met. One important conditions
that has not been met is set out in Section 5.1 of the Private
Parking Sector Single Code of Practice Version 1.1 dated 17
February 2025 – the “COP”
>
> 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.”
>
> UKPC has provided no “evidence the consideration period [had]
expired”. See 4. below (Duration of parking period) for
additional details.
>
> Therefore, in the absence of an 'agreed contract' I
respectfully request that my appeal is upheld.
>
>
> 2. 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
> 3. Inadequate signage/Ambiguous Signage
>
> I refer to Section 3 (signs and surface markings) of 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'
>
>
> 4. 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.
>
>
> 4. 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 ---
#Post#: 109764--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Kingsley Village, Fraddon. Not parked within the
markings of bay or space.
DIR By: CAPRICE63
Date: February 13, 2026, 3:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've now had a reply from POPLA.
Any advice would be appreciated.
It states: 'You have 7 days from the operator evidence
submission date - 13/02/2026. You will not have opportunity to
edit or add further detail once you have submitted your
comments.'
The case summary includes the text as well as some site photos
and the prior correspondence.
--- Quote ---
> On the 21/12/2025, our parking operative issued a parking
charge virtually to
> vehicle registration xxxx at Kingsley Village Shopping Park
(Car Park 1). The
> parking charge was issued because the vehicle was not parked
correctly in the bay
> markings.
> Following the parking event on 21/12/2025, UKPC had reasonable
cause to obtain
> the details of the registered keeper from the DVLA for the
purposes of issuing a
> Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by post- a copy of this PCN is
included in this pack.
> The PCN was issued on 24/12/2025
> The parking charge rate was £100.00, reduced to £60.00 if
payment was received
> within fourteen days.
> An appeal was received from the vehicle driver MR CHRISTOPHER
on
> the 04/01/2026, which the appeals department investigated and
decided to reject.
> Whilst UKPC note the comments, we cannot accept them as
evidence when
> reviewing a parking charge notice. A bay is an area that is
clearly defined on both
> sides in which the vehicle is to park. The area in which the
appellant’s vehicle was
> parked was not an authorised parking bay, as there were no
clear line markings
> delineating a designated parking space. The bays are clearly
identifiable and
> distinguishable from the unmarked area used by the appellant.
By parking outside of
> a designated bay, the appellant’s vehicle was positioned
in a manner that caused an
> obstruction.
> The appellant asserts that keeper liability does not apply
under the Protection of
> Freedoms Act 2012 on the basis that the driver has not been
identified. However,
> the operator has fully complied with the requirements of
Schedule 4 of the
> Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. A copy of the Notice to
Keeper has been
> provided, which contains all mandatory information prescribed
by the Act and was
> issued within the required statutory timescales. As such,
keeper liability has been
> correctly established, and the appellant’s submission on
this point is without merit.
> We can confirm that the relevant correspondence was issued and
sent accordingly.
> we have no control over any issues relating to the postal
service. In accordance with
> Paragraph 8(6) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (POFA), a
> notice sent by post is presumed—unless proven
otherwise—to have been delivered,
> and therefore 'given', on the second working day after the
date of posting. For the
> purposes of this provision, a 'working day' excludes
Saturdays, Sundays, and public
> holidays.
> For the avoidance of doubt, the purpose of entrance signs is
solely to advise
> Page 2 of 25
> motorists they are entering into private land and there are
parking conditions they
> must be aware of.Our signage conforms to the guidelines set
out within the code,
> and we are audited regularly by the BPA for those standards;
the signs must be
> provided to make it easy for motorists to find out what the
terms and conditions are
> and that the signs contain the specific parking terms
throughout the site, so that
> drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of
parking or leaving their
> vehicle. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in
intelligible language,
> so that they are easy to see, read and understand. The BPA
audits have confirmed
> that we follow this to their standard.
> Signage does not need to be positioned immediately adjacent to
every vehicle that
> parks on site, it is the responsibility of the motorist to
take reasonable steps to
> observe and comply with the instructions displayed on the
entrance signage.
> Motorists are expected to familiarise themselves with the
terms and conditions of
> parking as clearly communicated at the point of entry.
