@jfollows, there are no "fines" involved in civil litigation. The county court cannot and will not impose any "fine" as this has nothing to do with statutory law and penalties.
If this ever gets to court and all the way to a hearing (unlikely), the county court is simply the ultimate dispute resolution service. The operator (the claimant) says you owe them a debt. You say you don't. A judge will hear the arguments of both sides and based on the facts, will decide whether you owe the debt or not. It is as simple as that. Even if you were to be unsuccessful, it is highly likely that you would pay less than the amount claimed, because extra costs and damages are not allowed in the small claims track of the county court. That is why it is known as the "small claims" court.
So, court in this sense is nothing to do with criminal law. That is for higher courts such as the magistrates court, high court and above. This is simply a way to settle claims over an alleged debt and you don't have a debt until a judge says you do.
For anyone with an overactive imagination and thoughts about the Old Bailey, wigs and gowns, here is a short video to explain how a small-claims hearing is conducted in the county court:
https://youtu.be/n93eoaxhzpU?feature=shared
Why no bailiff can knock on your door
1. County Court Judgment (CCJ):• A bailiff (enforcement agent) can only get involved after a creditor has obtained a CCJ against you in a county court.
• If the CCJ is under £600, the creditor cannot transfer it to the High Court for enforcement by a High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO). Instead, enforcement would remain under the county court's jurisdiction.
2. Threshold for High Court Enforcement:• If a CCJ is over £600 (including fees and interest), the creditor can transfer it to the High Court for enforcement by an HCEO. This is a common method because HCEOs tend to be more effective at recovering money.
3. Cost-Benefit Analysis for Creditors:• For CCJs under £600, creditors may find it uneconomical to pursue enforcement through county court bailiffs, as they are generally slower and less effective than HCEOs.
• As a result, creditors may opt not to escalate enforcement for small amounts.
4. Private Parking Charges and Bailiffs:• In the context of private parking charges, no bailiff action can occur unless the parking operator has gone to court, won a case, obtained a CCJ, and you fail to pay the judgment within the stipulated time (usually 30 days).
So, no bailiff will come to your door for a debt under £600 unless the creditor deems it worth pursuing through county court enforcement. However, even if the debt is over £600, bailiff involvement only happens after a CCJ is issued, and enforcement is transferred to the High Court.
A County Court Judgment (CCJ) does not just happen—it follows a clear legal process. If someone gets a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a private parking company, here's what happens step by step:1. Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issued• The parking company sends a letter (Notice to Keeper) demanding money.
• This is not a fine—it’s an invoice for an alleged breach of contract.
2. Opportunity to Appeal• The recipient can appeal to the parking company.
•If rejected, they may be able to appeal to POPLA (if BPA member) or IAS (if IPC member).
• If an appeal is lost or ignored, the parking company demands payment.
3. Debt Collection Letters• The parking company might send scary letters or pass the case to a debt collector.
• Debt collectors have no power—they just send letters and can be ignored.
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
4. Letter Before Claim (LBC)• If ignored for long enough, the parking company (or their solicitor) sends a Letter Before Claim (LBC).
• This is a warning that they may start a court case.
• The recipient has 30 days to reply before a claim is filed.
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
5. County Court Claim Issued• If ignored or unpaid, the parking company may file a claim with the County Court.
• The court sends a Claim Form with details of the claim and how to respond.
• The recipient has 14 days to respond (or 28 days if they acknowledge it).
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
6. Court Process• If the recipient defends the claim, a judge decides if they owe money.
• If the recipient ignores the claim, the parking company wins by default.
• No CCJ happens yet unless the recipient loses and ignores the court.
7. Judgment & Payment• If the court rules that money is owed, the recipient has 30 days to pay in full.
• If they pay within 30 days, no CCJ goes on their credit file.
• If they don’t pay within 30 days, the CCJ stays on their credit file for 6 years.
Conclusion
CCJs do not appear out of thin air. They only happen if:• A parking company takes the case to court.
• The person loses or ignores the case.
• The person fails to pay within 30 days.
If you engage with the process (appeal, defend, or pay on time), no CCJ happens.
Of course they will be demanding payment. It does not mean that you owe them the money.
Our advice is to not pay it and ignore all the debt recovery letters that are going to follow. The debt collectors are powerless except to scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.
Once they realise that you are not low-hanging fruit they will then issue a Letter of Claim (LoC) and then an N1SDT Claim Form. We would provide a suitable defence and eventually they will discontinue.
However, you sound as though you are going to capitulate and become a part of the problem rather than part of the solution. This is exactly what these predatory companies want... lambs to the slaughter.
You either fight this all the way to a win or you waste your money.
Never mind. Their decision is not binding on you and has no bearing on anything going forwards. Do not pay anything.
Did you not receive a copy of the operators evidence pack at some stage after you submitted the POPLA appeal? If so, why did you bot show us? Did you respond to the operators evidence pack?
This POPLA assessor has a bit of a reputation for being ignorant in most matters of contract law and I have already drafted a few formal complaints about his flawed decision making and obvious lack of sufficient contract law knowledge.
This is what is going to happen next... you will receive a bunch of useless Debt Recovery Agent (DRA) letters which you can safely ignore. They are powerless except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear. Ignore them.
