DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 110217--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: jfollows
Date: February 18, 2026, 8:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I would send a short appeal to the IAS, stating that
your appeal point was ignored by UPE and therefore implicitly
agreed with, that with dates of
alleged offence 18/10/25
notice issued by UPE 30/1/26
they can not invoke PoFA 2012 to transfer liability from the
driver to you, the registered keeper.
All other points made by UPE in their rejection of your appeal
are irrelevant, and the notice should be cancelled by the IAS.
Whether or not the IAS upholds your appeal doesn’t ultimately
matter, but if not you will have to put up with debt collectors
and probably court paperwork until they give up.
There’s probably a better form of wording so don’t rush, wait
for other input.
If you want to pick up on their nonsense about issuing a postal
notice within seven months, the truth is that under contract law
they can start proceedings against the driver within six years,
but only against the registered keeper if they comply with PoFA,
which they haven’t. Stating something as a fact when it isn’t is
another common tactic of these companies.
#Post#: 110218--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 18, 2026, 8:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Show us a draft before sending anything. The idea is to make it
unarguably clear that they have not complied with PoFA (easy
given the dates!) and that as such there is no keeper liability.
#Post#: 110219--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: Brenda_R2
Date: February 18, 2026, 9:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
104 days from offence to NTK issue date?
That must be a record for incompetency :)
#Post#: 110240--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: mickR
Date: February 18, 2026, 12:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Brenda_R2 link ---
>
> 104 days from offence to NTK issue date?
>
> That must be a record for trying it on :)
>
--- End Quote ---
there fixed that for you ;)
#Post#: 110322--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: padre
Date: February 19, 2026, 7:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Brenda_R2 link ---
>
> 104 days from offence to NTK issue date?
>
> That must be a record for incompetency :)
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you for this Brenda, this makes me feel better that I
have grounds to tell them to shove it!
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> Show us a draft before sending anything. The idea is to make
it unarguably clear that they have not complied with PoFA (easy
given the dates!) and that as such there is no keeper liability.
>
--- End Quote ---
This is what I came up with and then asked ChatGPT to clean up.
Let me know if it's ok!
"I am the registered keeper and I am not liable for this charge.
My original appeal clearly stated that the Notice to Keeper does
not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4,
yet the operator’s rejection failed to address this point at
all.
The dates are:
Alleged parking event: 18/10/2025
Notice to Keeper issued: 30/01/2026
This is 104 days after the event.
Under PoFA:
Paragraph 9(4) requires delivery of a Notice to Keeper within 14
days where no windscreen ticket was served
Paragraph 8(5) requires delivery between 29 and 56 days where a
windscreen ticket was served
A Notice to Keeper issued after 104 days is non-compliant under
either scenario.
Because the statutory conditions have not been met, the operator
cannot transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.
I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver and will
not be doing so. There is no legal presumption that the keeper
was the driver.
The operator’s statement that a postal PCN can be issued within
“7 months” is incorrect in law and does not override PoFA. It is
therefore irrelevant to keeper liability.
As the operator has failed to establish keeper liability, this
charge is unenforceable against me.
I respectfully request that the appeal be allowed and the PCN
cancelled."
In addition, is it best to submit this appeal asap or on day 21
(I don't know if it makes any difference)
TIA
#Post#: 110329--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: RichardW
Date: February 19, 2026, 8:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
After non compliant in either scenario I would clarify that
there was no windscreen NTD and this NTK should have been issued
within 28 14 days.
Also worth pointing out that your V5C is up to date with the
correct address.
"I respectfully request that the appeal be allowed and the PCN
cancelled"
Don't be nice, don't ask - they don't care! More direct, i.e.
"It is evident that Universal Parking Enforcement have failed to
issue an NTK compliant with POFA to allow transfer of liability
to the keeper, and compounded this by mis stating in their
rejection the position with respect to periods for issuing a NTK
to allow transfer of liability. IAS POPLA must therefore
direct them to cancel the charge."
#Post#: 110335--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: Mustek
Date: February 19, 2026, 8:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=885]RichardW[/member] It's the IAS in this case, not
POPLA :)
#Post#: 110336--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 19, 2026, 9:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RichardW link ---
>
> After non compliant in either scenario I would clarify that
there was no windscreen NTD and this NTK should have been issued
within 28 days.
>
--- End Quote ---
14 days.
--- Quote from: RichardW link ---
>
> The operator’s statement that a postal PCN can be issued
within “7 months” is incorrect in law
--- End Quote ---
This isn't quite right - they can issue a postal PCN later than
the timescales provided for in PoFA, but if they do, they cannot
then rely on PoFA to recover any charges from the keeper.
#Post#: 110340--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: RichardW
Date: February 19, 2026, 9:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Mustek link ---
>
> [member=885]RichardW[/member] It's the IAS in this case, not
POPLA :)
>
--- End Quote ---
Ah, fixed. Even more reason to be direct! IAS don't uphold
many, but this may be one they do, given it's so far out of
time.
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> [quote author=RichardW link=topic=9915.msg110329#msg110329
date=1771511980]
> After non compliant in either scenario I would clarify that
there was no windscreen NTD and this NTK should have been issued
within 28 days.
>
> 14 days.
>
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
Thanks, fixed that too.
#Post#: 110405--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: padre
Date: February 19, 2026, 5:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you all. The appeal text I've submitted to IAS is as
follows;
"You completed the appeal on 19/02/2026 22:59:16.
No PoFA keeper liability - NtK issued 104 days after event with
no windscreen ticket, exceeding the 14-day limit under Schedule
4 Paragraph 9(4).
I am the registered keeper. I am not liable for this charge.
My original appeal stated that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is
non-compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012, yet the operator ignored this point.
There was no windscreen Notice to Driver. Therefore, under PoFA
paragraph 9(4) the NtK had to be delivered within 14 days of the
alleged parking event.
The dates are:
Alleged event: 18/10/2025
NtK issue date: 30/01/2026
This is 104 days after the event.
This is a clear failure to meet the statutory requirement. As a
result, the operator cannot transfer liability from the driver
to the keeper.
My V5C is current and held the correct address at the material
time. There is no valid reason for the delay.
The operator's rejection letter compounds this failure by
mis-stating the legal position, claiming that a postal PCN can
be issued within “7 months”. While a parking charge may be
issued at any time, PoFA keeper liability only applies if the
NtK is delivered within the statutory period. That condition has
not been met.
I am under no obligation to identify the driver and there is no
legal presumption that the keeper was the driver.
It is evident that Universal Parking Enforcement have failed to
issue a PoFA-compliant NtK capable of transferring liability to
the keeper. Their case can only be against the driver, who has
not been identified.
IAS must therefore direct the operator to cancel the charge."
I know IAS will reject the appeal and I'll no doubt be back here
asking about next steps. I did a little digging (not too much)
but it seems IAS is actually the same company as IPC, just using
a different trading name for each function. So there's no chance
of this succeeding.
**Another point I'm unsure of, I've recently moved house and am
in the process of updating my V5C. Is it my responsibility to
notify them or are they supposed to keep track? It's just that
by all accounts, the next phase is when the debt collection
letters start coming and I really don't want to miss a County
Court summons and end up with a default judgement all because i
didn't know. Any advice guys?
TIA
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page