Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: dalooah on January 28, 2025, 10:23:28 pm
-
UKPC signs NEVER adequately bring notice the charge to the driver.
A win nevertheless. Which POPLA assessor came to this conclusion?
-
I have copied and pasted the decision:
Decision: Successful
Assessor Name:
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for not parking correctly within the markings of the bay or space.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • The notice to keeper (NTK) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). The NTK only states that the vehicle was observed at 16:46, which is a single moment in time, not a period of parking. Case law in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H] confirms that POFA requires a defined period of parking, and a mere timestamp does not satisfy this requirement. • No presumption that the keeper was the driver can be made. • The parking bay is a parent and child bay. The hatched area forms part of the bay for use of the driver and the minors inside the vehicle. The signage on site does not indicate this is not the case. • The parking bay had an obstruction within it. There is a pillar that protrudes into the bay and thus, UKPC have not upheld their duty to provide suitable parking spaces. • There has been no genuine pre-estimate of loss. In Parking Eye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, the Supreme Court held that a parking charge must serve a legitimate interest beyond mere deterrence and given that, the driver parked in a way that would ensure all spaces around it were accessible, the charge doesn’t meet the necessary criteria of serving a legitimate interest. • The signage on site is inadequate and so no contract was formed. The signage is positioned high up and a small font size used. • The lighting conditions are poor, making it difficult to read unless the driver actively seeks it out and even if the driver attempts to read the sign, the charge for breaching any terms is not “adequately” brought to their attention. The parking charge of £100 is buried in a block of small print, which does not meet the POFA requirement for “adequate notice”. • There is a lack of landowner authority and no proof of UKPC’s right to operate here. Any contract must include specific clauses permitting the issuing and enforcement of PCNs. A signed statement from an agent of the landowner is not evidence that the agent has the right to make a contractual arrangement with the operator. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their case. They have said the bay is marked as a parent and child space, yet only has a hatched area on one side. The adjacent bay on the other side is not a parent and child bay, meaning there is no accessible buffer zone for loading or unloading children from that side. The driver had no realistic option but to position the vehicle in a way that allowed safe access from the driver side, adjacent to the non-parent bay. This layout appears to be a deliberate entrapment setup and unfair. They have said having created a bay layout that is not fit for purpose-especially for parents with children, UKPC has opted to exploit these shortcomings rather than address them. They have said UKPC have made no attempt to explain how a single moment in time constitutes a period of parking, nor have they addressed the precedent set in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023), which confirms that a period of parking is required. Without a recorded duration, it is impossible to establish whether the vehicle remained on site longer than the minimum consideration period that must be allowed before any contractual terms can take effect. The appellant has said the operator has failed to provide a valid contract or sufficient evidence of landowner authority, as required under Paragraph 7.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The only material supplied is a partial, heavily redacted document labelled "Services Contract" dated 19/8/21, along with a similarly redacted “Contract Change Request Form” dated 31/03/22. The purported contract is explicitly marked as comprising 38 pages, yet only 5 pages have been disclosed. The vast majority of the content has been blacked out, including sections that would be necessary to establish the operator’s authority. Therefore, it is wholly unclear whether the operator is authorised to issue PCNs at this location at all, let alone enforce them. The appellant has also said UKPC relies on ParkingEye v Beavis as though it is a blanket justification for enforcement, but this is a misapplication of the case. In Beavis, the parking charge was the most prominent element on the sign—clearly visible, bold, and unmistakable. That is not the case here. They have said UKPC also attempts to rely on ParkingEye v Beavis, but this case also does not automatically legitimise every £100 charge. That case was context-specific, relating to free parking overstays in a busy retail car park. Here, there is no evidence of obstruction, loss of amenity, or abuse of parking time. UKPC has not shown how issuing a penalty-style charge in this case serves any genuine or proportionate interest. They have said the existence of an undated signage plan does not confirm that it was implemented correctly or that all intended signs were installed. According to the document entitled "Signage Plan," there are only parent-and-child bays on Level 2 and UKPC’s photos show the vehicle next to the lifts, where a “Number 5” (420x600mm) sign was meant to be placed on a pillar. However, none of the attendant’s photos show this supposed sign. This demonstrates that the signage plan was not fully implemented and as a result, it should be disregarded. Additionally, UKPC’s case summary includes signage photos taken no later than 2023—some as early as 2021. These outdated images do not reflect the signage’s condition on the date of the alleged contravention. They were also taken in the summer, in bright daylight, whereas the alleged contravention occurred on 10/01/25 in Coventry, when sunset was at 4:15 PM, meaning poor lighting within the carpark and outside darkness would have impacted visibility of any signage. The appellant has said POPLA have previously upheld appeals where UKPC signage was found to be non-compliant with both POFA and the BPA Code of Practice.