Eventually, you will receive a Letter of Claim (LoC), most likely from DCB Legal (not DCBL). When you get the LoC, come back and we will advise on how to respond. After that, you will receive an actual N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC. Again, we will provide a suitable defence. After many months (could be up to a year or even more), the claim will be either struck out or discontinued and that will be the end of the matter. There is less than 1% chance that this will ever go as far as a hearing.
Just ignore everything now except either an loC or the claim. We do not need to know about the useless and powerless DRAs.
Never mind. Their decision is not binding on you and has no bearing on anything going forwards. Do not pay anything.
Did you not receive a copy of the operators evidence pack at some stage after you submitted the POPLA appeal? If so, why did you bot show us? Did you respond to the operators evidence pack?
This POPLA assessor has a bit of a reputation for being ignorant in most matters of contract law and I have already drafted a few formal complaints about his flawed decision making and obvious lack of sufficient contract law knowledge.
This is what is going to happen next... you will receive a bunch of useless Debt Recovery Agent (DRA) letters which you can safely ignore. They are powerless except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear. Ignore them.
Eventually, you will receive a Letter of Claim (LoC), most likely from DCB Legal (not DCBL). When you get the LoC, come back and we will advise on how to respond. After that, you will receive an actual N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC. Again, we will provide a suitable defence. After many months (could be up to a year or even more), the claim will be either struck out or discontinued and that will be the end of the matter. There is less than 1% chance that this will ever go as far as a hearing.
Just ignore everything now except either an loC or the claim. We do not need to know about the useless and powerless DRAs.
The windscreen PCN issued to the driver, while not fully compliant with PoFA paragraph 7 for a Notice to Driver (NtD), should still be considered a valid NtD. This is supported by the BPA Code of Practice (v9), Section 24.1, which defines a parking charge notice as the document given to drivers or affixed to their vehicle to inform them of a breach of terms and conditions, making them liable for parking charges. A valid PCN affixed to a windscreen is therefore a Notice to Driver (NtD).
Have you had a response from Mr Appiah yet?
Here is a more detailed POPLA appeal based on your circumstances:QuotePOPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC)
PCN Number: [Insert PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert Vehicle Registration]
POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC)
Grounds for Appeal1. The Windscreen Note Constitutes a Notice to Driver (NtD) Under PoFA, and the Notice to Keeper (NtK) Was Premature.
2. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the Requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
3. UKPC Has Not Proven That the Individual Being Pursued Was the Driver.
4. Inadequate Signage Breaching the BPA Code of Practice.
5. No Evidence of Landholder Authority.
1. The Windscreen Note Constitutes a Notice to Driver (NtD) Under PoFA, and the NtK Was Premature. The Windscreen Note Was Presented as a Notice to Driver (NtD)
The document left on the vehicle windscreen was enclosed in a yellow plastic envelope marked “Parking Charge Notice”, giving the appearance of a formal NtD. The design, language, and presentation of this document were clearly intended to mimic an official NtD, fulfilling the role of an NtD for all practical purposes.
(https://i.ibb.co/MDSYJ3x/IMG-0068.jpg)
By leaving this document on the vehicle, UKPC initiated the procedural process described in Schedule 4, Paragraph 8 of PoFA, which requires operators to wait a minimum of 28 days before serving a Notice to Keeper (NtK).
UKPC Cannot Circumvent PoFA by Issuing an Improper NtD. If UKPC claims the windscreen note was not a valid NtD, they are effectively admitting to issuing a non-compliant notice.
This non-compliance cannot exempt them from PoFA requirements. UKPC cannot rely on the windscreen note as evidence of a contravention while simultaneously denying its status as an NtD to circumvent the 28-day timeline mandated by Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(4).
Premature NtK
UKPC issued the NtK only two days after leaving the windscreen note. This premature issuance violates PoFA, rendering the NtK invalid.
2. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with PoFA
To transfer liability to the registered keeper, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). UKPC’s NtK fails to meet the mandatory requirements, rendering it invalid.
Omission of Mandatory Information
Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(2) of PoFA specifies the information that must be included in the NtK. UKPC’s NtK omits a key detail, the period of parking to which the charge relates. Without this information, the NtK is non-compliant with PoFA, and the operator cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper.
PoFA specifically states, irrespective of whether under paragraph 8 or 9 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." An NtK, whether issued under paragraph 8 or 9 of Schedule 4 of PoFA is required to fully comply with ALL the requirements of the Act. Partial or even substantial compliance is insufficient.
3. UKPC Has Not Proven That the Individual Being Pursued Was the Driver
UKPC has not identified the driver at the time of the alleged contravention and instead relies on assumptions that the registered keeper was the driver.
Legal Requirements
Schedule 4 of PoFA allows liability to be transferred to the registered keeper only if the operator fully complies with ALL its requirements. UKPC has provided no evidence, to establish the identity of the driver. The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. The NtK can only hold the driver liable.
Relevant Legal Precedent
In VCS v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C], the court considered the issue of driver identification. From paragraph 31 onwards, it was emphasised that:• A parking operator must present substantive evidence to demonstrate who the driver was at the time of the alleged contravention.
• Liability cannot simply be presumed based on the registered keeper’s details or their correspondence.
This case reinforces that unless the operator identifies the driver, they cannot hold anyone liable as the driver unless PoFA's strict conditions for transferring liability to the registered keeper are met. In this case, UKPC has failed to provide any such evidence, relying solely on the registered keeper’s details to pursue this charge.
