DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 106897--------------------------------------------------
UKPS PCN – Unauthorised parking – Wing Yip, Purley
By: allin289 Date: January 21, 2026, 7:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all, I’m looking for some advice on how to deal with this
PCN.
I as the registered keeper received a PCN through the post today
on 21 January for “unauthorised parking”.
The letter doesn’t explain why it was unauthorised, but I am
guessing they thought the driver had left the premises. There
are bank statements proving that purchases were made.
Another victim posted that they received a very similar letter
and managed to get it cancelled by UKPS
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/pcn-unauthorised-parking/,<br
/>would you recommend appealing as they did? I have tried
contacting Wing Yip to get them to intervene but they did not
care.
Many thanks
PCN here:
HTML https://ibb.co/MxyrD7Gj
HTML https://ibb.co/7xMFPvj6
#Post#: 106907--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN – Unauthorised parking – Wing Yip, Purley
By: RichardW Date: January 22, 2026, 1:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The OP in the linked case didn't disclose what they put in the
appeal, but appeared to be along the lines of genuine user.
So you could try a 2 pronged appeal, 1 that you were a customer
and 2 their notice is not POFA compliant to transfer liability
to keeper. It might work; or it might not! What ever you do,
don't disclose the driver's identity - even by accident, e.g.
selecting a drop down box on their web form, or saying I did
such and such - refer to drive in 3rd person.
#Post#: 107153--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN – Unauthorised parking – Wing Yip, Purley
By: allin289 Date: January 23, 2026, 2:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Richard, I intend to appeal with the below.
I also went on the payment page (not that I intend to pay them)
and to my surprise, there were a couple more photographs such as
this:
HTML https://postimg.cc/wRRTFMBw
Is their use of camera and
tracking of individuals legal? It is rather worrying…
***
Dear UKPS Limited,
Re: Parking Charge Notice X – Vehicle Registration X
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I am writing
to appeal this Parking Charge Notice. There will be no
admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be
drawn.
On X 2026, the driver and occupants were genuine customers of
Wing Yip, spent £XX in-store at Wing Yip (bank statement and
copy of receipt attached), and the vehicle remained in the car
park for less than one hour (well within the stated two-hour
maximum stay). The vehicle was therefore parked in accordance
with the intended use of the car park and no contractual breach
occurred.
The driver and occupants are regular customers of Wing Yip and
Tai Tung Restaurant and have visited the site frequently.
Purchase records attached show spending in excess of £800 over
the past seven months alone, and the driver has always complied
with the car park’s terms.
The Parking Charge Notice describes the contravention as
“Unauthorised Parking” but does not explain the basis for this
allegation. Please clarify the specific breach you contend
occurred. Please also provide the evidence relied upon,
including copies of the signage in place at the material time
and your photographs/ footage which I am requesting under a
subject access request.
As the driver was a legitimate customer on the date in question
and complied with the car park’s terms, this charge is
unjustified and should be cancelled. In addition, I would also
like to point out that the Parking Charge Notice does not comply
with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012,
therefore liability cannot be transferred to the keeper. Should
you decide not to cancel the charge, please provide a detailed
explanation and the relevant appeals information so that I may
escalate the matter. Should this charge not be cancelled, I
fully intend to contest this in court and will make a complaint
to your client landowner, MP and local newspaper.
I enclose copies of the relevant bank statement records to
demonstrate that the driver was a genuine customer on the date
in question.
I look forward to your confirmation that this Parking Charge
Notice has been cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
X
Registered Keeper of Vehicle X
#Post#: 107356--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN – Unauthorised parking – Wing Yip, Purley
By: allin289 Date: January 26, 2026, 3:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just an update UKPS has rejected the appeal. Under the current
advice is an appeal to the IAS recommended? I am aware it will
likely be rejected as well.
Adding pictures of signage:
HTML https://ibb.co/3mMsqWz0
HTML https://ibb.co/JRfbjbmh
HTML https://ibb.co/hT1RvJT
“Thank you for your appeal.
Having noted your comments, and checking the evidence gathered
when issuing the Parking Charge, we are satisfied that the
Parking Charge has been issued correctly and your appeal is
rejected.
There are clear signs informing all drivers they must remain
onsite for the entire duration of the stay. It is the drivers
sole responsibility to ensure they are familiarising themselves
with the signs and adhering to the terms and conditions stated
within them. As you can see from the photographic evidence, the
vehicle parked up, the driver exited and walked offsite. As the
driver did not remain onsite for the entire duration of the
stay, this parking charge has been issued correctly.
All of our signage is fully compliant with the guidelines set
out within The Single Code of Practice and we reject the notion
that it is in any way unclear or ambiguous. The signage is
printed on reflective material and is clearly illuminated in
vehicle headlights within hours of darkness.
Please be advised that all photographic evidence can be viewed
by typing: pay.theukps.com in to your top address browser.
Payment is now due to be made.
Current balance owed: £60
* This outstanding balance will increase to £100 in 14 days from
the date of this letter.
