Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: littlebee on May 30, 2026, 04:09:07 pm
-
hi all,
wanted to share a quick update with you:
- Hire Vehicle PCN has had a successful decision response from POPLA. Here is a summary of their response ''I am not satisfied that the operator has met the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012. I therefore conclude that the operator issued the PCN incorrectly''. Does this mean the matter is now concluded and no further action ? Is there anything further that is required to be done now ?
- Private Vehicle (Multiple PCNs) - bwlegal have issued letter of claim for all PCN's now which have all been responded too. Have received responses for some & they have stated the matter has been placed on hold ''query has been raised with client for the pcn letters and photo evidence including signage, until we receive a response, the matter with ourselves will be placed on a hold'' but they also gone to say ''our client is satisfied you are liable for additional costs and will continue to pursue for the outstanding balance''. I've attached their response. Is there anything further I should do and what should be next steps ?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u3CcvjNZlGiuBaMAjPT1V0FhvhtKFdoZ/view?usp=drive_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10q4AXQ36HmFTQK6_vBHtqOGX8-72CKox/view?usp=drive_link
-
I would post it, keeping a copy and a note of when sent (or free proof of posting from a Post Office). Or use the “portal” but I have no experience or knowledge of this personally. You need to be able to demonstrate that a response was sent.
Hello, thanks very much.
-
I would post it, keeping a copy and a note of when sent (or free proof of posting from a Post Office). Or use the “portal” but I have no experience or knowledge of this personally. You need to be able to demonstrate that a response was sent.
-
Again, please be more precise and less vague - what are you attempting to do here?
Hello,
Just to clarify what I’m trying to do.
I emailed BW Legal with my response to the first Letter Before Action, but never received any acknowledgement.
This week, I responded to a second Letter Before Action for a separate PCN and this time received an automated reply saying the email address is no longer monitored and directing me to their portal.
I’m simply trying to make sure I’m communicating with BW Legal correctly and that my responses are recorded, without inadvertently breaching any protocol or putting myself at a disadvantage.
Would you suggest using their portal, writing by post, or simply keeping proof that the original response was sent?
Thanks again for your help.
-
Again, please be more precise and less vague - what are you attempting to do here?
-
hey guys,
Just to update:
Hire Vehicle is still pending update from POPLA
And the others are pending response from the bwlegal
How long does bwlegal have to respond ?
Interestingly, they have now put a auto response on their email:
This email address is inactive and not monitored.
Your message has not been received, read, or reviewed, and no information has been provided to BW Legal. This email is being returned to you as undeliverable.
The didnt when the the previous response was issued to them,
What is the best method of contacting them now ? Letter in the post ?
-
If you mean respond to your response to their Letter of Claim, they have up to six years from the date of the original event to initiate a county court claim.
They will not respond to your response to their Letter of Claim, otherwise where would it end? Other than by initiating a county court claim in due course.
-
hey guys,
Just to update:
Hire Vehicle is still pending update from POPLA
And the others are pending response from the bwlegal
How long does bwlegal have to respond ?
-
Not identifying the driver is necessary but not sufficient; if the claimant has used PoFA 2012 correctly then the registered keeper can be held liable in place of the unknown driver. So PoFA 2012 lack of compliance has to be part of the defence also, and I can’t recall where this was discussed in the thread and the conclusion.
At this stage, no, just use your primary defence point, whatever that is. It won’t make any difference so I simply wouldn’t waste the effort now and give them early sight of your full defence.
You should assume a county court claim will follow. It doesn’t cost them anything to raise one.
You could also add that their letter does not comply with the protocols:
the claimant writing to the defendant with concise details of the claim. The letter should include the basis on which the claim is made, a summary of the facts, what the claimant wants from the defendant, and if money, how the amount is calculated;
Hello there,
Just to update.
The Hire Vehicle PCN is still pending update from POPLA.
The other vehicle PCNs:
1. Letter of Claim was issued and responded too - pending a response.
2. 2nd Letter of Claim has been issued - I assume I can respond to this in the same way (as the 1.) ?
Generally, what is the time period to wait before a response is issued ?
And is responding electronically best or must the paperwork be filled and returned ? (earlier response was electronic).
Thanks
-
Not identifying the driver is necessary but not sufficient; if the claimant has used PoFA 2012 correctly then the registered keeper can be held liable in place of the unknown driver. So PoFA 2012 lack of compliance has to be part of the defence also, and I can’t recall where this was discussed in the thread and the conclusion.
At this stage, no, just use your primary defence point, whatever that is. It won’t make any difference so I simply wouldn’t waste the effort now and give them early sight of your full defence.
You should assume a county court claim will follow. It doesn’t cost them anything to raise one.
You could also add that their letter does not comply with the protocols: the claimant writing to the defendant with concise details of the claim. The letter should include the basis on which the claim is made, a summary of the facts, what the claimant wants from the defendant, and if money, how the amount is calculated;
-
If you’re going to defend this, then see https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#6.1 and in particular
the defendant responding within a reasonable time – 14 days in a straight forward case and no more than 3 months in a very complex one. The reply should include confirmation as to whether the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the reasons why, together with an explanation as to which facts and parts of the claim are disputed
.
No ned to go overboard, just make it clear that the claim isn’t accepted and why, and then wait for them to raise a county court claim.
Of course this whole thread is dreadfully confusing but I believe this applies to 4xPCN for non-hire cars, and your defence will be a modified version of your latest POPLA appeal without the hire car bit.