> Please see attached a signage plan showing the signage
locations, the entrance
> signage proof and onsite signage proof. We feel it reasonable
to suggest that the
> driver was advised sufficiently of the terms & conditions of
parking on site.
>
> A driver is permitted a consideration period by clause 5.1
Annex B of the Private
> Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) to review
the signs and decide if
> they are going to stay or go. The driver must have the chance
to consider the Terms
> and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking
contract’ with the motorist. If,
> having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park
but chooses to leave the
> car park, you must provide them with a reasonable
consideration period to leave.
> 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. The
> vehicle was parked adjacent to the signage and no one was at
the signage or in the
> vehicle, which supports the conclusion that a parking event
did take place.
>
> The appellant has stated that the keeper liability warning is
not in the prescribed
> PoFA 2012 format. Section 9(2)(f) states that the notice must
warn the keeper that:
> “if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day
after that on which the notice
> is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges
specified under paragraph (d)
> has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know
both the name of the
> driver and a current address for service for the driver, the
creditor will (if all the
> applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the
right to recover from
> the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;”
Having reviewed the notice,
> I am satisfied that it specifies all of this information.
Although I appreciate that it
> may not be stated verbatim, it contains the necessary
information nonetheless.
>
> The appellant has stated that there isn’t a clear date
that the period of parking. Having
> reviewed the notice, I can see that it specifies the date as
21/12/2025.
>
> The contract between UK Parking Control Ltd and the landowner
(or their managing
> agent) authorising UKPC to provide parking management, and
therefore issue
> parking charges to vehicles breaching the terms of parking, is
confidential and we
> are unable to provide a copy for reasons of commercial
sensitivity. We have
> however provided a redacted copy, with sensitive information
covered. The
> redacted contract confirms our authority in an ongoing
agreement. If neither party
> terminates the contract, as in this case, the contract will
continue on a rolling basis.
> We have provided the T&C’s in relation to the rolling
contract.
>
> Although the BPA Code of Practice outlines what authorisation
must set out, we
> Page 3 of 25
> have also shown that beyond checking documentation; there is
equipment, signage
> and on occasion personnel on site to manage the function of
enforcement and this
> cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. I am
sure that if the parking
> operator was not allowed to issue charges on site the
landowner would not permit
> the parking operator to keep its signage on site nor would the
landowner allow
> motorists to park on its land without authorisation.
> UKPC must maintain a consistent approach when issuing and
upholding a charge. In
> this instance, this vehicle had been parked on site in direct
breach of the terms and
> conditions of parking on site as stated on signage. The
vehicle was parked in close proximity to UKPC signage, please
see all photographic evidence to support this.UK Parking Control
signage complies fully with section 3 of the British Parking
Association Code of Practice and we reject the suggestion that
it is vague or misleading.
>
> Entrance signage advises motorists that terms of parking
apply, and that
> notices within the car park should be checked to identify the
full terms and
> conditions. These notices are placed throughout the car park.
It is ultimately the
> responsibility of the motorist to ensure they identify the
terms of parking, and then
> decide whether to park their vehicle, or leave the site if
they are unable to meet
> those terms.
> 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.
> Ultimately, it is fundamentally the responsibility of the
motorist to identify the terms
> of parking when leaving their vehicle on private land. If they
feel they are unable to
> adhere to the terms, they may leave the site before agreeing
to those terms.
> There are sufficient signs advising drivers that not parking
within bay markings may
> result in a parking charge being issued. MR CHRISTOPHER's the
vehicle
> was not parked correctly in the bay markings; consequently,
the parking charge was
> issued correctly.
> A letter was sent to MR CHRISTOPHER informing him of our
decision
> on the 27/01/2026
--- End Quote ---
I've started my comments as follows:
The operator UKPC seems to have buried the first ground of the
appeal:
1. No contract: On page 3 of the 'case+summary' UKPC include
a paragraph "A driver is permitted a consideration period by
clause 5.1 Annex B of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of
Practice (The Code) ..... The vehicle was parked adjacent to the
signage and no one was at the signage or in the vehicle, which
supports the conclusion that a parking event did take
place........"
Firstly, the vehicle was NOT parked adjacent to the signage.
This is clearly obvious from UKPC's own photographic evidence.
