UKPC - Bell Green Retail Park - Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space

Long time lurker, first time poster.

The case this rider bring to the attention of the forum today is almost identical to that of sinaloa's, two months prior. One substantial difference is that while in sinaloa's case the vehicle was left in this location for ~1 hour, the vehicle in this rider's case was only there for a matter of minutes (the rider entered Aldi and promptly exited, supposedly having not found what they were looking for). This rider had been using the guidance given in that thread as a starting point for their own defence; the OP (sinaloa) has been advised to hold out for a Letter of Claim which, at the time of writing this, does not appear to have been issued. This rider, on the other hand, received such a letter in the post 2 days ago.

A brief timeline of events:
- NtK issued for an alleged contravention on 21/06/2024. Reason given was [motorcycle] "Not parked correctly within the marking of the bay or space". As mentioned in the other post, this is an expansive paved area which sits level with the 'main' tarmac area of the car park. There are no signs, markings, or any other indication that parking is expressly forbidden there. It is quite common to see motorcycles/scooters and even occasionally cars parked in this area, which is usually otherwise strewn with trolleys. This rider will try and find a copy of the NtK to upload here if the mods will find it helpful, but a few important details which chip away at (if not outright invalidate) the legitimacy of the NtK:

- No 'period of parking' is specified in relation to the NtK
- The timestamps on the photos provided show that the motorcycle was 'parked' in this location for no more than 2 minutes and 27 seconds
- The image of the motorcycle has been significantly squashed/distorted as it appears on the NtK which arrived in the post

Here's a clearer view of what this area looks like (the rider's vehicle would have been parked a few feet in front of where this photo was taken):



- Appeal lodged with UKPC citing lack of 'specified period of parking'; PoFA 9(2)(a) and (b)
- Boilerplate response received: "To assist us in making a decision regarding your appeal, please confirm the full name and address of the driver to our appeals department... Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 discusses the recovery of unpaid parking charges. It allows parking operators to hold the registered keeper liable... etc."
- POPLA code is issued; appeal is lodged with the following statement:

As the registered keeper (RK) of the vehicle in question, I have reviewed the evidence submitted by UKPC in its entirety and wish to make the following comments:

In their case summary, UKPC have contended that “the period of parking is the time in which the vehicle was parked”. However, given that the photos that they have provided as evidence only show the vehicle at this location for 2 minutes and 27 seconds, and they have not provided any evidence to demonstrate the vehicle was in this location for any longer than that, this is insufficient to describe a “period of parking”. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) section 13.1 states that drivers must be provided with a reasonable amount of time to consider the terms & conditions and decide whether they wish to be bound by them by remaining on the site. Section 13.1 also specifies that the consideration period afforded must be a minimum of 5 minutes:

"The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes."

At this stage, I would like to point out that one of these photos, which was used in the original Notice to Keeper (NtK), - a copy of which may be found on page 29 of the case summary - appears to have been ‘squashed’ or cropped in order to fit the grey box, which itself is in breach of the BPA CoP, Section 21.5a which requires that “all photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.”

Given the aforementioned inadequate signage in respect of the paved area adjacent to the car park, it is conceivable that the driver used this consideration period to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions of the car park before deciding to move their vehicle. As is demonstrated by UKPC’s image entitled ‘Additional evidence.png’, this would not have been possible to do from the vehicle’s location, as what UKPC have somewhat ironically indicated as “clear, UKPC signage” is in fact not legible owing to said signage being obscured by a tree. Pursuant to the BPA CoP Section 13.1, closer inspection of this sign, or others like it, would be necessary in order for a contract to be formed while also explaining why the vehicle appears to be unattended by the driver.

UKPC have also alleged that the vehicle in this location - referred to previously as a ‘pedestrian’ area for the sole purpose of distinguishing it from the (tarmac) car park proper and not withstanding the earlier stated fact of the vehicle not being “parked” owing to the timeframe falling within the BPA CoP’s minimum consideration period - caused an obstruction to any would-be users of the disabled bay. This is patently untrue as evidenced by UKPC’s own photos, which show the vehicle well clear of the crosshatch markings which denote the additional space which must be left clear to provide adequate access.