Hi there,
Can I please check and clarify that the defence is they have not identified the driver and it is their obligation to do so and present this information ?
And is it worth adding any other points including the entire payment system has changed (with no notification or signage to suggest it has done so) the barriers automatically lifting at exit suggesting no payment is required (previously the exit barriers would not lift if a payment was required), un-operational exit barriers, etc etc ?
And is it likely this will be taken all the way to county ?
Thanks
-
If you’re going to defend this, then see https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#6.1 and in particular
the defendant responding within a reasonable time – 14 days in a straight forward case and no more than 3 months in a very complex one. The reply should include confirmation as to whether the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the reasons why, together with an explanation as to which facts and parts of the claim are disputed
.
No ned to go overboard, just make it clear that the claim isn’t accepted and why, and then wait for them to raise a county court claim.
Of course this whole thread is dreadfully confusing but I believe this applies to 4xPCN for non-hire cars.
Hi there,
yes, this is in regards to the multiple PCNs.
OK, let me review that and I'll update accordingly.
You mentioned this thread is confusing (I agree and apologies if I have not been clear or not structured it in a better way) - is there anything I should do to help make it more easier to follow ?
Thanks
-
If you’re going to defend this, then see https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#6.1 and in particular
the defendant responding within a reasonable time – 14 days in a straight forward case and no more than 3 months in a very complex one. The reply should include confirmation as to whether the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the reasons why, together with an explanation as to which facts and parts of the claim are disputed
.
No ned to go overboard, just make it clear that the claim isn’t accepted and why, and then wait for them to raise a county court claim.
Of course this whole thread is dreadfully confusing but I believe this applies to 4xPCN for non-hire cars, and your defence will be a modified version of your latest POPLA appeal without the hire car bit.
-
I assume the debt collectors letter does not relate to the PCN(s) for which you are still awaiting a POPLA response?
Debt collectors can be ignored. You await a letter from solicitors in the form of a Letter of Claim.
Hello guys,
a letter of claim has been received and I enclosed attached.
What is the best way in dealing with this please ?
Thank you
https://drive.google.com/file/d/173ddISYdaT-MvUDx0-QNfUKYvZ3G07JN/view?usp=sharing
-
I would personaly stop at point 3 or perhaps point 4.
The problem is that POPLA is not a court and will quite likely pick the subset of points which it has an answer for, whereas it will also simply ignore the ones it can’t answer. I would stick to your central issue because it can’t then be ignored, and leave the other points for a real court if POPLA does not uphold your appeal.
Thanks very much for the feedback, I'll run with this.
I'll keep you guys updated.
Thanks very much for all your help.
-
I would personaly stop at point 3 or perhaps point 4.
The problem is that POPLA is not a court and will quite likely pick the subset of points which it has an answer for, whereas it will also simply ignore the ones it can’t answer. I would stick to your central issue because it can’t then be ignored, and leave the other points for a real court if POPLA does not uphold your appeal.
-
Here is a draft response; what do you guys think - any changes required ?
Thanks
I respectfully submit the following comments in response to the operator's evidence.
1. The operator has failed to address the principal ground of my appeal
The central issue in this appeal is not whether payment was made, nor whether the signage was adequate. The issue is whether the operator has established liability against me as the hirer of the vehicle.
I made it clear in my appeal that I am the hirer of the vehicle, I was not the driver, and that the operator had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA") required to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the hirer.
Rather than addressing this point, the operator has devoted almost its entire evidence pack to discussing ANPR images, payment, signage and contractual terms.
Those matters do not establish liability against me.
2. There is no legal obligation to identify the driver
The operator repeatedly states that I have not identified the driver and appears to rely upon that fact as justification for pursuing me.
This is a misstatement of the legal position.
There is no legal obligation requiring a hirer or keeper to identify the driver.
Parliament enacted Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to provide operators with a statutory mechanism to recover unpaid parking charges from someone other than the driver, but only where the operator has complied strictly with every statutory requirement.
The operator cannot circumvent those statutory requirements simply because I have exercised my legal right not to identify the driver.
3. The operator has failed to establish hirer liability
This vehicle was supplied under a hire/lease arrangement.
Accordingly, the operator was required to comply with Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The only document received by the hirer was the Parking Charge Notice / Notice to Hirer.
The mandatory accompanying documents required by Schedule 4 were not served, including the prescribed documentation necessary to transfer liability from the driver to the hirer.
The operator's evidence before POPLA does not demonstrate that these statutory requirements were ever complied with.
Instead, it merely asserts that liability transferred from xxxxx to xxxxxx without producing evidence that the statutory conditions for such transfer were satisfied.
An assertion is not evidence.
If the operator had complied with Schedule 4, it would have been a straightforward matter to produce:
the Notice to Hirer as served;
evidence of the documents enclosed with that notice; and
evidence demonstrating compliance with the statutory requirements.
The operator has failed to do so.
The burden of proof rests with the operator. It has failed to discharge that burden.
4. The operator's evidence is largely irrelevant
The operator's evidence concentrates upon:
alleged non-payment;
ANPR records;
contractual terms;
signage; and
duration of stay.
Even if those matters were accepted (which is not admitted), they concern only the conduct of the unknown driver.
They do not establish that I, as the hirer, have any legal liability.
Accordingly, the evidence fails to address the principal issue before POPLA.
5. Inconsistent evidence regarding the operation of the site
The operator's rejection correspondence described this location as operating a "pay on entry" system.
That is factually incorrect.
The site operates as a pay-on-exit system.
This calls into question the accuracy of the operator's consideration of my appeal and the reliability of the evidence presented to POPLA.