Secondly, 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'.
Thirdly, The COMMENTARY ON ANNEX B states "The purpose of this
Annex is to set the MANDATORY minima for the consideration and
grace periods that parking operators are required to apply in
accordance with 5.1 and 5.2....... The minimum consideration
and grace periods listed in Table B.1 must be applied by
parking operators." Table B.1 gives the minimum consideration
period as 5 minutes.
"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." This section of
the code is totally irrelevant as it lends itself to
subjectivity unless there is clear evidence that a vehicle was
parked for at least 5 minutes or unless UKPC are able to state
what a reasonable time period would be for any person of average
ability to exit a vehicle, find signage, read all the small
print of the terms and conditions and then return to a vehicle.
UKPC photographic evidence is time-stamped 11:11:54, 11:11:56
and 11:11:48. I would suggest that 8 seconds is not sufficient
time for any person of average ability to exit a vehicle, find
signage, read all the small print of the terms and conditions
and then return to a vehicle and leave the premises.
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.”
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.
UKPC also state "The appellant has stated that there isn’t
a clear date that the period of parking."
This is possibly an untruth as it is incoherent. The appeal
refers to no evidence of the consideration period having expired
- it does not dispute the date.
COMMENTARY ON ANNEX B
"The purpose of this Annex is to set the mandatory minima for
the consideration and grace
periods that parking operators are required to apply in
accordance with 5.1 and 5.2.
Factors to be taken into account are detailed in the relevant
clauses. 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.
B.1 The minimum consideration and grace periods listed in Table
B.1 must be applied by
parking operators."
3. Inadequate signage/Ambiguous Signage
UKPC state "The area in which the appellant’s vehicle was
parked was not an authorised parking bay, as there were no clear
line markings delineating a designated parking space. The bays
are clearly identifiable and distinguishable from the unmarked
area used by the appellant. By parking outside of
a designated bay, the appellant’s vehicle was positioned
in a manner that caused an obstruction."
It is clear from both UKPC and the keepers photographic evidence
that the vehicle was NOT positioned in a manner that caused an
obstruction. And I would reiterate the comments in the appeal
at section 3.
UKPC state "it is the responsibility of the motorist to take
reasonable steps to observe and comply with the instructions
displayed on the entrance signage. Motorists are expected to
familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions of parking
as clearly communicated at the point of entry."
I would reiterate the comments in the appeal at section 3.
Also, UKPC's own signage plan shows there is only one 'Entry'
sign (number 1 on the plan). The picture dated 8 July 2025
seems to show the entry sign at that date but is photographed
from a standing position in front of the sign. However, I would
reiterate the comments of the appeal: '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”.'
UKPC's photographic evidence cannot be relied upon as it is out
of date and not viewed from the position of a driver's seat of a
vehicle entering the car park.
UKPC state "The vehicle was parked in close proximity to UKPC
signage, please see all photographic evidence to support this."
It is clear from both UKPC's and the keepers photographic
evidence that the vehicle was NOT parked in close proximity to
UKPC signage. The keepers photographic evidence shows the
closest signage is behind foliage and at a height that makes the
font illegible from a standing position.
UKPC state "UK Parking Control signage complies fully with
section 3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice
and we reject the suggestion that it is vague or misleading".
However, they have not addressed the existence of the other
signs in the keepers photographic evidence one of which
indicates the property “is managed by Savills” and
another which indicate “Parking time limit is 3
hours” without any conditions attached.
It should be noted that Savills is party to the redacted
contract provided by UKPC.
#Post#: 109767--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Kingsley Village, Fraddon. Not parked within the
markings of bay or space.
DIR By: CAPRICE63
Date: February 13, 2026, 4:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
PS.
The contract with the landowner is redacted.
However, a simple copy/paste unhides the redacted sections as
follows:
Authority Agreement
I confirm that I am authorised on behalf of Savills (UK)
Limited, acting as agent for and on behalf of each of
its client detailed above.
