DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 110646--------------------------------------------------
PCN Hemel Hempstead, UK PC
By: merkede Date: February 22, 2026, 3:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
UKPC PCN – signage barely readable at night and address errors –
seeking practical advice before appeal
Hi all,
I’ve received a PCN from UK Parking Control (UKPC) for “Not
parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space.”
Location: KD Tower, Hemel Hempstead
Date/time: 10/02/2026 at 22:39
I’d really appreciate some advice before I respond, as I’ve
noticed a few potential issues:
1 - The address on the PCN appears incorrect: Road is listed as
“Cottrells” but it should be “Cotterells”. Postcode given is HP1
1JZ, but KD Tower is HP1 1AZ. So the address is off.
2 - The signage is very difficult to read, especially at night.
Their own evidence photos (attached) show the sign is barely
legible from ground level at 10:39pm - the 'terms and
conditions' bit is very small font. From a driver’s perspective
on entry, it’s worse.
Some signage in the area is not properly illuminated (I found
one of the lampposts without a working light in the same parking
space). The alleged contravention happened at 10:39pm, so
visibility is a key factor. I'm thinking I keep these two
pictures as evidence for POPLA or now?
The PCN is dated 13/02/2026 and arrived in the post on
20/02/2026. I guess I need to respond by 27th?
I need your help as not sure on what grounds I have/can get
defence. I've attached with personal details removed.
[img width=857
height=1251]
HTML https://i.allthepics.net/2026/02/22/Page_1.jpg[/img]
[img width=871
height=1260]
HTML https://i.allthepics.net/2026/02/22/Page_2.jpg[/img]
[img width=1100
height=618]
HTML https://i.allthepics.net/2026/02/22/download-1.jpeg[/img]
[img width=1100
height=618]
HTML https://i.allthepics.net/2026/02/22/download-2.jpeg[/img]
[img width=1100
height=618]
HTML https://i.allthepics.net/2026/02/22/download-3.jpeg[/img]
[img width=1100
height=618]
HTML https://i.allthepics.net/2026/02/22/download-4.jpeg[/img]
#Post#: 110647--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Hemel Hempstead, UK PC
By: jfollows Date: February 22, 2026, 3:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In addition, no “period of parking” is stated, so as long as the
driver is not identified, UKPC can not use the legislation (PoFA
2012,
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4)
to
transfer liability to the registered keeper.
UKPC will almost certainly reject any appeal, as will POPLA
(although you never know), then DCB Legal will initiate court
proceedings which they ultimately are 99% certain to discontinue
before paying the court fee.
A starting point for your appeal is
[quote]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. It does not specify “the
period of parking” as required. The notice merely states a
single time — not the duration of parking. This omission renders
the notice non-compliant, and as such, the operator cannot rely
on PoFA to pursue the registered keeper.
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. UKPC 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.
UKPC have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.[/quote]
#Post#: 111011--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Hemel Hempstead, UK PC
By: merkede Date: February 24, 2026, 11:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Submitted below:
I am the registered keeper and I dispute this parking charge. I
deny any liability or contractual agreement.
Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with Schedule 4 of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and you cannot transfer
liability to the keeper.
The NtK fails to specify the required “period of parking.” It
states only a single timestamp, which is not compliant with the
statutory requirement. As such, keeper liability does not apply.
Further, the NtK fails to clearly specify the relevant land. The
location details are inconsistent and ambiguous:
- The street is stated as “Cottrells,” which does not exist as a
legitimate street name. The closest match is Cottrell St (West
Bromwich).
- The postcode (HP1 1JZ) corresponds to different locations
including Hemel Hempstead Town Cricket Club and Station Road.
There are too many conflicting identifiers resulting in
multiple, inconsistent location references. These discrepancies
fail to identify a single, clearly defined location, and the NtK
is therefore non-compliant.
There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver and
no assumptions can be made.
In addition, no contract was formed. The operator is a member of
the British Parking Association and must ensure signage is clear
and legible. The alleged contravention occurred at 22:39. If
terms cannot be read from a standing position, they cannot be
read from a vehicle. I am happy tom provide photographic
evidence. The operator’s own photographic evidence demonstrates
that the signage is not legible from close view at 22:39,
particularly the terms and conditions displayed in small font.
Furthermore, some signage in the area is not illuminated.
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. UKPC has relied on contract law
allegations of breach against the driver only. You are urged to
cancel this charge.
#Post#: 113499--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Hemel Hempstead, UK PC
By: merkede Date: March 17, 2026, 5:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
UKPC have responded (see above). I read this as them :
1) Asserting that their Notice to Keeper is compliant (with
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) despite my
point that no “period of parking” is specified. Only a single
timestamp.
2) They have not addressed my point regarding failure to clearly
specify the relevant land. Perhaps they are reserving that for
POPLA (?)
3) They also strongly dispute that the signage is unclear and
that no contract was formed.
My strongest argument, I feel, is using their own evidence
against them … the photo of the signage taken directly in front
is barely readable, then how-so from a distance??
At this stage, I’d appreciate advice on next steps for a POPLA
appeal. Should I largely reuse the same arguments?
[img width=1100
height=1427]
HTML https://i.allthepics.net/2026/03/17/POPLA_Appeal_UKPC_170226.jpg[/img]
#Post#: 113530--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Hemel Hempstead, UK PC
By: InterCity125 Date: March 17, 2026, 10:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In your POPLA appeal you should also further add to the non-PoFA
compliance in relation to Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 which
states;
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;
The legislation clearly requires that, under 9(2)(f), amongst
other things, the keeper is specifically made aware of the fact
that the parking operator is required to meet 'all applicable
conditions' under Schedule 4 in order to invoke keeper liability
- this warning is missing from the operators NtK and that
specific information is never transmitted to the keeper in any
part of the NtK - I have underlined the key wording from the
statute above.
This is a clear example of a parking operator trying to 'get
clever' with their wording and changing it, to such a
significant extent, that the precise requirement of a term is no
longer satisfied.
#Post#: 113532--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Hemel Hempstead, UK PC
By: jfollows Date: March 17, 2026, 11:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I can see nothing in their response about PoFA 2012, so to me
they are ignoring it because they can’t refute your arguments.
Or did I miss this?
*****************************************************