If the operator cannot accurately describe the operation of its own parking system, its conclusions regarding the alleged contravention should be treated with caution.
6. Misleading operation of the exit barriers
Historically, the exit barriers at this location would only open once payment had been made or where no payment was required.
The barriers now open automatically regardless of whether payment has been made.
There is no clear or prominent signage informing motorists that this significant operational change has occurred.
A motorist familiar with the previous operation of the site could reasonably interpret the automatic opening of the exit barrier as confirmation that no further action is required before leaving.
If the operator has fundamentally altered the operation of the site, it is incumbent upon it to ensure that this change is communicated clearly and prominently.
The evidence supplied does not demonstrate that this has been done.
7. Signage fails to provide adequate clarity
Should POPLA conclude that hirer liability has somehow been established (which is denied), I submit in the alternative that the operator has failed to demonstrate that a clear and enforceable parking contract was formed.
The operator relies heavily upon photographs of signage.
However, the issue is not simply whether signs exist.
The question is whether the signage clearly communicates the current operation of the site to a reasonable motorist.
The operator has failed to demonstrate that motorists are clearly informed that:
the site operates on a pay-on-exit basis;
the automatic opening of the exit barriers is not confirmation that payment has been made; and
the previous operation of the barriers has changed.
In the absence of clear and prominent information, any alleged contractual terms are ambiguous and should be interpreted in favour of the consumer.
Conclusion
The operator has failed to establish liability against me as the hirer by demonstrating strict compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Instead, its evidence focuses almost entirely upon matters relating to the unidentified driver, whilst failing to address the principal legal issue raised in my appeal.
In the alternative, the operator has failed to demonstrate that the operation of the site and its signage clearly communicated the applicable parking terms to motorists, particularly following the change to the operation of the exit barriers.
For all of the above reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal and directs the operator to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
-
I would just comment that they have not rebutted your appeal point relating to the non provision of the additional documents which must be served with the NtH.
Is there a template response I should include
& is there any value in commenting on other aspect of the issues (the fact they claim its pay on entry which clearly it is not) as well as poor signage >
or is the above single line sufficient ?
Thanks
Morning,
Just want to check what the best response is to send back to POPLA please ?
Do I respond to everything I disagree with or just focus on ''non provision of the additional documents which must be served with the NtH'' ?
Thanks
-
I would just comment that they have not rebutted your appeal point relating to the non provision of the additional documents which must be served with the NtH.
Is there a template response I should include
& is there any value in commenting on other aspect of the issues (the fact they claim its pay on entry which clearly it is not) as well as poor signage >
or is the above single line sufficient ?
Thanks
-
I would just comment that they have not rebutted your appeal point relating to the non provision of the additional documents which must be served with the NtH.
-
Just to confirm, did the operator send any other documents with the Notice to Hirer?
Hi, not to my knowledge and none that I have received. The only information supplied was the PCN which was shared earlier.
What are your thoughts on what they have issue to popla ? is there anything else we can do ?
Thank you for all your support so far, really appreciate you helping.
-
Just to confirm, did the operator send any other documents with the Notice to Hirer?
-
1. Please upload everything.
2. You need to rebut anything they claim with which you do not agree, or else it could be argued that you agree with what they say.
Hi jfollows,
please see both documents below:
1. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jUqPG67RXe4tl7FyEFg84eMBcHf5Hvoz/view?usp=sharing
2. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZtNCRKzNKiEyLY_dUdPX7M-9lclCuHpJ/view?usp=sharing
in addition, please see below pictures of the car park entrance and exit, in case this helps.
3. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z7DcecBooJGlKmwAuM3tK6yqv-pCuxvP/view?usp=sharing
Please do let me know if you need anything else ? They have indicated response is required within 7 days.
Thank you
-
1. Please upload everything.
2. You need to rebut anything they claim with which you do not agree, or else it could be argued that you agree with what they say.
OK, I'll upload everything.
Thank you
-
1. Please upload everything.
2. You need to rebut anything they claim with which you do not agree, or else it could be argued that you agree with what they say.
-
hi all,
there has been a response on the POPLA portal:
1. From Portal : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y8WICL_7F-ZnwJXKkDS2m4X0RSb7eLu_/view?usp=sharing
2. Page 1 of response from PCN issuer: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s_v_0fUc1Ii7C0RqQsbtdZhyrVwETf4X/view?usp=sharing
3. they have also issued a ''pack'' which includes their supply contract, images of their facilities and copies of the PCN
I havent uploaded everything, but would you like to view the entire pack they have enclosed ?
POPLA have advised there are 7 days to respond.
Just to add, their response seems to be heavily based around the customer car park which is a different location all together (a building next door). The car park in question is part of a service road used by the business owners/drivers to deliver goods (customers can not usually access this). This car park has always been pay on exit and the exit barriers have always been closed until a exit payment was made (if it was over the hours free stay) - however in recent times, the car barriers have been non-operational, broken or open and more recently they have now begun to automatically open suggesting that no payment is required on exit. Further, on their response to the PCN appeal, they stated' ''This car park operates on a payonentry system, which requires all
motorists to pay once they have parked their vehicle to validate their stay'' - which is not correct, there are no such signs and this has never been a ''pay on entry'' site.
How best to respond please ?
Thank you
-
I assume the debt collectors letter does not relate to the PCN(s) for which you are still awaiting a POPLA response?
Debt collectors can be ignored. You await a letter from solicitors in the form of a Letter of Claim.