To instruct UK Parking Control Ltd to enforce parking control
and issue enforcement notices in keeping
with the agreed terms and wording as set out upon the warning
notices affixed on the land known as:-
Kingsley Village Shopping Park (Car Park 1), Penhale, Cornwall,
TR9 6NA
Charges 2 x Entrance Sign @ £60 Each = £120.00+VAT
16 x Contravention Signage @ £30 Each = £480.00+VAT
ANPR Kit & Installation = £13,387.00+VAT
Total Cost = £13,987.00+VAT
Cost Neutral – UKPC will recover the charges from the
Commission, as set out in
this schedule
Commission We will pay you a commission equal to 20% of our Net
Profit (as defined in the
UK Parking Control Ltd (Terms and Conditions), to be paid
monthly in
arrears.
Equipment We will supply to you:
• terms and conditions of parking signs for display on the
Premises and
UK Parking Control Ltd will be responsible for installing and
maintaining those signs.
Hours of Operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Initial Period 36 months beginning on the Start Date.
Parking Charges UK Parking Control Ltd will issue parking
charges to drivers (or registered
keepers/owners) of Vehicles parked in breach of the Restrictions
at the Premises.
The amount of the parking charges will be £100 reduced to £60 if
paid within 14
days of issue.
Restrictions Details of the applicable parking conditions and
restrictions for the Premises are
as follows:
• No Parking on yellow lines or in an area with hatched markings
• 3 Hours Maximum Stay
• ANPR in Operation
• All vehicles must be parked only within marked bays.
• Disabled badge holders only in disabled bays. Valid disabled
badge
must be clearly displayed at all times.
• Important: if you leave this site whilst this vehicle remains
in the car park
you may be liable to receive a parking charge.
Services ANPR Services
UKPC will:
• Provide the Equipment
• Collect information (via the Equipment) within the Hours of
Operation
regarding the breach of the Restrictions from the Premises and
will
send that information to UKPC to enable us to apply to DVLA for
the
address of the registered keeper/owner
• Issue Parking Charges by post to the registered keepers/owners
of
Vehicles parked in breach of Restrictions
2
Warden Patrol Services
UK Parking Control Ltd will provide a uniformed warden who will:
• routinely patrol the Premises within the Hours of Operation;
• issue Parking Charges and take photographs of the Vehicle the
subject of a
Parking Charge; and
• send those photographs to Contractor name for display on the
Contractor
name website.
Savills:
• Require UK Parking Control Ltd to keep to a Regulatory
Parking Trade Association's Approved Operator
Scheme Code of Practice;
• acknowledge receipt of a copy of a Regulatory Parking Trade
Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code
of Practice;
• agree that if Savills request any change to the Services
and/or any of the above key terms, the change will
only be effective if and when UK Parking Control Ltd confirms
the change in writing and, where required
by UK Parking Control Ltd if and when Savills and UK Parking
Control Ltd) have entered into a written
agreement confirming adjustments to the Charges and/or Parking
Charges or Commission in order to take
account of such change;
• may request at any point from the time the Parking Charge
Notice (PCN) has been issued, UK Parking
Control Ltd cancel the specific PCN issued by UK Parking Control
Ltd for parking infringements at the
relevant Premises. There is no upper limit to the number of
PCN’s that can be cancelled if required by Savills.
• agree to update and maintain an exemption list of vehicle
registrations and bring this to the attention of UK
Parking Control Ltd in a timely manner prior to the Parking
Charge being issued.
• confirm that Savills authorise UK Parking Control Ltd to take
such action, including but not limited to
instigating court proceedings, as UK Parking Control Ltd
consider appropriate to recover the Parking
Charges due from drivers (or owners) who park Vehicles in breach
of the Restrictions; and
• confirm that Savills are the appointed agent in relation to
the premises and the landowner gives permission for
UK Parking Control Ltd to levy the Parking Charges at the
Premises.
• confirm and give UK Parking Control Ltd express permission to
install the ADSL line for the purposes of
providing the Services with expenses borne and maintained in all
material respects by UK Parking Control
Ltd.
• Authorisation is given subject to UK Parking Control Ltd
acting at all times within the guidelines as set out
by the DVLA and the clamping and removal of vehicles is only to
be carried out by Government SIA registered
and licensed operatives.
• This agreement can be terminated by EITHER PARTY with 1
months’ notice, this to be given in writing with
rights for UK Parking Control Ltd to collect any unpaid charges
issued up to termination date to be carried
over until all outstanding charges are collected.
