Here is a cleaned up version of your appeal:
POPLA Appeal
POPLA Reference:
UKPC Reference:
Vehicle Registration:
I am the Registered Keeper (RK) of the vehicle in question, and I am appealing the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the following grounds:
Grounds for Appeal:
1. Consideration and Grace Periods
2. No Evidence of the Period of Parking in the Notice to Keeper
3. Alteration of Photographic Evidence
4. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
5. Non-compliance with Keeper Liability under PoFA
Expanded Grounds:
1. Consideration and Grace Periods
The photos taken only cover a period of 9 seconds, and no evidence has been provided that the vehicle was there for longer than this. According to the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) section 13.1, drivers must be afforded a reasonable consideration period to decide whether to accept the parking terms and conditions before entering into a contract.
Quote: BPA CoP 13.1
"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."
In this case, no reasonable consideration period was allowed, and there is no evidence that the vehicle was on site for more than 9 seconds, which is significantly less than the BPA's minimum consideration period of 5 minutes.
2. No Evidence of the Period of Parking in the Notice to Keeper
Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a), a Notice to Keeper (NtK) must "specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates." In this case, the Notice to Keeper issued by UKPC does not comply with this requirement.
The images provided in the NtK only show the vehicle present at the location for a mere 9 seconds, which is insufficient to describe a "period of parking." A single timestamp does not constitute a "period," as it does not show the vehicle parked for a continuous duration of time. It is merely an instance in time. The use of only entry or exit timestamps, without showing the vehicle actually parked for a specific period, fails to meet the statutory requirement under PoFA.
Since UKPC has not complied with PoFA by failing to specify the "period of parking," the operator cannot rely on keeper liability to enforce this parking charge. According to PoFA, the operator can only transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper if all the conditions in Schedule 4 are met, including the requirement to specify the period of parking. As this condition has not been fulfilled, UKPC cannot hold me, as the Registered Keeper, liable for the charge.
In the absence of this crucial information, the NtK is non-compliant with PoFA, and as such, I, as the Keeper, cannot be held liable for the Parking Charge Notice. Partial or even substantial compliance with PoFA is not sufficient. The operator's failure to meet these legal requirements means that the responsibility for the charge cannot be transferred to the Keeper under PoFA, and UKPC can only pursue the driver, who has not been identified.
This PoFA failure alone is grounds for the cancellation of the charge, as liability cannot flow from the driver to the Keeper when the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the legal requirements set out under PoFA.
3. Alteration of Photographic Evidence
The images provided on the Notice to Keeper appear to have been distorted, cropped, or altered in some way, which is in breach of BPA CoP section 21.5a, which states:
Quote: BPA CoP 21.5a
"All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."
Additionally, the private parking sector's single Code of Practice states:
Quote: Code of Practice"Parking operators must not digitally or by other means alter images used as photographic evidence other than:
a) to blur faces or the VRMs of other vehicles in the image in accordance with their GDPR obligations; or
b) to enhance the image of the VRM for clarity, but not to alter the letters and numbers displayed."
A recent POPLA appeal (POPLA code: 2413353469, Assessor: Gayle Stanton) upheld the appellant's appeal on the grounds that images in the NtK had been altered. This precedent should be considered in my case, as the images here are similarly unclear and digitally altered.
4. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
The operator has not provided evidence that they have the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices on the land in question. The BPA Code of Practice (section 7.2 and 7.3) requires that operators have written authorisation from the landholder to enforce parking charges and take legal action. This written authorisation must clearly define:
(a) The boundaries of the land on which the operator can operate.
(b) The conditions or restrictions on parking control, including any grace periods.
(c) The operator’s authority to issue charges in their own name rather than acting as an agent on behalf of the landowner.
I require UKPC to provide unredacted, contemporaneous proof of their landholder authority, as a mere witness statement or a redacted contract will not suffice.
5. Non-compliance with Keeper Liability under PoFA
UKPC has not met the requirements for keeper liability under PoFA. As they have not fully complied with PoFA, they cannot hold the registered keeper liable for the alleged parking charge. Since the operator has failed to establish the driver’s identity and has not provided sufficient evidence to meet PoFA requirements, the liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper.
