DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 109015--------------------------------------------------
UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail Park,
Wolverhampton
DIR By: parkinghelpplease
Date: February 7, 2026, 10:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Would appreciate your advice please.
Have see other posts regarding similar issue and wanted some
advice before appealing with the standard template letters.
Parked duration: 1 hour
UKCPS has provided photographic evidence of the parked car only
(no driver/passenger photos) and a photo of the signage:
HTML https://ibb.co/v63NstJm
I am the registered Keeper
I have attached the letter to this post
HTML https://ibb.co/qM8C0NKb
HTML https://ibb.co/SXGJX1nB
thank you
#Post#: 109017--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail
Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: Jackisback123
Date: February 7, 2026, 10:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO the Notice does not comply with Paragraph 9(2)(e) of
Schedule 4 of POFA because it does not "state that the creditor
does not know both the name of the driver and a current address
for service for the driver".
(Note this is different to the warning required under Paragraph
9(2)(f) which it does comply with.
Can you provide a picture of the signage please?
#Post#: 109018--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail
Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: parkinghelpplease
Date: February 7, 2026, 11:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
i've added a photo of the signage posted by UKCPS to original
post, however it's not clear what it says from their image.
#Post#: 109019--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail
Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: Jackisback123
Date: February 7, 2026, 11:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: parkinghelpplease link ---
>
> i've added a photo of the signage posted by UKCPS to original
post, however it's not clear what it says from their image.
>
--- End Quote ---
The photo of the signage doesn't work, please can you try again?
However you uploaded the letters worked, so maybe do the same?
#Post#: 109020--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail
Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: parkinghelpplease
Date: February 7, 2026, 11:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Jackisback123 link ---
>
> [quote author=parkinghelpplease
link=topic=9838.msg109018#msg109018 date=1770484152]
> i've added a photo of the signage posted by UKCPS to original
post, however it's not clear what it says from their image.
>
--- End Quote ---
The photo of the signage doesn't work, please can you try again?
However you uploaded the letters worked, so maybe do the same?
[/quote]
signage link added in original post
#Post#: 109056--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail
Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 8, 2026, 2:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The original PCN is not PoFA compliant.
As pointed out already, it is missing essential mandatory
wording from Schedule 4 para. 9(2)(e).
It is also missing the required 'period of parking' - only a
single time stamp is provided - this is insufficient
information.
#Post#: 109761--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail
Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: parkinghelpplease
Date: February 13, 2026, 3:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> The original PCN is not PoFA compliant.
>
> As pointed out already, it is missing essential mandatory
wording from Schedule 4 para. 9(2)(e).
>
> It is also missing the required 'period of parking' - only a
single time stamp is provided - this is insufficient
information.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you, therefore I shall submit an appeal via email using
the template letter pointing out that this PCN is not PoFA
compliant.
Sorry for the delay in replying as I was unable to access this
forum due to the webpage not working/loading.
Here is the statement that I will be using:
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. UKCPS 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.
UKCPS have no hope should you try and litigate this, so you are
urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the
PCN.
#Post#: 110112--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail
Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: parkinghelpplease
Date: February 17, 2026, 10:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Reply from UKCPS today, also added a clearer photo of signage:
HTML https://ibb.co/Xfc14mV3
Thank you for your appeal submitted on 15th February 2026. After
reviewing your comments, and carefully considering the evidence
collected at the time the Parking Charge was issued, we regret
to inform you that your appeal has been unsuccessful. The
reasons for our decision are detailed below:
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above Parking
Charge Notice. We have carefully reviewed your appeal and can
confirm that it has been unsuccessful.
The charge was issued because the driver was observed leaving
the site, which is a breach of the clearly displayed terms and
conditions of parking. Our operative recorded contemporaneous
notes confirming that a female with black hair, wearing a blue
jacket, black trousers, and pale pink trainers, was seen walking
off the site towards the hospital accompanied by two passengers.
While you have raised points regarding keeper liability under
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, please note that this
Parking Charge Notice has been issued based on the actions of
the driver at the time of the contravention. As you have not
identified the driver, liability for the charge currently
remains. If you wish to transfer liability, you may do so by
submitting a valid Transfer of Liability by providing the full
name and serviceable postal address of the driver. Should this
information not be supplied, the Parking Charge Notice remains
payable.
Parking at the above location requires the driver to remain
on-site throughout the entire period of parking. Failure to
comply with the terms and conditions, by parking and
subsequently leaving the site, will result in the driver being
contractually obligated to pay a parking charge.
Attached, you will find photographic evidence showing the
vehicle parked at the location mentioned above.
We have extended the opportunity for you to pay the reduced
amount of, £60.00, until 05/03/2026, after this date, the full
amount of £100.00 will be due.
#Post#: 110116--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail
Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: jfollows
Date: February 17, 2026, 11:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Note that none of your substantive points about non-compliance
with PoFA have been answered.
It’s what they do, they simply ignore the valid points you make
and address other ones which are mainly irrelevant.
“liability for the charge currently remains” - no it doesn’t.
Stating an untruth doesn’t make it true.
#Post#: 110203--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail
Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: Brenda_R2
Date: February 18, 2026, 7:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would send
"I acknowledge your response; however, it does not address the
substantive issue raised in my appeal.
Your reply incorrectly asserts that “liability remains” with the
keeper unless I name the driver. That is not how POFA operates.
Unless you fully comply with the wording of the Act, you cannot
pursue the keeper at all. As your Notice is
non‑compliant, I have no legal obligation to identify the
driver, and no keeper liability can arise.
For the avoidance of doubt:
I am the registered keeper.
You have failed to establish keeper liability under POFA.
Any further contact should reflect this legal position. If you
choose to continue pursuing the keeper despite lacking lawful
grounds, this will be raised as unreasonable conduct in any
future proceedings.
I now consider this matter closed."
They'll reject it but it's worth a try.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page