3
Framework Agreement Number: FA1000457
Type: Authority Agreement
Specification: Car Park Control
Contract Start Date: 01/05/2022
Contract End date: 30/04/2022
Annual Cost £ + vat
TOTAL: £0.00
We, the undersigned, agree to the Order of the aforementioned
contract as described above. We also agree and reconfirm
that all other terms and conditions contained in the Contract
remain unchanged.
Signed for and on Behalf of UK Parking Control Ltd
................................................................................
Signed for and on behalf of RI MDC UK067 Limited c/o
Savills (UK) Limited acting as agent for and on behalf of each
of its owners;
...............................................................................
Invoices should clearly display the Order Number, failure to do
so may result in a delay to payment.
Invoices must be addressed to the Owner c/o Savills (UK) Limited
at the address stated on the Order.
Payment Terms 40 Days following the end of the month in which
the invoice was received by Savills
Any works carried out under or pursuant to this Order will be
subject to and governed by the Terms and Conditions of the
Framework
Agreement referenced above
Ben Cooke (Apr 26, 2022 12:03 GMT+1)
Ben Cooke
Emma Taylor (Apr 26, 2022 12:18 GMT+1)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Powered by TCPDF
(www.tcpdf.org) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Powered by
TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
#Post#: 109934--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Kingsley Village, Fraddon. Not parked within the
markings of bay or space.
DIR By: CAPRICE63
Date: February 16, 2026, 7:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I've managed to put the redacted docs online:
UKPC reply to POPLA appeal
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1DumQEyZSDTqNDy2tnjhAKH6M143BWbr1?usp=sharing
My photos of the signage are here: photos
HTML https://photos.app.goo.gl/Kxrd5pukUzjix9UK6
#Post#: 109943--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Kingsley Village, Fraddon. Not parked within the
markings of bay or space.
DIR By: CAPRICE63
Date: February 16, 2026, 9:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I've doctored one of the previous cases to form the basis of my
reply. But I need to reduce the character count.
--- Quote ---
> I respond to the operator's evidence as follows:
> But first I must point out some incorrect statements in their
evidence:
> a)
MR ..”. However, the appeal was made by the keeper.
> b)
caused an obstruction”. This is not true as can be seen in the
photos of the NtK. And I would reiterate the comments in the
appeal at section 3.
> c)
signage”. This is not true. The car was parked some distance
from the signage show in UKPC’s NtK photos.
> d)
clear date that the period of parking.” Whilst grammatically
incorrect, the keeper did not state the same.
> 1. PoFA Compliance: UKPC states that the Notice to Keeper
complies with Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012. This is incorrect. The NtK only includes a
single timestamp (11:12:14) and does not specify a "period of
parking" as required by Paragraph 9(2)(a). This omission means
that the NtK is non-compliant, and the operator cannot pursue
the registered keeper. UKPC has made no attempt to explain how a
single moment in time constitutes a period of parking, nor have
they addressed the precedent set in Brennan v Premier Parking
Solutions (2023), which confirms that a period of parking is
required. Without a recorded duration, it is also impossible to
establish whether the vehicle remained on site longer than the
minimum consideration period that must be allowed before any
contractual terms can take effect. Simply regurgitating that the
NtK is PoFA compliant does not make it so. PoFA is not a “best
efforts” checklist. It is an all-or-nothing statute. You cannot
be “mostly PoFA compliant” any more than someone can be “mostly
pregnant.” It’s binary: you either fully comply, or you don’t.
As shown here, UKPC does not.
> The purpose of this Private Parking Sector Single Code of
Practice 5.1 Annex B is to set the MANDATORY minima for the
consideration periods that parking operators are required to
apply. “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.”
> UKPC state “The vehicle was parked adjacent to the signage” –
this is not true. The car was parked some distance from the
signage show in UKPC’s NtK photos. Furthermore, that same sign
is some 10 feet or more above the road and partially obscured by
foliage.
> UKPC state “no one was at the signage or in the vehicle, which
supports the conclusion that a parking event did take place”.
This suggests that a driver cannot view other more easily
accessible signs without being presented with a PCN.