4. Inadequate Signage Breaching the BPA Code of Practice
UKPC’s signage at the site fails to meet the standards set by the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, Section 19.
Poor Visibility and Clarity
The signs were either obscured, too small, or positioned in a way that made them unreadable. Key parking terms were not clearly communicated, leading to confusion.
Failure to Form a Contract
The lack of clear, prominent, and legible signage means no contract was formed between the driver and UKPC. This invalidates the parking charge.
5. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
UKPC is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.
The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules.
A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, consideration periods, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.
Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and, of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement). Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:(a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
(b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
(c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
(d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
(e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
Conclusion
In light of the above points, this Parking Charge Notice is invalid and unenforceable. UKPC has failed to:• Adhere to the procedural requirements of PoFA regarding Notices to Driver and Keeper.
• Issue a Notice to Keeper that complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
• Establish who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention.
• Provide clear and adequate signage in line with BPA guidelines.
• Demonstrate their authority to operate on the land in question.
I request that POPLA allow this appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC)
PCN Number: [Insert PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert Vehicle Registration]
POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC)
Grounds for Appeal1. The Windscreen Note Constitutes a Notice to Driver (NtD) Under PoFA, and the Notice to Keeper (NtK) Was Premature.
2. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the Requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
3. UKPC Has Not Proven That the Individual Being Pursued Was the Driver.
4. Inadequate Signage Breaching the BPA Code of Practice.
5. No Evidence of Landholder Authority.
1. The Windscreen Note Constitutes a Notice to Driver (NtD) Under PoFA, and the NtK Was Premature. The Windscreen Note Was Presented as a Notice to Driver (NtD)
The document left on the vehicle windscreen was enclosed in a yellow plastic envelope marked “Parking Charge Notice”, giving the appearance of a formal NtD. The design, language, and presentation of this document were clearly intended to mimic an official NtD, fulfilling the role of an NtD for all practical purposes.
(https://i.ibb.co/MDSYJ3x/IMG-0068.jpg)
By leaving this document on the vehicle, UKPC initiated the procedural process described in Schedule 4, Paragraph 8 of PoFA, which requires operators to wait a minimum of 28 days before serving a Notice to Keeper (NtK).
UKPC Cannot Circumvent PoFA by Issuing an Improper NtD. If UKPC claims the windscreen note was not a valid NtD, they are effectively admitting to issuing a non-compliant notice.
This non-compliance cannot exempt them from PoFA requirements. UKPC cannot rely on the windscreen note as evidence of a contravention while simultaneously denying its status as an NtD to circumvent the 28-day timeline mandated by Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(4).
Premature NtK
UKPC issued the NtK only two days after leaving the windscreen note. This premature issuance violates PoFA, rendering the NtK invalid.
2. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with PoFA
To transfer liability to the registered keeper, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). UKPC’s NtK fails to meet the mandatory requirements, rendering it invalid.
Omission of Mandatory Information
Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(2) of PoFA specifies the information that must be included in the NtK. UKPC’s NtK omits a key detail, the period of parking to which the charge relates. Without this information, the NtK is non-compliant with PoFA, and the operator cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper.
PoFA specifically states, irrespective of whether under paragraph 8 or 9 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." An NtK, whether issued under paragraph 8 or 9 of Schedule 4 of PoFA is required to fully comply with ALL the requirements of the Act. Partial or even substantial compliance is insufficient.
3. UKPC Has Not Proven That the Individual Being Pursued Was the Driver
UKPC has not identified the driver at the time of the alleged contravention and instead relies on assumptions that the registered keeper was the driver.
Legal Requirements
Schedule 4 of PoFA allows liability to be transferred to the registered keeper only if the operator fully complies with ALL its requirements. UKPC has provided no evidence, to establish the identity of the driver. The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. The NtK can only hold the driver liable.
Relevant Legal Precedent
In VCS v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C], the court considered the issue of driver identification. From paragraph 31 onwards, it was emphasised that:• A parking operator must present substantive evidence to demonstrate who the driver was at the time of the alleged contravention.
• Liability cannot simply be presumed based on the registered keeper’s details or their correspondence.
This case reinforces that unless the operator identifies the driver, they cannot hold anyone liable as the driver unless PoFA's strict conditions for transferring liability to the registered keeper are met. In this case, UKPC has failed to provide any such evidence, relying solely on the registered keeper’s details to pursue this charge.
4. Inadequate Signage Breaching the BPA Code of Practice
UKPC’s signage at the site fails to meet the standards set by the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, Section 19.
Poor Visibility and Clarity
The signs were either obscured, too small, or positioned in a way that made them unreadable. Key parking terms were not clearly communicated, leading to confusion.
Failure to Form a Contract
The lack of clear, prominent, and legible signage means no contract was formed between the driver and UKPC. This invalidates the parking charge.
5. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
UKPC is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.
The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules.
A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, consideration periods, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.
Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and, of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement). Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:(a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
(b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
(c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
(d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
(e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
Conclusion
In light of the above points, this Parking Charge Notice is invalid and unenforceable. UKPC has failed to:• Adhere to the procedural requirements of PoFA regarding Notices to Driver and Keeper.
• Issue a Notice to Keeper that complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
• Establish who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention.
• Provide clear and adequate signage in line with BPA guidelines.
• Demonstrate their authority to operate on the land in question.
I request that POPLA allow this appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
As expected. UKPC will always reject an appeal. There's no money it for them if they don't.