On the matter of insufficient/inadequate signage at the entrance to the car park, UKPC have also contested the authenticity and/or relevance of the photos I have supplied to demonstrate this point. Regretfully, my consumer-grade smartphone camera does not overlay timestamps on top of images, but you will note from the screenshots here: https://imgur.com/a/AMPu2Tw that the sign was facing the wrong way at the beginning of September. Furthermore, despite UKPC’s statement that they have “notified the relevant department in order to get the entrance signage turned back the correct way”, as of yesterday (20th September), the sign continues to face the wrong way.

Given UKPC’s inability to correct a crucial element of their signage not less than two weeks after it was brought to their attention (by me; one would assume one of their operators would have notified them much sooner), it is probable that this insufficient signage was also in place on June 21st (when the PCN was issued); as evidenced by the image on page 25 of UKPC’s case summary, the most recently they are able to prove that the entrance signage was facing the right way was 21 February 2024 - a full 4 months before the PCN was issued - whereas my photos proving the opposite were taken significantly more recently.

Such inadequate signage is in breach of the BPA CoP section 19.2, stating that an entrance sign must “take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park”, which would be difficult enough to do even if facing the correct way owing to its position next to a short & steep ramp but virtually impossible when it is facing traffic *leaving* the car park, as opposed to approaching.

Since UKPC has not fully complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in that they have failed to specify the “period of parking” to which the charge relates, they may not invoke any right to hold the registered keeper liable in respect of any such charge. UKPC’s failure to meet these strict legal requirements in their entirety must mean that responsibility for settling the charge cannot be transferred to the registered keeper: they may only pursue the driver, who has not been identified by either myself nor any evidence presented by UKPC.

This fact alone is grounds for cancellation for the charge, however I would once again point out procedural errors committed by UKPC in the processing of this charge amounting to breaches of the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice at Sections 13.1, 19.2 and 21.5a. I would like to draw the assessor’s attention to a recent appeal (reference 2413353469; assessor: Gayle Stanton) in which the appellant’s appeal was upheld on the grounds that the images in the NtK had been altered contrary to the rules set out by BPA CoP 21.5a. As the images used in this charge have been similarly altered, this precedent should be considered in this case also.

For these reasons, I would respectfully request that the assessor rightfully upholds this appeal and cancels the PCN.

- POPLA rejects the appeal
- Debt collection letters from ZZPS arrive sporadically over the course of the next few months
- Finally, a Letter of Claim arrives.

This rider acknowledges that they should have perhaps acted sooner, both in bringing this matter to the attention to the forum and in requesting the landowner (or agent thereof) to intervene in cancelling the charge, but hopes that it is not too late to receive assistance in responding to the Letter of Claim and ridding themselves of this ridiculous matter once & for all.

Can you please edit your post to remove all the "<p>" formatting issues? It makes it nearly unreadable.

Sorry about that. Hope it's better now.

Unless the alleged contravention took place before October last year, the referencers to the BPA CoP are irrelevant because the PPSCoP supersedes it and any references should be to that document.

Anyway, you are where you are. All you can do for now is to wait for an LoC and then respond when it comes and wait for the inevitable N1ST Claim Form from the CNBC, which you will defend with our assistance.

The outcome will be either a strike out or a discontinuation. You just have to jump through the hoops in the meantime and be patient. No one pays a penny to UKPC if they follow the advice.

Unless the alleged contravention took place before October last year, the referencers to the BPA CoP are irrelevant because the PPSCoP supersedes it and any references should be to that document.

When it comes to signage they're still in the transition period, so references to the old BPA CoP are in my view still wise alongside the new PPSCoP for signage points on existing sites.

Just in case it wasn't clear from the OP - the Letter of Claim has already arrived. I'm looking for advice on how to defend myself against it.

What is largely explained in the OP is everything that has happened up until this point.

Unless the alleged contravention took place before October last year, the referencers to the BPA CoP are irrelevant because the PPSCoP supersedes it and any references should be to that document.

It did - the alleged contravention occurred in June 2024.

Well, it would help if you posted the LoC and tell who it is from. I will proceed under the assumption that the LoC is from the incompetents at DCB Legal and suggest you respond as follows by email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and you CC in yourself:

Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C].

If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me liable as keeper, they are unable to do so. Even if your client were to issue or re-send a copy now, it would be well outside the statutory period and would not remedy the defect. Your client is therefore unable to rely on PoFA to establish keeper liability.

As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable and vexatious conduct under Part 27.14(2)(g)

Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents/information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol.