If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to
appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). In order to
appeal, you will need your Parking Charge number and your
vehicle registration. Appeals must be submitted to the IAS
within 28 days of the date of this letter/email. Please visit
www.theias.org for full details. Please be advised, should your
appeal be dismissed by the IAS, you will no longer have the
ability to pay the reduced amount of £60.
For free advice regarding your parking charge, including advice
on appealing, please visit: www.247advice.co.uk
If you choose to do nothing, after 56 days from the incident
date, the parking charge will be passed to our debt recovery
agent, at which point you will be liable to pay additional
charges in accordance with our terms and conditions of parking
and further charges will be claimed if Court action is taken
against you.
Please do not ignore this communication.
Payment Methods:
1) Bank Transfer
Account UKPS LTD
Account No: 25006760
Sort Code: 30-99-15
2) Cheque / Postal Order
UKPS Ltd
PO BOX 6974
Leamington Spa
CV31 9QU
3) PayPal/Stripe (Please see the Parking Charge Notice to keeper
for details)
Kind Regards
UKPS Limited Appeals Team”
#Post#: 107365--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN – Unauthorised parking – Wing Yip, Purley
By: RichardW Date: January 26, 2026, 5:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No harm in appealing to IAS - it's not binding, and it costs
them time and money!
#Post#: 107432--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN – Unauthorised parking – Wing Yip, Purley
By: allin289 Date: January 26, 2026, 12:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Richard, draft appeal to IAS below, based on the generic
IAS template. Please let me know any suggestions, or if it would
help to see the photographs (appear to be CCTV stills) they
provided on the payment page.
Many thanks.
***
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability
for this parking charge and appeal in full.
1. Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention
As the registered keeper, I am not obliged to identify the
driver. UKPS bears the burden of proof. The photographs provided
by UKPS purport to prove that “the driver exited and walked
offsite”, but they do not support this allegation. The images
provided are of multiple individuals - UKPS has not identified
who they allege was the driver, nor provided any evidence that
any person shown in the photographs was the driver of the
vehicle.
On the contrary, the photographs UKPS provided show the
individual(s) walking out of Wing Yip store into the car park,
and none of the photographs show the same individual(s) leaving
the site. If anything, these images demonstrate that the
individuals depicted in the photographs were customers of Wing
Yip and remained on site.
Mere speculation that a person in an image is the driver is
insufficient. I put UKPS to strict proof of their allegation.
Such evidence should include photographs of the contravention
and a site map and a picture of the signage that would have
communicated to the driver the defined boundary of the site they
are alleged to have left.
2. No site boundary defined
The only signs evidenced say variations of “Parking is for
customers only” and “Drivers must remain on the premises at all
times”. No plan, map, line, boundary, or marker is identified
anywhere. Motorists are not told or show any map of where
“premises” begin or end, nor warned when crossing an undefined
point becomes a £100 event. An uncertain, unmarked boundary
cannot form part of a fair or enforceable contract. Any alleged
breach dependent on undefined geography fails for uncertainty.
No explanation has been provided as to what constitutes “leaving
the site” and it has not been established whether the driver was
on site all along.
If no such sign or evidence exist, then I contend that the
driver could not have known where the car park site boundary
began and ended and in the absence of proof, I deny that there
was any contravention. As a result, there was no contract formed
with the driver to pay a charge in exchange for going off site;
there was no consideration, offer or acceptance and no site
boundary defined.
Even if a sign says a charge can be issued for 'leaving the
premises', this means nothing if 'the premises' is not defined.
This could include any number of shops, a cash point, toilets,
cafe, drop-off areas, delivery area, the car park itself, rest
area/benches and any other section of a retail park.
3. Genuine customer
As already noted in the appeal to UKPS, the driver/ occupants
were genuine customers of Wing Yip, spent £X in-store at Wing
Yip, and remained on-site for less than one hour (well within
the stated two-hour maximum stay). I enclose a copy of the
purchase receipt. The vehicle was therefore parked in accordance
with the intended use of the car park and no contractual breach
occurred.
Evidence
The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must
establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract
was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has
lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices
(PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to
provide the following:
1. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that
was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of
the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site
plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of
the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage
was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of
Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged
contravention, including requirements relating to font size,
positioning, and the communication of key terms.
2. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease
flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to
manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own
name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of
the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out
mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any
parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have
in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:
• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific
permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising
consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the
Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition
precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance
with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that
contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The
document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons,
with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties
to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing
clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
3. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR, CCTV
or manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and
calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was
present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily
on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace
period as defined by the PPSCoP.
4. Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is
attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply
with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA
renders keeper liability unenforceable.
5. Strict proof that the NtK was posted in time for it to have
been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section
8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record
of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice
having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail
Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)
6. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors
or barristers.” Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions
are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no
transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a
motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual
supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this
really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict
proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186),
no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and
prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation
(ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that keeper liability
under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions
are met.
If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and
accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator,
that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to the
growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent
nor genuinely legally qualified.
In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety as the keeper
and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry
codes of practice, and basic contractual principles.
*****************************************************