Hi there DWMB2,
yes you're right, the debt collectors letter does not relate to the PCN which is pending POPLA response.
So, for all the remaining PCN, the idea is to let them go through till the form of a letter of claim is issued, and then come back here to go through next steps ?
-
I assume the debt collectors letter does not relate to the PCN(s) for which you are still awaiting a POPLA response?
Debt collectors can be ignored. You await a letter from solicitors in the form of a Letter of Claim.
-
hi all
there was another letter from the ''debt'' agency - they have consolidated the ''debt'' and asking for it to be paid.
do we still ignore or respond ?
Please do advise...naturally for a worrier like me..Im getting really stressed...please do help.
-
Is there a particular template letter to follow when raising to POPLA ? And should a response be sent to the PCN issuer at the same time ?
If you have a POPLA code, just appeal to them, no need to contact the parking company again. I'd do a search on here, there should be some previous examples of hirers that have gone to POPLA.
Hello all,
Still waiting for a POPLA decision, its moved to stage 2 (with the operator). I guess it can take a while before they have fully reviewed and come to a decision.
With regards to the other PCNs, is it best to wait for POPLA to make a decision on the 1st one ?
-
Hello,
any support with the 4 remaining PCN would be much appreciated.
-
Hi all,
here are some more pictures inside the carpark - any support to respond to the 4 PCN's would be very much appreciated.
Exiting Car Park
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pOT-3cDmorcsZMnHfh6D7K5YmHbVx8l5/view?usp=drive_link
Some of the signage inside the car park
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OfF9jalV08qWFop_uh-qsZSf7iQ78wOw/view?usp=drive_link
Some of the signage inside the car park (2)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kSWJcpeB_lyGL3PAYTNEOzKKQIU7VuTM/view?usp=drive_link
Pay Here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iLhnS_zPUj_dZ5swvfzFNg22JKsUYGR4/view?usp=drive_link
also received a 2nd letter from bwlegal....
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Pet8BDD8hefwEYs7tkiayvtYBDuhzUk8/view?usp=drive_link
-
Ignore - it's a begging debt collectors letter.
Hi InterCity125
Thanks for getting back to me.
What about the 4x PCN's, is it best to ignore or respond ? There is a draft email above ready to be sent, just wanted some pointers in case it need any improvements ?
Thank you
-
Ignore - it's a begging debt collectors letter.
-
They are all over a month ago, so you are too late to appeal now. You can either pay, or wait for them to issue a court claim and defend it from there - there will be a blizzard of debt collector letters before that, and eventually a letter of claim. This should be responded to so come back and post it when you receive it. You have redacted too much of the info on the PCNs, but it looks like there are failings on them which will prevent transfer of liability to the keeper - but you will probably need to go nearly all the way to a hearing to explain this.
Hi Richard,
Thanks for your message.
Is there no point in send a response to the PCN issuer - and would the drafted letter above be suffice ?
Also, received a debt from bwlegal, I posted this earlier on this thread, but have included the details below as well as the letter - how best to respond to this ? Any advice would be much appreciated.
Hello,
Someone called ''bwlegal'' has now issued a recovery letter, link included below.
How best to deal with this and the earlier PCNs issued by UKPA ?
Any advice would be much appreciated - there are a number of PCNs they have issued (listed above) and your help could really help me.
Thank you
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-cwh2rdRNSv97tsN2fU94_bh3tdTWvrH/view?usp=sharing
-
They are all over a month ago, so you are too late to appeal now. You can either pay, or wait for them to issue a court claim and defend it from there - there will be a blizzard of debt collector letters before that, and eventually a letter of claim. This should be responded to so come back and post it when you receive it. You have redacted too much of the info on the PCNs, but it looks like there are failings on them which will prevent transfer of liability to the keeper - but you will probably need to go nearly all the way to a hearing to explain this.
-
Good evening,
Apologies for bumping this again.
Really worried about the 4x PCNs and I havent submitted anything for these - can anyone pls help ?
-
Hi all,
Below is a draft and asking for your help whether this is suffcient to sent to the PCN issuer, is there anything to be added or removed:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write as the registered keeper of the above vehicle.
The Parking Charge Notice is disputed in its entirety.
For the avoidance of doubt, this appeal is submitted solely by the registered keeper. No admission is made as to the identity of the driver and the registered keeper is under no legal obligation to identify the driver. Nothing contained within this correspondence should be taken as such an admission.
The operator bears the burden of proving that a legally enforceable parking contract was formed with the driver and that all contractual terms were adequately brought to the driver's attention.
The registered keeper disputes that this burden can be discharged for the following reasons.
1. Failure to establish a clear contractual agreement
The operator alleges that payment was required. However, it must demonstrate that the contractual terms relied upon were clearly displayed, prominent, unambiguous and capable of being accepted before any contract was formed.
A mere assertion that payment was not made does not establish that a legally enforceable contract existed.
2. Confusing operation of the site
This location has historically operated differently from the system now described by the operator.
Historically, motorists who were required to pay would ordinarily do so before leaving the site, with the exit barrier remaining closed until payment had been made or assistance had been provided.
Following the change in parking management, the operation of the site appeared materially different. On numerous occasions the exit barriers were observed to be permanently open, to lift automatically without any apparent payment verification, or to be visibly damaged and undergoing repair or maintenance. Engineers were frequently observed attending the barrier equipment.
Against that background, the operation of the site became inconsistent and capable of causing genuine uncertainty as to the parking arrangements in force.