So, you now have a POPLA code and you need to prepare an appeal to them based on the points I have already given you earlier. You have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection to submit the POPLA appeal so, no rush.
Show us what you think is suitable for the POPLA appeal and we will provide corrections and suggestions to make sure it is suitable for submission.
No one pays UKPC PCNs if they are getting advice here. Even if it went all the way to a court claim, it would eventually be discontinued.
Good evening,
I hope you can provide some feedback on my POPLA appeal below, thanks in advance!
POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC)
PCN Number:
Vehicle Registration:
Grounds for Appeal:
Failure to Adhere to the Requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
The Operator Has Not Shown That the Individual Being Pursued Is the Driver.
Inadequate Signage Leading to a Breach of the BPA Code of Practice.
No Evidence of Landholder Authority.
Misleading and Predatory Tactics.
1. Failure to Adhere to the Requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
To hold a registered keeper liable for a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), UKPC must fully comply with all procedural and substantive requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). This includes:
Premature Issuance of the Notice to Keeper (NtK):
Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(4) of PoFA mandates that when a Notice to Driver (NtD) has been issued, the operator must wait a minimum of 28 days before serving a Notice to Keeper (NtK).
In this case, an NtD was affixed to the vehicle, yet the NtK was sent before the 28-day period had elapsed, violating the statutory timeline. This procedural failure invalidates the ability of UKPC to transfer liability to the registered keeper.
Omission of Required Information in the NtK:
Paragraph 8(2) of PoFA outlines specific information that must be included in the NtK. UKPC's NtK does not meet these requirements in full. For example, it fails to:
Clearly state the period of parking to which the charge relates.
Specify the steps taken to identify the driver before pursuing the registered keeper.
The absence of this information renders the NtK non-compliant with PoFA, meaning the registered keeper cannot be held liable.
2. The Operator Has Not Shown That the Individual Being Pursued Is the Driver
UKPC has relied solely on the assumption that the registered keeper was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. Under Paragraph 4(1) of PoFA, only the driver can be held liable unless strict compliance with PoFA enables the operator to transfer liability to the registered keeper.
No evidence, such as photographic identification of the driver, has been provided by UKPC.
As per the legal principle established in CPS Ltd v AJH Films Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1453, liability cannot simply be inferred based on keeper information without substantiating evidence.
Since UKPC has not identified the driver and has failed to meet the conditions for keeper liability, the PCN cannot be enforced.
3. Inadequate Signage Leading to a Breach of the BPA Code of Practice
The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires that parking terms and conditions be clearly and prominently displayed. In this case:
Signs at the location were either obscured, too small, or positioned in a way that made them unreadable.
The signage failed to comply with BPA Code of Practice Section 19, which requires that terms be clear, unambiguous, and visible to all motorists.
At the time of the alleged contravention, the signage did not adequately communicate the parking terms, leading to confusion.
This failure undermines any alleged contractual agreement and invalidates the claim.
4. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
UKPC has failed to demonstrate its authority to issue parking charges on this land. According to Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, parking operators must have written authorization from the landholder confirming their authority to manage parking at the site.
UKPC has not provided a copy of their contract with the landowner or evidence of their legal authority to issue PCNs.
Without such proof, UKPC cannot demonstrate that they have the right to enforce parking terms or pursue charges.
5. Misleading and Predatory Tactics
UKPC’s conduct in this matter was misleading and predatory:
The NtK was issued prematurely, and their response to my initial appeal was dismissive, failing to address key legal points raised regarding PoFA compliance.
The aggressive issuance of this PCN during a maternity-related hospital visit reflects poorly on UKPC’s adherence to BPA’s principles of fairness and proportionality.
The NHS Car Parking Guidance 2022 emphasizes the importance of parking policies that accommodate patients and their families, particularly in urgent medical situations. UKPC’s actions in this case contravene these principles and bring disrepute to their parking management practices.
Conclusion
In light of the above points, this PCN is invalid and unenforceable. UKPC has failed to:
Comply with the procedural requirements of PoFA.
Establish who was driving the vehicle at the time.
Provide evidence of clear and adequate signage.
Demonstrate landholder authority.
Conduct themselves in a manner consistent with BPA’s Code of Practice and NHS Car Parking Guidance.
I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the PCN.
Yours sincerely,
As expected. UKPC will always reject an appeal. There's no money it for them if they don't.
So, you now have a POPLA code and you need to prepare an appeal to them based on the points I have already given you earlier. You have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection to submit the POPLA appeal so, no rush.
Show us what you think is suitable for the POPLA appeal and we will provide corrections and suggestions to make sure it is suitable for submission.
No one pays UKPC PCNs if they are getting advice here. Even if it went all the way to a court claim, it would eventually be discontinued.
Have you sent this letter?
Do you have a copy of the Trust's Car Parking Policy?
Hi, is the 33 days to appeal to POPLA correct or is it 28 days as stated in the rejection letter.The 28 days starts fro the date of service which they allow 5 days for from the issue date.
I suggest you respond to Mr Appiah at the Trust with the following:QuoteSubject: Formal Response to PCN Complaint – Joint and Several Liability for UKPC’s Actions
Dear Mr. Appiah,
I am writing in response to your letter dated [insert date], regarding my complaint about the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC) at Burnley General Hospital. I appreciate the time taken to review my concerns, but I must address several key points where I believe your response has overlooked both legal and procedural obligations under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. I also hold East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust jointly and severally liable for any future legal action that may arise should UKPC pursue this matter further.