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut the appellant’s claims and prove that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. This PCN has been issued for not parking correctly within the markings of the bay or space. When parking on private land, the parking contract is between the motorist and the operator through the terms on its signs. The signage at this site states all vehicles must only be parked within marked bays. The parking operator has provided images of the appellants vehicle parked on site, not wholly within a marked bay. The appellant has said in their appeal that the charge for breaching any terms is not “adequately” brought to their attention. They have said the parking charge of £100 is buried in a block of small print, which does not meet the POFA requirement for “adequate notice”. The appellant has also said UKPC relies on ParkingEye v Beavis as though it is a blanket justification for enforcement, but this is a misapplication of the case. In Beavis, the parking charge was the most prominent element on the sign—clearly visible, bold, and unmistakable. That is not the case here. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.4 of the Code of Practice states that if parking operators intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, the signs must give adequate notice of the charge. Furthermore, the Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, Parking Eye v Beavis, and decided that the parking charge amount must be brought to the motorist’s attention within the signage. From the evidence of the signage on site provided by the parking operator, I can see that the consequence of not complying with the terms and conditions is in one of the smaller font sizes used on the signage. This is also the same colour as the rest of the text, and it is not in a different font or bold, nor has anything else been used to make it stand out. This information is visible when looking at a pdf image of the signage, but the parking operator’s images of the signage on site, show this information is in a small font and in amongst other text, and therefore I am not satisfied it is adequately brought to the attention of motorists. I appreciate the parking operator has separate signage on site that displays information about the £100 PCN, and this text is in a larger font size and in capital letters, however this only says a PCN will be issued if you fail to pay, and this is not the reason this PCN has been issued. Therefore, in this instance, I acknowledge the reason the PCN was issued, however I am not satisfied that the operator has adequately rebutted the appellant’s grounds for appeal. I can only conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration. Accordingly, I allow this appeal.
-
Do you mind posting their response please, it's super useful for all those on here.
-
I've just heard back from POPLA and I'm incredibly surprised- the appeal has been successful! Thank you to everyone who has posted on this thread, your help has been invaluable- it is greatly appreciated!!
-
Missed that. In which case amend section 3 of the response to:
3. Landowner Authority: The operator has failed to provide a valid contract or sufficient evidence of landowner authority, as required under Paragraph 7.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The burden is on the operator to demonstrate that they have written authorisation from the landholder permitting them to manage the land, issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs), and pursue payment in their own name.
The only material supplied is a partial, heavily redacted document labelled as a "Services Contract" dated 19th August 2021, along with a similarly redacted “Contract Change Request Form” dated 31st March 2022. The purported contract is explicitly marked as comprising 38 pages, yet only 5 pages have been disclosed. The vast majority of the content has been blacked out, including sections that would be necessary to establish the operator’s authority, such as the scope of services, permitted enforcement rights, site-specific terms, or whether the operator is permitted to pursue charges in their own name. The change request form only references a restriction related to motorcycle bays and has no bearing on enforcement rights.
It is therefore wholly unclear whether the operator is authorised to issue PCNs at this location at all, let alone enforce them. The level of redaction renders the document ineligible as proof of standing. A court would be unlikely to give any weight to such a document, as the terms on which the operator relies are not visible, nor is it even clear that this redacted agreement relates to the area where the alleged parking contravention took place.
Unless and until a contemporaneous, unredacted agreement is produced, clearly showing the operator’s rights and obligations, the operator cannot be said to have met the evidential standard required to establish standing.
-
3. Landowner Authority: UKPC has failed to provide any evidence of landowner authority. Their evidence pack does not include a contract, redacted or otherwise, no witness statement, and no proof that they are authorised to operate on this land. UKPC’s narrative merely asserts that a contract exists, but nothing is provided to support this. This is a clear breach of Section 14 of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)). POPLA requires documentary evidence of landowner authority, and UKPC has failed to provide it. The appeal must be allowed on this basis alone.
A heavily redacted one is provided in the Google Drive link
-
Just copy and paste the following into the POPLA response webform. It is within the 10,000 character limit for response to the operators evidence.