If the operator contends that the site had changed to a "pay on entry" system, it is put to strict proof that this significant change was clearly, prominently and unambiguously communicated to motorists.
3. Strict proof of system reliability
The operator is put to strict proof that:
the payment terminals were fully operational;
the ANPR system was functioning correctly;
the barrier equipment was operating correctly;
no maintenance, faults or outages affected the site on the dates in question;
all timestamps and payment records are accurate.
In light of the repeated observations of barrier maintenance and inconsistent barrier operation, a generic assertion that no payment was recorded is insufficient.
4. Strict proof of landowner authority
The operator is put to strict proof that it holds a contemporaneous written agreement with the landowner authorising it to:
enter into contracts with motorists;
issue Parking Charge Notices in its own name; and
pursue unpaid parking charges through civil proceedings.
A mere site agreement or witness statement will not be sufficient.
5. Keeper liability
Should the operator seek to pursue the registered keeper, it is put to strict proof that every statutory requirement necessary to establish keeper liability has been complied with.
6. Failure to properly consider representations
Should this appeal be rejected, the operator is requested to address each substantive point raised rather than issuing a generic response asserting only that payment was not identified.
If the operator rejects this appeal, please provide:
a POPLA verification code;
copies of all photographs relied upon;
payment machine audit logs;
maintenance and fault records relating to the payment and barrier systems;
ANPR audit records;
copies of the signage relied upon;
and a copy of the contemporaneous landowner agreement.
The registered keeper reserves all rights and will rely upon any additional legal and evidential grounds in any subsequent appeal or proceedings.
Yours faithfully,
[Registered Keeper]
-
So you can kill the lease car PCN by appealing to POPLA as hirer stating that the required documents were not served with the NtH.
Then we can examine the others.
So far as I can see, the NtKs are not totally PoFA complaint.
Hi InterCity125
The Appeal to POPLA for the lease vehicles has been submitted.
How best to tackle the issued PCN for the other personal vehicles ?
Just bumping this, as unfortunately there are 4 other PCNs on personal vehicle, 1 of these 4 has received a letter from debt collection agency bwlegal who are requesting a full payment of 170 by end of July.
Any support to deal with these 4 would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
-
So you can kill the lease car PCN by appealing to POPLA as hirer stating that the required documents were not served with the NtH.
Then we can examine the others.
So far as I can see, the NtKs are not totally PoFA complaint.
Hi InterCity125
The Appeal to POPLA for the lease vehicles has been submitted.
How best to tackle the issued PCN for the other personal vehicles ?
-
Is there a particular template letter to follow when raising to POPLA ? And should a response be sent to the PCN issuer at the same time ?
If you have a POPLA code, just appeal to them, no need to contact the parking company again. I'd do a search on here, there should be some previous examples of hirers that have gone to POPLA.
I found this draft and it looks suitable for this case, it was posted in December 2025 - I'll use this to send a note to POPLA. I'll keep you all posted. Thanks very much.
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/popla-appeal-for-parkingeye-pcn-asda-bexleyheath/msg112490/#msg112490
Just to update, the appeal has been submitted to POPLA, I'll keep you all updated. Thanks for all your help.
POPLA - Thank you for submitting your appeal - Appeal Verification Code xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
Is there a particular template letter to follow when raising to POPLA ? And should a response be sent to the PCN issuer at the same time ?
If you have a POPLA code, just appeal to them, no need to contact the parking company again. I'd do a search on here, there should be some previous examples of hirers that have gone to POPLA.
I found this draft and it looks suitable for this case, it was posted in December 2025 - I'll use this to send a note to POPLA. I'll keep you all posted. Thanks very much.
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/popla-appeal-for-parkingeye-pcn-asda-bexleyheath/msg112490/#msg112490
-
You have posted responses above which include POPLA codes. They are included in the letters rejecting your appeals.
Found it, thank you.
-
You have posted responses above which include POPLA codes. They are included in the letters rejecting your appeals.
-
Is there a particular template letter to follow when raising to POPLA ? And should a response be sent to the PCN issuer at the same time ?
If you have a POPLA code, just appeal to them, no need to contact the parking company again. I'd do a search on here, there should be some previous examples of hirers that have gone to POPLA.
Hello DWB2,
Thanks very much for your message - I havent received a POPLA code, do I need to request this from the PCN issuer ?
-
Is there a particular template letter to follow when raising to POPLA ? And should a response be sent to the PCN issuer at the same time ?
If you have a POPLA code, just appeal to them, no need to contact the parking company again. I'd do a search on here, there should be some previous examples of hirers that have gone to POPLA.
-
So you can kill the lease car PCN by appealing to POPLA as hirer stating that the required documents were not served with the NtH.
Then we can examine the others.
So far as I can see, the NtKs are not totally PoFA complaint.
Ok thank you.
Is there a particular template letter to follow when raising to POPLA ? And should a response be sent to the PCN issuer at the same time ?
And what is the best way to deal with the 4 PCN's for the personal vehicle ?
Thank you very much for all your help, really is appreciated.
-
So you can kill the lease car PCN by appealing to POPLA as hirer stating that the required documents were not served with the NtH.
Then we can examine the others.
So far as I can see, the NtKs are not totally PoFA complaint.
-
So has the leased one been cancelled yet?
I'm afraid it has not, there was a response received yesterday, please see below:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19LciT8HFnPlrMWViI_ZJIP3G-7fV1HFG/view
Not sure if this adds any weight to the matter, but the response was received Wednesday, 1 July 2026 at 00:00, yet they state ''this parking charge is discounted to £60 if paid by 30-jun-2026'' which would have been too late anyway.