1. Misclassification of the "Parking Charge Notice" as Not an NtD
While the notice left on my vehicle does not meet all the specific requirements under Schedule 4, PoFA 2012 for an official Notice to Driver (NtD) – lacking details such as vehicle information, location, and time of issue – it is explicitly labelled a "Parking Charge Notice" (PCN). This classification and the use of such terminology imply an enforceable charge under PoFA, thereby reasonably inducing me to regard it as an NtD.
The labelling of this notice as a PCN aligns with the function and purpose of an NtD as intended by PoFA: to inform the driver of an alleged breach and the imposition of a charge. Consequently, the notice should be considered an NtD in substance, if not in full form, thus requiring UKPC to observe the 28-day delay before accessing registered keeper details.
2. Substance Over Form – Legal Doctrine and Reasonable Interpretation
In legal interpretation, courts frequently apply the doctrine of “substance over form”, which prioritises the intent and practical effect of a document over its technical format. By labelling this document as a “Parking Charge Notice”, UKPC created the reasonable impression that it serves as a formal notice initiating the enforcement process, effectively functioning as an NtD.
The lack of certain minor details does not negate its role as an NtD, and I would expect the Trust, in holding UKPC accountable to PoFA and BPA Code of Practice, to consider this document in substance as an NtD. Failure to do so could allow UKPC to bypass statutory protections through technical evasions, which is neither in line with PoFA’s intent nor with fair consumer practice.
3. Expectation of the Reasonable Person and Transparency
The notice’s prominent labelling as a “Parking Charge Notice” would lead any reasonable person to interpret it as a formal notice of a charge in line with PoFA procedures. UKPC’s denial that this is an NtD contradicts the reasonable expectation created by their choice of language. By failing to treat this notice as an NtD and by accessing my details prematurely, UKPC has violated both PoFA and BPA Code of Practice guidelines, which your Trust is obligated to enforce through your contract with them.
4. NHS Trust Liability – Obligations Under NHS Car Parking Guidance 2022
The NHS Car Parking Guidance 2022 clearly states that NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of contractors managing parking on their behalf. It further emphasises that contracts with parking operators should be managed to prevent rogue practices and to ensure compliance with relevant codes of practice.
UKPC’s actions in this instance are not only non-compliant with PoFA and the BPA Code of Practice but could also be viewed as contrary to NHS guidance, particularly in failing to respect the rights of vehicle keepers. East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust has an obligation to ensure that UKPC adheres to both legal requirements and ethical standards, particularly when dealing with vulnerable patients attending medical facilities.
5. Joint and Several Liability for Future Legal Action
In light of the above points, I hold East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust jointly and severally liable for any future legal action that may arise should UKPC pursue this PCN. The Trust’s contractual relationship with UKPC places it in a position of accountability, particularly where contractors are found to be operating outside of legal guidelines and established codes of practice.
Should UKPC pursue further action, I will not hesitate to include the Trust as a co-defendant, based on its duty of care to enforce compliance with PoFA and the BPA Code. By allowing UKPC to operate in such a manner, the Trust is effectively endorsing practices that could result in unfair legal claims against innocent motorists, which is entirely unacceptable for an organisation committed to patient welfare.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I expect East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust to hold UKPC accountable for adhering to all statutory requirements, including PoFA’s 28-day delay requirement following a Notice to Driver. I further expect that this PCN will be cancelled immediately, given the numerous procedural errors outlined above, and that steps will be taken to ensure UKPC’s compliance with PoFA and NHS guidelines on your premises.
Please confirm in writing within 14 days how the Trust intends to address these issues and whether UKPC will be instructed to cancel this PCN. Should the Trust choose not to act on this matter, I will take appropriate steps to protect my legal rights, including holding the Trust accountable as a joint party in any further action.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Contact Information]
As expected. UKPC will always reject an appeal. There's no money it for them if they don't.
So, you now have a POPLA code and you need to prepare an appeal to them based on the points I have already given you earlier. You have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection to submit the POPLA appeal so, no rush.
Show us what you think is suitable for the POPLA appeal and we will provide corrections and suggestions to make sure it is suitable for submission.
No one pays UKPC PCNs if they are getting advice here. Even if it went all the way to a court claim, it would eventually be discontinued.
Subject: Formal Response to PCN Complaint – Joint and Several Liability for UKPC’s Actions
Dear Mr. Appiah,
I am writing in response to your letter dated [insert date], regarding my complaint about the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC) at Burnley General Hospital. I appreciate the time taken to review my concerns, but I must address several key points where I believe your response has overlooked both legal and procedural obligations under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. I also hold East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust jointly and severally liable for any future legal action that may arise should UKPC pursue this matter further.
1. Misclassification of the "Parking Charge Notice" as Not an NtD
While the notice left on my vehicle does not meet all the specific requirements under Schedule 4, PoFA 2012 for an official Notice to Driver (NtD) – lacking details such as vehicle information, location, and time of issue – it is explicitly labelled a "Parking Charge Notice" (PCN). This classification and the use of such terminology imply an enforceable charge under PoFA, thereby reasonably inducing me to regard it as an NtD.
The labelling of this notice as a PCN aligns with the function and purpose of an NtD as intended by PoFA: to inform the driver of an alleged breach and the imposition of a charge. Consequently, the notice should be considered an NtD in substance, if not in full form, thus requiring UKPC to observe the 28-day delay before accessing registered keeper details.