> UKPC has provided no “evidence the consideration period had
expired”.
> Therefore, in the absence of an 'agreed contract' I
respectfully request that my appeal is upheld.
>
>
> 2. Presumption of Driver Identity: UKPC has not identified the
driver. Their comments imply an assumption that the keeper was
the driver, but they have not contested or rebutted the legal
position in VCS v Edward (2023) which makes clear that no such
presumption exists in law. As UKPC has not identified the
driver, and PoFA has not been complied with, the keeper cannot
be held liable.
>
> 3. Landowner Authority: UKPC has failed to provide any
evidence of landowner authority. Their evidence pack does not
include a contract, redacted or otherwise, no witness statement,
and no proof that they are authorised to operate on this land.
UKPC’s narrative merely asserts that a contract exists, but
nothing is provided to support this. This is a clear breach of
Section 14 of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP)). POPLA requires documentary evidence of
landowner authority, and UKPC has failed to provide it. The
appeal must be allowed on this basis alone.
>
> 4. UKPC’s photographic evidence shows the vehicle parked along
side other vehicles parked on the same section of the car park.
However, whilst other sections on the car park include double
yellow lines and/or white road markings in the centre of a road
to indicate no parking, the subject area lacked any such
markings. Hence, if other cars are parked and a space is
between them without yellow or white lines any reasonable person
would view it as a parking place. UKPC’s signage evidence
indicates ‘no parking on yellow lines’ and also ‘no roadway
parking’ where white lines are marked on the roadway. UKPC have
not provided any signage or markings to warn drivers that use of
such areas would result in a PCN.
> This layout appears to be a deliberate entrapment setup: the
road visually invites people to use it. Rather than include
yellow lines, UKPC instead chooses to entrap. This is unfair,
and the alleged contravention is not clearly established. The
burden of proof remains with UKPC, and they have failed to
discharge it.
>
> 5. UKPC’s failure to include yellow or white lines in this
area suggests that enforcement is not based on genuine
management, but on opportunistic ticketing – especially in view
of the number of cars parked in the area. This undermines any
suggestion that the charge serves a legitimate interest and
instead reflects a model based on entrapment.
>
> 6. Signage and Photographic Evidence: UKPC has included
photographs of signage taken at the time of the alleged
contravention, but these images do not assist their case. UKPC
fails to address the keeper’s evidence of ambiguous signage (see
previous photos) or the fact 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”.
> UKPC, have not addressed the existence of the other signs in
the keepers photographic evidence one of which indicates the
property “is managed by Savills” and another which indicate
“Parking time limit is 3 hours” without any conditions attached.
> UKPC's photographic evidence cannot be relied upon as it is
out of date and not viewed from the position of a driver's seat
of a vehicle entering the car park.
> Furthermore, POPLA has previously upheld numerous appeals
where UKPC signage was found to be non-compliant with both PoFA
and the BPA Code of Practice. The signs in this case suffer from
the same fundamental defects: poor layout, inadequate font size,
and failure to make key terms—particularly the
charge—sufficiently prominent.
>
> UKPC has failed to show that any contract could have been
formed, and therefore cannot demonstrate that a contravention
occurred.
>
> 7. Generalised Assertions: UKPC repeatedly rely on boilerplate
language rather than addressing the specific context of this
case. They refer to signage and enforcement “throughout the car
park” but do not show current information – UKPC photos are
dated July 2025. The operator must prove the terms were
properly conveyed and that the driver breached them—this has not
been done.
>
> In conclusion, UKPC has failed to prove valid PoFA compliance,
failed to prove landowner authority, failed to provide adequate
signage evidence from the material date, failed to justify the
charge under Beavis, and failed to rebut the specific arguments
made in my appeal. I respectfully request that POPLA allow this
appeal and cancel the PCN.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 110065--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Kingsley Village, Fraddon. Not parked within the
markings of bay or space.
DIR By: CAPRICE63
Date: February 17, 2026, 7:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I have another couple of days before I need to submit a response
to the operator's comments.
I'd be grateful for any advice before I submit please.
Thanks
#Post#: 110488--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Kingsley Village, Fraddon. Not parked within the
markings of bay or space.