-
So has the leased one been cancelled yet?
-
How many of the PCNs are for the hire vehicle and how many for the personal vehicle?
Hi InterCity125, thanks very much for taking time out and responding.
There is 1 for the lease/hire vehicle and 4 for the personal vehicle.
-
How many of the PCNs are for the hire vehicle and how many for the personal vehicle?
-
Hello,
As you can imagine, I am really worried and not sure what to do ? Will I have to pay the PCN tickets (there are loads).
I have drafted the letter below, is this worth sending for all the PCNs they have issued ?
I'd really appreciate any support.
Thank you.
Dear xxx,
I write solely in my capacity as the registered keeper of the above vehicle.
Liability for the alleged parking charge is denied in its entirety. No admission is made as to the identity of the driver, and no inference should be drawn from this correspondence as to the identity of the driver.
The party seeking to recover this charge is put to strict proof of every element of its claim.
In particular, should this challenge be rejected, please provide:
Strict proof of the legal basis upon which keeper liability is asserted, including full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Strict proof that a legally enforceable contract was formed with the driver.
Strict proof that the contractual terms relied upon were clear, prominent, transparent and capable of binding a reasonable motorist.
Contemporaneous photographs of all signage relied upon, together with a site plan showing the location of every sign in place on the material date.
Strict proof that the signage complied in all respects with the applicable British Parking Association Code of Practice.
A contemporaneous, unredacted contract demonstrating the legal authority to issue and pursue parking charges in respect of this site.
Copies of all ANPR data, payment records, audit logs, machine maintenance records and any other evidence relied upon.
Evidence that all mandatory consideration and grace periods required by the British Parking Association Code of Practice were correctly applied.
Evidence demonstrating compliance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015, including the requirement that consumer notices and contractual terms be transparent and prominent.
The ANPR images supplied merely demonstrate that a vehicle entered and exited the site. They do not establish that any contractual terms were adequately brought to the attention of the driver, that any contract was accepted, or that any contractual liability arose.
For the avoidance of doubt, this correspondence should not be construed as an admission of liability, an admission as to the identity of the driver, or acceptance that any enforceable contract existed.
Should you decline to cancel this Parking Charge Notice, please provide a POPLA Verification Code, together with all evidence upon which you intend to rely, so that the matter may be referred to independent adjudication.
Yours faithfully,
At this stage all that is needed is the basic non PoFA compliance as you have wrote.
Anything else can be added at a later stage as they will most likely refuse the appeal.
It could be done online on their site, but watch out for any drop down boxes asking for the driver, submit as hirer.
Keep a shot of the appeal before submitting.
Hello guys,
There has been a response from UKPA which was received earlier today 1st July 2026. I've included a picture of thier response.
What is interesting, there response was recevied as per time stamp below (Wednesday, 1 July 2026 at 00:00) yet they state ''this parking charge is discounted to £60 if paid by 30-jun-2026'' .
Letter: https://drive.google.com/file/d/19LciT8HFnPlrMWViI_ZJIP3G-7fV1HFG/view?usp=sharing
Wednesday, 1 July 2026 at 00:00, no-reply@ukparkingadministration.com <no-reply@ukparkingadministration.com> wrote:
Hello,
The status of a Parking Charge Notice that you have been, or may be responsible for has changed.
Please take a moment to review the updated status of the PCN linked below, as it may require action from you.
You can log in to the UKPA payments and appeals portal by entering the address below into your browser, or by clicking here payment.enforcement.ukparkingadministration.com/pay?pcnnumber=UKPA-xxx-xxx
If you believe you have received this message in error, let us know by emailing complaints@ukparkingadministration.com.
Many thanks,
UKPA
what should be the next steps ?
Thank you
-
At this stage all that is needed is the basic non PoFA compliance as you have wrote.
Anything else can be added at a later stage as they will most likely refuse the appeal.
It could be done online on their site, but watch out for any drop down boxes asking for the driver, submit as hirer.
Keep a shot of the appeal before submitting.
Hello guys,
There has been a response from UKPA which was received earlier today 1st July 2026. I've included a picture of thier response.
What is interesting, there response was recevied as per time stamp below (Wednesday, 1 July 2026 at 00:00) yet they state ''this parking charge is discounted to £60 if paid by 30-jun-2026'' .
Letter: https://drive.google.com/file/d/19LciT8HFnPlrMWViI_ZJIP3G-7fV1HFG/view?usp=sharing
Wednesday, 1 July 2026 at 00:00, no-reply@ukparkingadministration.com <no-reply@ukparkingadministration.com> wrote:
Hello,
The status of a Parking Charge Notice that you have been, or may be responsible for has changed.
Please take a moment to review the updated status of the PCN linked below, as it may require action from you.
You can log in to the UKPA payments and appeals portal by entering the address below into your browser, or by clicking here payment.enforcement.ukparkingadministration.com/pay?pcnnumber=UKPA-xxx-xxx
If you believe you have received this message in error, let us know by emailing complaints@ukparkingadministration.com.
Many thanks,
UKPA
what should be the next steps ?
Thank you
-
We need to see copies of the PPN`s, with personal details redacted but leave dates.
The company vehicle one may be better to deal with.