2. Substance Over Form – Legal Doctrine and Reasonable Interpretation
In legal interpretation, courts frequently apply the doctrine of “substance over form”, which prioritises the intent and practical effect of a document over its technical format. By labelling this document as a “Parking Charge Notice”, UKPC created the reasonable impression that it serves as a formal notice initiating the enforcement process, effectively functioning as an NtD.
The lack of certain minor details does not negate its role as an NtD, and I would expect the Trust, in holding UKPC accountable to PoFA and BPA Code of Practice, to consider this document in substance as an NtD. Failure to do so could allow UKPC to bypass statutory protections through technical evasions, which is neither in line with PoFA’s intent nor with fair consumer practice.
3. Expectation of the Reasonable Person and Transparency
The notice’s prominent labelling as a “Parking Charge Notice” would lead any reasonable person to interpret it as a formal notice of a charge in line with PoFA procedures. UKPC’s denial that this is an NtD contradicts the reasonable expectation created by their choice of language. By failing to treat this notice as an NtD and by accessing my details prematurely, UKPC has violated both PoFA and BPA Code of Practice guidelines, which your Trust is obligated to enforce through your contract with them.
4. NHS Trust Liability – Obligations Under NHS Car Parking Guidance 2022
The NHS Car Parking Guidance 2022 clearly states that NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of contractors managing parking on their behalf. It further emphasises that contracts with parking operators should be managed to prevent rogue practices and to ensure compliance with relevant codes of practice.
UKPC’s actions in this instance are not only non-compliant with PoFA and the BPA Code of Practice but could also be viewed as contrary to NHS guidance, particularly in failing to respect the rights of vehicle keepers. East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust has an obligation to ensure that UKPC adheres to both legal requirements and ethical standards, particularly when dealing with vulnerable patients attending medical facilities.
5. Joint and Several Liability for Future Legal Action
In light of the above points, I hold East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust jointly and severally liable for any future legal action that may arise should UKPC pursue this PCN. The Trust’s contractual relationship with UKPC places it in a position of accountability, particularly where contractors are found to be operating outside of legal guidelines and established codes of practice.
Should UKPC pursue further action, I will not hesitate to include the Trust as a co-defendant, based on its duty of care to enforce compliance with PoFA and the BPA Code. By allowing UKPC to operate in such a manner, the Trust is effectively endorsing practices that could result in unfair legal claims against innocent motorists, which is entirely unacceptable for an organisation committed to patient welfare.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I expect East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust to hold UKPC accountable for adhering to all statutory requirements, including PoFA’s 28-day delay requirement following a Notice to Driver. I further expect that this PCN will be cancelled immediately, given the numerous procedural errors outlined above, and that steps will be taken to ensure UKPC’s compliance with PoFA and NHS guidelines on your premises.
Please confirm in writing within 14 days how the Trust intends to address these issues and whether UKPC will be instructed to cancel this PCN. Should the Trust choose not to act on this matter, I will take appropriate steps to protect my legal rights, including holding the Trust accountable as a joint party in any further action.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Contact Information]
A fob off. Escalate your complaint to the NHS Trust CEO. Get back in touch with PALS and remind whichever moron sent you that response that there has been no "PENALTY" Charge Notice issued because an unregulated private parking company of ex-clamper thugs is not and could never be an "authority" that could issue a "penalty" of any kind. Also remind them that no "offence" has been committed. A "PARKING" Charge Notice is simply a speculative invoice form an alleged breach of contract by the driver of the vehicle and their use of the word "penalty" in their correspondence shows a level of ignorance that is embarrassing and will be reported.
Also point them to the Department of Health and Social Care guidance: NHS car parking guidance 2022 for NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles#:~:text=Parking%20will%20be%20provided%20free,a%20period%20of%2030%20days.), specifically the bit about "Contracted out parking".
Tell them that you are escalating this to the East Lancashire Hospital Trusts CEO, Martin Hodgson.
You need to immediately send a complaint to the CEO at martin.hodgson@elht.nhs.ukQuoteSubject: Urgent Complaint Regarding Unjust Parking Charge Notice and PALS Response at Burnley Hospital
Dear Mr. Hodgson,
I am writing to formally complain about the handling of my issue by the PALS department and the unfair Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC), which operates on behalf of Burnley General Hospital.
During a recent emergency visit to the maternity suite, while my wife was heavily pregnant, I parked quickly to get her the urgent care she needed. Upon returning to my vehicle, I found an irregular notice left on the windscreen, stating that a PCN would be sent to the registered keeper by post. That PCN has now been received, but I must highlight a serious issue.
UKPC’s issuance of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). The notice left on my windscreen, regardless of whether it was classed as a proper Notice to Driver (NtD), is effectively an NtD under PoFA. As such, UKPC should not have requested the keeper’s details from the DVLA until 28 days after the issue of the NtD. By requesting these details prematurely, UKPC has breached both the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and PoFA.
This is a serious violation, and it demonstrates that UKPC is operating outside the requirements of its own Code of Practice, effectively making them a "rogue contractor" on your hospital’s premises.
I would also like to draw your attention to the NHS Car Parking Guidance 2022, which makes it clear that:• "NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of private contractors who run car parks on their behalf."