Conclusion
This appeal highlights several serious procedural errors and failures by the operator, UKPC, which demonstrate that the Parking Charge Notice has been issued incorrectly. There is no valid evidence of a "period of parking," the photographic evidence has been altered, and the operator has not shown that they have authority from the landholder to issue parking charges. Furthermore, UKPC has not complied with the legal requirements to transfer liability to the keeper under PoFA.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the POPLA assessor upholds my appeal and cancels the Parking Charge Notice.
If you're happy to fight this, it is 99% sure to end up being a discontinuation. There is a chance that it could be cancelled at POPLA stage but even if it isn't, UKPC will not put it in front of a judge if it is robustly defended.
There is a technical flaw in the NtK in that there is no "period" of parking mentioned as required if they intend to rely on PoFA to hold the keeper liable. PoFA 9(2)(a) States that the notice must specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates. It doesn't.
Also, the photos have had the time stamp added after the fact. This can be seen in the photo on the NtK has no time stamp but the same photo on file does. Either that or they have cropped (altered) the photo in the NtK. That is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) section 21.5a(b). Photographic evidence must not be used as the basis for issuing a parking charge unless the images bear an accurate time and date stamp applied at the point the picture was taken.
Additionally, it says: "You must not digitally or by other means alter images used as photographic evidence other than:
e) to blur faces or the VRMs of other vehicles in the image in accordance with your GDPR obligations; or
f) to enhance the image of the VRM for clarity, but not to alter the letters and numbers displayed.
It is obvious that they have either added the time stamp after the fact or edited the photo on the NtK. Both those facts are breaches of the BPA CoP and mean that the PCN has not been issued correctly.
POPLA will not consider any mitigation. It will only consider breach of law or the BPA CoP. The NtK does not fully comply with the requirements of PoFA (the law) and UKPC have breached their own ATA CoP. In POPLA appeal 2413353469, assessor Gayle Stanton allowed the appeal and stated the following:
"I have reviewed the copy of the NTK provided by the operator and I am not satisfied that the images of the vehicle number plate on the NTK are compliant with Section 21.5a of the BPA Code of Practice.
These images are not date stamped and after seeing the full images in the case file they appear to have been digitally altered or cropped to fit on the NTK. This is especially apparent on the colour image on the NTK."
UKPC signs are notoriously bad and consistently fail to adequately notify the driver of the charge. Their signs are cluttered and poorly worded. That alone has often been a winner at POPLA and of the very few that ever get as far as a hearing in front of a judge, are won on the fact that their signs fail to make a contract between UKPC and the driver. One more reason why they really don't want this to get in front of a judge as they have often been spanked over this issue.
There are other points but more than enough to be getting on with. You won't be paying a penny to UKPC and there is no danger of a CCJ. You may have to weather some nasty sounding debt collector letters but they can be safely ignored. Debt collectors are not a party to the contract allegedly breached by the driver with UKPC. Use their letters as kindling or line the bottom of cat litter tray.
Have you tried Plan A yet? That is asking the landowner/managing agent to get this cancelled? Plan B is to appeal to UKPC but it is most probable that they will reject, no matter what. No money in it for them if they accept appeals.
POPLA will be the next stage but a rejection at POPLA has no bearing on any further outcome. If it ever got as far as a court claim and it actually went as far as a hearing, a truly independent arbiter, a judge, would be able to see al the failures.
So, Plan A first. If that doesn't work, on or before 30th July appeal to UKPC with the following:
I appeal as the registered keeper. I am not obliged to identify the driver and decline to do so. You cannot transfer the driver’s liability (if any) to me as you have not served me with a notice to keeper that fully complies with all the requirements of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and it is now too late to do so. In particular (without limitation) your notice does not contain the wording required by PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a).
Additionally, the photos you have provided as evidence on the NtK have been altered or cropped and differ from the file photos in that there is no timestamp or it has been cropped (altered). This is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) section 21.5a.
There is no evidence that the driver was allowed a consideration period. Your photos show that your operative decided that 9 seconds was sufficient time for them to record any alleged breach of contract. There is persuasive law that says loading/unloading a vehicle (that includes goods or passengers) is not parking.
I require you to cancel the parking charge and remove my personal information from your database or, if not, then issue me with a POPLA code where I will evidence your failures to issue the PCN correctly.