Hello - these are the other ones (not company)
1 - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pLY5n7ddVjjO_GKXPJvhpZBjqeBZekL_/view?usp=drive_link
2 - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B9mxjaMA3DFV6EhWHlzXI2XX2d1TmoH8/view?usp=drive_link
3 - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mj5ItD9Stg4XEtHs1XbmvKUvhpCadLbA/view?usp=drive_link
4 - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vf-E8R90_ygwZJWsQJuQwBUlxHDt-SBk/view?usp=drive_link
Hi all,
Just checking if there is anything else I could do with these tickets ?
I wanted to briefly mention that since UKPA/HOZAH took over management of the site, the exit barrier system appears to have become unreliable. On numerous occasions the barriers have:
- already been open,
- lifted automatically without payment,
- or appeared faulty/broken.
Because the barriers were regularly opening automatically, the genuine impression formed was that either:
- the barriers were malfunctioning,
- the system was not operating correctly,
- or no further payment action was required before exit.
On the occasions now resulting in the PCNs, the vehicles exited normally because the barriers opened automatically without any warning, refusal of exit, or indication that payment remained outstanding.
The main questions are:
- Does the repeated barrier issue help the driver’s position at all?
- Would this be considered misleading or inadequate enforcement?
- Is there a reasonable argument to offer payment of the actual parking tariffs only?
- What is realistically the best route to resolve this without matters escalating unnecessarily?
Any advice would be appreciated.
-
Hi, please note that QR codes on PCNs are unique to each ticket and display all associated details when scanned, so they should be covered.
-
You need to change the access rights so we can read it.
sorry, have done now.
-
You need to change the access rights so we can read it.
-
Could you show us the back of one of the notices.
They don't appear to be relying on PoFA but we need to check all wording.
Hello,
thanks for taking time and offering to support, much appreciated.
here is the rear of PCN
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HXD8fxYUw5wSUfehFAnxnJmYHpfUY6jm/view?usp=drive_link
-
Could you show us the back of one of the notices.
They don't appear to be relying on PoFA but we need to check all wording.
-
We need to see copies of the PPN`s, with personal details redacted but leave dates.
The company vehicle one may be better to deal with.
Hello - these are the other ones (not company)
1 - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pLY5n7ddVjjO_GKXPJvhpZBjqeBZekL_/view?usp=drive_link
2 - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B9mxjaMA3DFV6EhWHlzXI2XX2d1TmoH8/view?usp=drive_link
3 - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mj5ItD9Stg4XEtHs1XbmvKUvhpCadLbA/view?usp=drive_link
4 - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vf-E8R90_ygwZJWsQJuQwBUlxHDt-SBk/view?usp=drive_link
Hi, sorry to flag this again. I’m finding this a bit tricky and was wondering if anyone might be able to help with how best to respond to these?
-
We need to see copies of the PPN`s, with personal details redacted but leave dates.
The company vehicle one may be better to deal with.
Hello - these are the other ones (not company)
1 - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pLY5n7ddVjjO_GKXPJvhpZBjqeBZekL_/view?usp=drive_link
2 - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B9mxjaMA3DFV6EhWHlzXI2XX2d1TmoH8/view?usp=drive_link
3 - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mj5ItD9Stg4XEtHs1XbmvKUvhpCadLbA/view?usp=drive_link
4 - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vf-E8R90_ygwZJWsQJuQwBUlxHDt-SBk/view?usp=drive_link
-
So you are
the person the PCN is addressed to
.
Thanks very much, I'll keep you guys posted!
-
So you are
the person the PCN is addressed to
.
-
Stop going on about the driver.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I read it from your Reply #3 that you’re the hirer and the Notice to Hirer was addressed to you, and this is the notice for which you are submitting your appeal.
Yes, this is correct
-
Stop going on about the driver.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I read it from your Reply #3 that you’re the hirer and the Notice to Hirer was addressed to you, and this is the notice for which you are submitting your appeal.
-
As in the linked post, I suggest you say “does not comply” rather than “does not apear to comply”. Use the latter and they’ll just say “oh yes it does”. Even though they’ll reject anyway, as in the linked post, I think it’s better to be clear.
Thanks very much,
using the appeal portal, the question below is being asked:
- I am the person the PCN is addressed to
- I am applying on behalf of the person the PCN is addressed to
which is the most suitable to be selected in this circumstance ? The driver is not the owner/hirer/leaser of the vehicle
-
At this stage all that is needed is the basic non PoFA compliance as you have wrote.
Anything else can be added at a later stage as they will most likely refuse the appeal.
It could be done online on their site, but watch out for any drop down boxes asking for the driver, submit as hirer.
Keep a shot of the appeal before submitting.
-
As in the linked post, I suggest you say “does not comply” rather than “does not apear to comply”. Use the latter and they’ll just say “oh yes it does”. Even though they’ll reject anyway, as in the linked post, I think it’s better to be clear.
-
See the linked post for answers.
For notices to you as keeper, please post one of them if they’re all the same.
I just want to be sure this draft is OK to submit or should anything be adjusted ?
And how should the letter be signed off, for example, in the same manner as it was addressed ?
or by the person responding ?
And is it worth mentioning any of issues highlighted before (issues with barriers) ?
sorry for tons of questions...
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Parking Charge Notice OMITTED
Vehicle Registration: OMITTED
I write as the hirer of the above vehicle in relation to the Parking Charge Notice issued by UK Parking Administration Ltd (UKPA/HOZAH).
The notice received states that liability for the parking charge has been transferred to the hirer. However, the documentation provided does not appear to comply with the requirements set out under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in relation to hire/lease vehicles.