DIR By: CAPRICE63
Date: February 20, 2026, 8:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've submitted my response to the operator's comments - Let's
see what happens next.
I'm assuming a few more forms then mediation phone call.
#Post#: 115637--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Kingsley Village, Fraddon. Not parked within the
markings of bay or space.
DIR By: CAPRICE63
Date: April 12, 2026, 10:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi and thanks for all the relevant information on this forum.
I've just received a "Your appeal was not successful" response
from POPLA.
From reading the forum threads I assume I just wait for and
ignore any "Debt Collection Letters".
Then I wait for the "Letter Before Claim" at which point I need
to respond further.
Thanks in advance for any comments.
FYI the POPLA response is as follows:
Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name: Richard Beaden
Assessor summary of operator case:
The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the
driver was not parked correctly within the markings of a bay or
space.
Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant advises that they are the keeper of the vehicle
and dispute that the operator has complied with the Protection
of Freedoms Act (2012). The appellant disputes that a
consideration period has been allowed. The appellant questions
the adequacy of the signs on site. They have asked to see
evidence that the operator has a valid contract with the
landowner. The appellant has provided photos of the signs at the
site and a document detailing their appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision:
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator
has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver
has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the
car park. The operator is holding the appellant liable as the
keeper of the vehicle using Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). The operator has provided a
copy of the notice which shows that it contains all of the
required wording and was sent out within the required time
scales. The notice has a single time and date on it and the
parking event is the period of time directly before the specific
time. There is no requirement within the Protection of Freedoms
Act (2012) for the notice to specify the duration the driver was
parked the only requirement is that the notice details the
period of parking it relates to. One moment in time is a period
of parking. I am satisfied that this notice meets this
requirement. There is also no requirement in law for the exact
wording to be quoted within the notice as long as the meaning of
the wording is the same as it is with this notice. Section 5.1
of the Single Code of practice requires the operator to allow a
consideration period. This can end sooner than the time
specified in annex B.1. In this case the operator has provided
photos of the appellants vehicle on site which is empty and
photos of the closets signs this confirms that the driver was
not trying to review the signs and as such I am satisfied that
the operator has proven that the consideration period had ended.
I note that all of the operator’s images of the parking event
are date and time stamped. As the driver was parked in breach of
the terms and conditions no grace period would apply. Section 3
of the Single Code of Practice sets out the requirements for
signs. Both the operator and appellant have provided photos of
the signs at the site. Both the operator and appellant have
shown that there is a clear entrance sign in the required
format. It is sized so that the driver would have been able to
see this while driving as confirmed by the appellants image of
this sign. The entrance sign provides a clear warning regarding
the use of ANPR cameras as can also be seen in the appellants
own image of this sign. The signs fully comply with the
requirements of Annex A. The operator has also shown that there
are prominent terms and conditions signs throughout the site
including signs on lighting poles so I am satisfied that the
clear blue and white signs would have been visible at all times
of the day and night. There was a sign just a few meters from
where the driver was parked as shown by the operator’s photos of
the parking event. The signs make it clear that there is a three
hour maximum stay with no charges required. They warn that all
vehicles must park within a marked bay or a parking charge of
£100 will be issued. I note that the appellants own photos prove
that clarity of the terms and conditions signs and show their
prominence and visibility. I note that the amount of the PCN is
clearly highlighted with a black box so that it is prominent and
is in a font comparable with the rest of the text on the signs.
I note that the appellant has provided photos of signs which are
not the operators and a such the operator is not responsible for
them. The terms and conditions are made clear. If the appellant
has concerns about the other signs on site, they should raise
these concerns with the landowner. The operator has shown that
there were no bay markings where the appellant parked so it was
clear that this was not a permitted parking area. By parking
outside of a marked by the driver was obstructing other
motorist’s movements around the car park. Other vehicles being
parked in similar manner is not an indication that this was a
valid parking location. Section 14 of the Single Code of
Practice requires the operator to have an agreement in place
before it starts management of a site. In this case the operator
has provided a copy of the contract it holds so I am satisfied
that on the balance of probabilities there is a valid contract
for the operator to manage parking in this location. After
considering the evidence from both parties, the driver parked
outside of a marked bay and 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.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page