• "NHS organisations should act against rogue contractors in line with the relevant codes of practice."
• "Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, for example, ‘income from parking charge notices only’."
UKPC’s conduct in this case is unacceptable and in clear violation of both PoFA and the BPA Code of Practice. It is your responsibility, as the Trust, to hold them accountable and ensure that your contractors are operating within the law.
I demand that this PCN be cancelled immediately, and that UKPC’s practices on your hospital grounds be reviewed to ensure compliance with both the law and NHS guidelines. I also expect a formal response regarding how you will address the breaches I have outlined. Furthermore, the PALS department should be better equipped to provide real support rather than simply redirecting patients to appeal directly with rogue contractors like UKPC.
I look forward to your prompt response.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Information]
You had until Tuesday 22nd October to submit an appeal. That's three days away.
So, in this case, the initial appeal to UKPC, assuming PALS doesn't get the PCN cancelled is an easy one to defeat... as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:QuoteI 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. 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.
You had until Tuesday 22nd October to submit an appeal. That's three days away.
You had until Tuesday 22nd October to submit an appeal. That's three days away.
A fob off. Escalate your complaint to the NHS Trust CEO. Get back in touch with PALS and remind whichever moron sent you that response that there has been no "PENALTY" Charge Notice issued because an unregulated private parking company of ex-clamper thugs is not and could never be an "authority" that could issue a "penalty" of any kind. Also remind them that no "offence" has been committed. A "PARKING" Charge Notice is simply a speculative invoice form an alleged breach of contract by the driver of the vehicle and their use of the word "penalty" in their correspondence shows a level of ignorance that is embarrassing and will be reported.
Also point them to the Department of Health and Social Care guidance: NHS car parking guidance 2022 for NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles#:~:text=Parking%20will%20be%20provided%20free,a%20period%20of%2030%20days.), specifically the bit about "Contracted out parking".
Tell them that you are escalating this to the East Lancashire Hospital Trusts CEO, Martin Hodgson.
You need to immediately send a complaint to the CEO at martin.hodgson@elht.nhs.ukQuoteSubject: Urgent Complaint Regarding Unjust Parking Charge Notice and PALS Response at Burnley Hospital
Dear Mr. Hodgson,
I am writing to formally complain about the handling of my issue by the PALS department and the unfair Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC), which operates on behalf of Burnley General Hospital.
During a recent emergency visit to the maternity suite, while my wife was heavily pregnant, I parked quickly to get her the urgent care she needed. Upon returning to my vehicle, I found an irregular notice left on the windscreen, stating that a PCN would be sent to the registered keeper by post. That PCN has now been received, but I must highlight a serious issue.
UKPC’s issuance of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). The notice left on my windscreen, regardless of whether it was classed as a proper Notice to Driver (NtD), is effectively an NtD under PoFA. As such, UKPC should not have requested the keeper’s details from the DVLA until 28 days after the issue of the NtD. By requesting these details prematurely, UKPC has breached both the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and PoFA.
This is a serious violation, and it demonstrates that UKPC is operating outside the requirements of its own Code of Practice, effectively making them a "rogue contractor" on your hospital’s premises.
I would also like to draw your attention to the NHS Car Parking Guidance 2022, which makes it clear that:• "NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of private contractors who run car parks on their behalf."
• "NHS organisations should act against rogue contractors in line with the relevant codes of practice."
• "Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, for example, ‘income from parking charge notices only’."
UKPC’s conduct in this case is unacceptable and in clear violation of both PoFA and the BPA Code of Practice. It is your responsibility, as the Trust, to hold them accountable and ensure that your contractors are operating within the law.
I demand that this PCN be cancelled immediately, and that UKPC’s practices on your hospital grounds be reviewed to ensure compliance with both the law and NHS guidelines. I also expect a formal response regarding how you will address the breaches I have outlined. Furthermore, the PALS department should be better equipped to provide real support rather than simply redirecting patients to appeal directly with rogue contractors like UKPC.
I look forward to your prompt response.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Information]
Subject: Urgent Complaint Regarding Unjust Parking Charge Notice and PALS Response at Burnley Hospital
Dear Mr. Hodgson,
I am writing to formally complain about the handling of my issue by the PALS department and the unfair Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC), which operates on behalf of Burnley General Hospital.
During a recent emergency visit to the maternity suite, while my wife was heavily pregnant, I parked quickly to get her the urgent care she needed. Upon returning to my vehicle, I found an irregular notice left on the windscreen, stating that a PCN would be sent to the registered keeper by post. That PCN has now been received, but I must highlight a serious issue.
UKPC’s issuance of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). The notice left on my windscreen, regardless of whether it was classed as a proper Notice to Driver (NtD), is effectively an NtD under PoFA. As such, UKPC should not have requested the keeper’s details from the DVLA until 28 days after the issue of the NtD. By requesting these details prematurely, UKPC has breached both the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and PoFA.
This is a serious violation, and it demonstrates that UKPC is operating outside the requirements of its own Code of Practice, effectively making them a "rogue contractor" on your hospital’s premises.
I would also like to draw your attention to the NHS Car Parking Guidance 2022, which makes it clear that:• "NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of private contractors who run car parks on their behalf."
• "NHS organisations should act against rogue contractors in line with the relevant codes of practice."
• "Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, for example, ‘income from parking charge notices only’."
UKPC’s conduct in this case is unacceptable and in clear violation of both PoFA and the BPA Code of Practice. It is your responsibility, as the Trust, to hold them accountable and ensure that your contractors are operating within the law.