In particular, Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 requires that, in order to transfer liability from the vehicle hire/lease company to the hirer, the operator must provide certain mandatory documents, including:
* A copy of the hire/lease agreement
* A copy of the statement of liability signed by the hirer
* A copy of the original Notice to Keeper issued to the lease/hire company
The correspondence received did not include the above documents.
As the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 have not been satisfied, liability cannot be transferred to the hirer.
For the avoidance of doubt, the hirer is under no obligation to identify the driver and will not be doing so.
In light of the above, I respectfully request that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
NAME OMITTED
------------------
-
See the linked post for answers.
For notices to you as keeper, please post one of them if they’re all the same.
-
This is a Notice to Hirer for a hired/leased vehicle after the parking company obtained details of the hirer from the registered keeper.
A Notice to Hirer can only transfer liability from the unknown driver to the hirer if the notice is acompanied by
(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and
(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.
Did this happen?
If not, then you can appeal each NtH as the hirer as long as the driver has not been identified, on the basis that the notice does not comply with the requirements of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4. See paragraphs 13 & 14 in Schedule 4.
A sample apeal which may be suitable can be found on the forum, for example https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/premier-park-pcn-hire-vehicle-notice-to-hirer-received-but-no-hire-documents-inc/msg112671/#msg112671
Thanks very much - the driver will consider this approach and provide feedback - is it best to respond to PCN via appeal in the post ?
Is it likely this position will be rejected by the PCN issuer ? And what would be the steps beyond that ?
The other PCNS are for the drivers personal vehicle, is it Ok to post those PCN's also (will that help)
-
This is a Notice to Hirer for a hired/leased vehicle after the parking company obtained details of the hirer from the registered keeper.
A Notice to Hirer can only transfer liability from the unknown driver to the hirer if the notice is acompanied by
(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and
(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.
Did this happen?
If not, then you can appeal each NtH as the hirer as long as the driver has not been identified, on the basis that the notice does not comply with the requirements of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4. See paragraphs 13 & 14 in Schedule 4.
A sample apeal which may be suitable can be found on the forum, for example https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/premier-park-pcn-hire-vehicle-notice-to-hirer-received-but-no-hire-documents-inc/msg112671/#msg112671
-
The driver entered into a contract by parking, under the terms as displayed on the signs.
The contract will probably be that the driver agrees to pay £100 if no parking tariff is paid.
This is pretty normal.
The parking company probably does not get any money from the parking tariff, but enforces on the basis that it gets to keep the money from people who don’t pay.
So there won’t be much interest in a retrospective offer to pay the parking tariff.
OK, thanks for getting back to me and your help.
-
We need to see copies of the PPN`s, with personal details redacted but leave dates.
The company vehicle one may be better to deal with.
Hi jfollows,
I have attached the PCN, does this help ?
Update: I have uploaded the image and shared the link, but its not showing on my post ?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YGhK_0oodomM_O4yIrhX6TTKYSJESd94/view?usp=sharing
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YGhK_0oodomM_O4yIrhX6TTKYSJESd94/view?usp=sharing)
-
The driver entered into a contract by parking, under the terms as displayed on the signs.
The contract will probably be that the driver agrees to pay £100 if no parking tariff is paid.
This is pretty normal.
The parking company probably does not get any money from the parking tariff, but enforces on the basis that it gets to keep the money from people who don’t pay.
So there won’t be much interest in a retrospective offer to pay the parking tariff.
-
We need to see copies of the PPN`s, with personal details redacted but leave dates.
The company vehicle one may be better to deal with.
-
Hi all,
Looking for some advice regarding several PCNs recently received from UKPA / HOZAH.
There are around 5 tickets in question relating to 2 vehicles — one is a company vehicle and the other is the driver’s personal vehicle.
To be clear from the outset, this is not a case of somebody intentionally avoiding payment or committing fraud. The driver has used this location regularly for a long time for genuine business purposes, including deliveries, collections and dropping off goods to businesses within the shopping centre area. This is not simply a standard “customer car park” being abused for free parking.
The car park has historically allowed a free parking period (roughly up to an hour), and where stays exceeded that period, the driver has regularly paid at the exit terminal before leaving. There has never previously been an issue and payment has been made many times in the past.
However, more recently, since UKPA/HOZAH took over management of the site, the exit barrier system appears to have become unreliable. On numerous occasions the barriers have:
- already been open,
- lifted automatically without payment,
- or appeared faulty/broken.
This has happened repeatedly over a period of time and has become a noticeable issue at the site.
Because the barriers were regularly opening automatically, the genuine impression formed was that either:
- the barriers were malfunctioning,
- the system was not operating correctly,
- or no further payment action was required before exit.
On the occasions now resulting in the PCNs, the vehicles exited normally because the barriers opened automatically without any warning, refusal of exit, or indication that payment remained outstanding.
The driver appreciates that parking operators may still say payment should have been made, and the driver is willing to pay the legitimate parking tariff for the actual stay durations. However, demanding around £100 per ticket in these circumstances feels excessive and disproportionate, especially where:
- the barriers were allowing vehicles to exit freely,
- there was no attempt to evade payment,
- and the actual parking charges would have been significantly lower.
The driver has also attempted to resolve matters by accessing the online payment portal, but experienced issues with the website/payment process and redirects. During this time, the reduced amounts increased to the full PCN amounts.
The main questions are:
- Does the repeated barrier issue help the driver’s position at all?
- Would this be considered misleading or inadequate enforcement?
- Is there a reasonable argument to offer payment of the actual parking tariffs only?
- What is realistically the best route to resolve this without matters escalating unnecessarily?
Any advice would be appreciated.