As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; for how long it is claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said contract.
7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
9. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged contravention.
11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Yours faithfully,

[Your name]

Thanks for getting back. Yes, it's from DCB Legal.



Does the previously suggested response still apply?

My previous response still stands. Send that reply to their LoC.

Thanks so much. I'll keep this thread updated with any developments.

I've just received the following response from a "junior case manager" at DCB Legal.

It is our position that the Letter of Claim (“LOC”) is compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (“the Protocol”). The LOC provides adequate information for you to identify the debt that our Client is seeking to recover. We respectfully draw your attention to paragraph 2.1(c) of the Protocol and remind you that both parties are expected to act reasonably and proportionately.

Schedule 4 (4)(1) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the Act”) states “The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. For the purpose of the Act; “keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper. The DVLA confirmed that you were the Registered Keeper at the time the parking charge was issued and as no transfer of liability has been received by our Client, they have the right to recover the parking charge from you as the Keeper of the vehicle.

In accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, where the Parking Charge (PC) becomes overdue and before Court proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum may be added for the debt recovery fees. The correct recovery fees have been added and will not be removed. As such, the outstanding balance of £170.00 remains payable to prevent further action.

To clarify, this parking charge was issued on 21/06/2024 at the location of Bell Green Retail Park for the reasoning that the vehicle was not parked correctly within the markings of the bay. The Terms and Conditions are clearly stated on the signage, by parking at this location, you are entering into a contract with the Claimant to comply with the terms of the signage and that breaching these terms could result in a Parking Charge.

In accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, where the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) becomes overdue and before Court proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum may be added for the debt recovery fees. The correct recovery fees have been added and will not be removed. As such, the outstanding balance of £170.00 remains payable to prevent further action. The HMRC ‘VAT Supply and Consideration manual’ (VATSC06140), which was last updated on 02 September 2020, confirmed that parking charge notices falls out of the scope of VAT.

In relation to the comments concerning damages, the sum added is a contribution to the actual costs incurred by our Client as a result of your non-payment. Our Client’s employees have spent time and material attempting to recover the debt. This is not our Client’s usual business and the resources could have been better spent in other areas of the business. Had you of paid as per the Contract, there would have been no need for recovery action so the amount due would not have increased.

I find the final remark particularly amusing; perhaps if I 'had of paid' in the first instance, they might have been able to scrape the money together to get the main sign turned around so it actually faces the right away.

They've also attached 'evidence' which includes the original NtK, images of the vehicle, initial appeal & response, landowner agreement and site plan. I noticed that the landowner agreement is stated to run for an initial period of 36 months, but is signed & dated December 2016. I wonder whether this might be worth bringing up.

In any event, they've given 30 days from today to cough up or a claim will be issued without further warning. Where do we go from here?

Please show us the evidence they provided in that response, especially the landowner agreement.

Depending on whether you fancy playing email ping pong with them and dragging this out, I can provide a suitable response. However, ultimately, they are going to issue a claim, which if all the advice is followed, will read to a strike out or a discontinuation.

The "had of paid" is evident in all their responses and simply proves it is a cut and paste response that was penned originally by one of the incompetent, knuckle-dragging illiterates they employ there.

When you've shown us the "evidence" they have provided, especially the landowner agreement, I can suggest a suitable response if you want to play mind games with their "junior case managers".

I've attached the landowner agreement they've provided as 'evidence', dated 7/12/2016 as can be seen on page 4.

Not particularly interested in indulging this dross unless in service of actually keeping such a claim at bay, but I suppose we are past that point.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Doesn't really matter. The claim will be defended and eventually struck out or discontinued. I would be open to anyone who wants to place a bet with me that that will be the outcome of any claim.

If you want to spend any time going through the terms of the contract as they were agreed for the terms of parking to see if any of those terms are now different. The terms on the signs should state:

• 3 hour maximum stay, with no return within 90 minutes
• All vehicles must be parked only within marked parking bay.
•Disabled badge holders only in disabled bays (valid disabled badge must be clearly displayed at all times.)
• Registered users only between the hours of 10pm to 7am.
• No parking on yellow lines or in area with hatched markings.

I've just returned from some time away to find a thick envelope from HM Courts & Tribunals Service. The issue date is August 7th, so already almost halfway towards the response deadline.

From some previous replies in the thread, it sounds like this was expected/inevitable?

What's the play at this point?