I demand that this PCN be cancelled immediately, and that UKPC’s practices on your hospital grounds be reviewed to ensure compliance with both the law and NHS guidelines. I also expect a formal response regarding how you will address the breaches I have outlined. Furthermore, the PALS department should be better equipped to provide real support rather than simply redirecting patients to appeal directly with rogue contractors like UKPC.
I look forward to your prompt response.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Information]
So, in this case, the initial appeal to UKPC, assuming PALS doesn't get the PCN cancelled is an easy one to defeat... as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:QuoteI 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. 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.
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. 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.
Why the Keeper Cannot Be Held Liable for the Parking Charge Notice
When dealing with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by a private parking company (PPC), it's crucial to understand the legal framework that governs liability. In England and Wales, this is largely dictated by the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, specifically Schedule 4, which sets out the conditions under which a parking operator can hold a vehicle’s keeper liable for unpaid parking charges. In this article, we will explain why, in some cases, a keeper cannot be held liable for a PCN, using a recent scenario as an example.
Understanding the Key Legal Concepts: NtD and NtK
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 establishes two main types of notices that can be issued in relation to parking charges:1. Notice to Driver (NtD): This is a physical notice that is usually attached to the vehicle at the time of the parking incident. It notifies the driver of the alleged parking contravention and initiates the process for pursuing a parking charge.2. Notice to Keeper (NtK): This is a notice sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle, usually by post, if the parking charge remains unpaid. The NtK can be issued in two scenarios: when no NtD was issued, or when an NtD was issued but the charge remains unpaid.
To hold the vehicle's keeper liable for a parking charge, the PPC must follow strict procedural requirements outlined in Schedule 4 of PoFA.
The Requirements of PoFA for Holding the Keeper Liable
To lawfully transfer liability for a parking charge to the registered keeper, PoFA sets out a number of conditions that must be met. Two of these requirements are particularly important in cases where an NtD was issued:• Paragraph 7 of PoFA: This paragraph details the requirements for an NtD. For the notice to comply fully with PoFA, it must contain certain prescribed information, such as the reason for the parking charge, the time and date of the alleged contravention, and the amount due. It should also include instructions on how the driver can appeal the charge.• Paragraph 8 of PoFA: If an NtD was issued, paragraph 8 outlines the rules for issuing an NtK. It states that the NtK cannot be sent before 28 days have passed since the NtD was issued. This waiting period allows the driver time to respond to the NtD before the keeper is pursued for the charge. If the NtK is issued before this 28-day period, the PPC fails to meet the requirements set out by PoFA, and therefore, the keeper cannot be held liable.
Applying This to a Real-World Example
Let’s consider a situation in which a vehicle received a "Parking Charge Notice" attached to its windscreen, followed by an NtK sent only two days later. Here's why this scenario fails to comply with PoFA and why the registered keeper cannot be held liable:1. The NtD was left on the windscreen: The notice placed on the vehicle constitutes a Notice to Driver (NtD) for the purposes of PoFA. Even if it does not fully comply with all the requirements set out in paragraph 7 (for example, if it does not contain all the necessary information), it still triggers the rules governing the subsequent issuance of an NtK. The mere fact that a physical notice was placed on the vehicle is sufficient to be considered an NtD under PoFA.2. Premature issuance of the NtK: Under paragraph 8 of PoFA, once an NtD has been issued, the PPC must wait at least 28 days before issuing a Notice to Keeper. This is to give the driver a fair opportunity to respond to the NtD. In this example, the NtK was sent just two days after the NtD was issued, which is a clear violation of the statutory requirements.3. Consequences of failing to comply with PoFA: Because the PPC did not follow the legally mandated process, they have failed to comply with PoFA’s conditions for transferring liability to the keeper. As a result, they cannot lawfully hold the registered keeper liable for the parking charge. The PPC may still attempt to pursue the driver for the charge, but they would need to prove the identity of the driver at the time of the alleged contravention, which is impossible unless the keeper admits to being the driver too.
Why This Matters
Adhering to the procedural requirements of PoFA is crucial for PPCs seeking to enforce parking charges against vehicle keepers. The Act’s provisions are in place to protect motorists from unfair practices by ensuring that notices are issued correctly and that there is sufficient opportunity to respond before liability is transferred. When these requirements are not met, the parking operator loses the legal basis for holding the registered keeper liable.
In the example provided, the premature issuance of the NtK represents a breach of the rules set out in paragraph 8 of PoFA. Despite any claims the PPC may make about the sufficiency of the NtD, the fact remains that issuing an NtK only two days after the NtD violates the statutory requirements. This breach undermines the parking operator’s ability to transfer liability to the registered keeper, making any demands for payment unenforceable against the keeper under PoFA.
Conclusion
In summary, when a parking operator fails to comply with the procedural requirements of PoFA—such as issuing an NtK too early after an NtD—the registered keeper cannot be held liable for the parking charge. The key takeaway is that PPCs must follow the law to the letter when it comes to parking enforcement. If they fail to do so, the registered keeper has strong grounds to contest any attempts to impose liability.
For anyone dealing with a parking charge notice, understanding PoFA’s requirements can be the difference between having to pay a charge and successfully challenging it. In cases like this, the keeper should not hesitate to dispute the PCN, citing the parking operator’s failure to comply with the law.