DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 110208--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail
Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: parkinghelpplease
Date: February 18, 2026, 7:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you jfollows & Brenda_R2 for your advice.
I believe I now have to appeal this now to the IAS and based on
a previous case noted on this forum:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/ukcps-ltd-pcn-driver-observed-leaving-site-bentley-bridge-leisure-park-wolverham/
I understand that I should send out the generic IAS appeal
letter below - can somebody please confirm that this is the
correct approach?
Ive added some photos UKCPS sent me of car park layout &
vehicle:
HTML https://ibb.co/vCvKs2Fy,
HTML https://ibb.co/mFF66wTz
Thanks in advance
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability
for this parking charge and appeal in full.
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 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 and require full
evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice,
and basic contractual principles.
#Post#: 110228--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail
Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: parkinghelpplease
Date: February 18, 2026, 10:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ive added some photos UKCPS sent me of car park layout &
vehicle:
HTML https://ibb.co/vCvKs2Fy,
HTML https://ibb.co/mFF66wTz
The site layout image is not displayed in the car park itself.
#Post#: 111982--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail
Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: parkinghelpplease
Date: March 3, 2026, 5:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A reply from IAS has arrived today:
Dear X,
Thank you for your appeal. Due to further information UKCPS Ltd
has confirmed they will no longer be pursuing the matter and the
parking charge has been cancelled.
Parking Charge Number (PCN):
Vehicle Registration:
Date Issued:
Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service
Thanks everyone here for the advice given
#Post#: 111998--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail
Park, Wolverhampton
DIR By: jfollows
Date: March 4, 2026, 3:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That’s good news, thanks for the update.
It’s also a good example of why following the process sometimes
leads to good results.
UKCPS totally ignored your appeal points, but worked out you
weren’t going to roll over and pay up, so they cut their losses.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page