I respond to the operator's evidence as follows:
1. PoFA Compliance: UKPC states that the Notice to Keeper complies with Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This is incorrect. The NtK only includes a single timestamp (16:46) and does not specify a "period of parking" as required by Paragraph 9(2)(a). This omission means that the NtK is non-compliant, and the operator cannot pursue the registered keeper. UKPC has made no attempt to explain how a single moment in time constitutes a period of parking, nor have they addressed the precedent set in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023), which confirms that a period of parking is required. Without a recorded duration, it is also impossible to establish whether the vehicle remained on site longer than the minimum consideration period that must be allowed before any contractual terms can take effect. Simply regurgitating that the NtK is PoFA compliant does not make it so. PoFA is not a “best efforts” checklist. It is an all-or-nothing statute. You cannot be “mostly PoFA compliant” any more than someone can be “mostly pregnant.” It’s binary: you either fully comply, or you don’t. As shown here, UKPC does not.
2. Presumption of Driver Identity: UKPC has not identified the driver. Their comments imply an assumption that the keeper was the driver, but they have not contested or rebutted the legal position in VCS v Edward (2023) which makes clear that no such presumption exists in law. As UKPC has not identified the driver, and PoFA has not been complied with, the keeper cannot be held liable.
3. Landowner Authority: UKPC has failed to provide any evidence of landowner authority. Their evidence pack does not include a contract, redacted or otherwise, no witness statement, and no proof that they are authorised to operate on this land. UKPC’s narrative merely asserts that a contract exists, but nothing is provided to support this. This is a clear breach of Section 14 of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)). POPLA requires documentary evidence of landowner authority, and UKPC has failed to provide it. The appeal must be allowed on this basis alone.
4. Parent and Child Bay / Hatched Area: UKPC’s photographic evidence shows the vehicle slightly encroaching into the hatched area on one side and the rear protruding over the adjacent pedestrian walkway. However, this was clearly the result of the bay’s poor and impractical design. A large structural pillar protrudes significantly into the bay itself, reducing its usable space. UKPC has not addressed this obstruction, which physically prevents a standard vehicle from parking fully within the marked lines without some degree of overlap. The bay is marked as a parent and child space, yet only has a hatched area on one side. The adjacent bay on the other side is not a parent and child bay, meaning there is no accessible buffer zone for loading or unloading children or prams from that side. The driver had no realistic option but to position the vehicle in a way that allowed safe access from the passenger side, adjacent to the non-parent bay. UKPC have not provided any signage or markings to warn drivers that limited use of the adjacent hatched area or slight protrusion due to unavoidable obstructions would result in a PCN.
This layout appears to be a deliberate entrapment setup: a bay that visually invites parents to use it, but is physically too narrow for practical use due to the fixed pillar, with inadequate surrounding space. Rather than design their bays to be fit for purpose, UKPC instead chooses to penalise drivers forced into making reasonable adjustments to use the bay as intended. This is unfair, and the alleged contravention is not clearly established. The burden of proof remains with UKPC, and they have failed to discharge it.
5. Exploitation of Poor Design for Enforcement Gain: Having created a bay layout that is not fit for purpose—especially for parents with children—UKPC has opted to exploit these shortcomings rather than address them. The combination of a pillar encroaching into the bay, a single hatched side, and no warning signage about partial encroachment creates a situation where compliant parking is physically impractical. UKPC’s response is to ignore this reality and issue PCNs to drivers who make reasonable adjustments to safely use the space.
UKPC’s failure to design accessible bays or to provide signage clarifying enforcement boundaries strongly suggests that enforcement is not based on genuine management, but on opportunistic ticketing. There is no evidence that UKPC has taken steps to make this site functional or fair for users of these bays, despite their clear knowledge of the layout’s limitations. This undermines any suggestion that the charge serves a legitimate interest and instead reflects a model based on entrapment.
6. Signage and Photographic Evidence: UKPC has included photographs of signage taken at the time of the alleged contravention, but these images do not assist their case. The signage fails to meet the legal requirements for forming a contract or for establishing keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Specifically, it does not comply with Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 4, which requires that “adequate notice” be given of the parking charge. In this case, the charge is buried within a dense block of tiny text and is neither prominent nor clearly legible from a driver’s perspective. It is not adequately brought to the attention of the motorist and cannot form the basis of a contractual agreement.
UKPC relies on ParkingEye v Beavis as though it is a blanket justification for enforcement, but this is a misapplication of the case. In Beavis, the parking charge was the most prominent element on the sign—clearly visible, bold, and unmistakable. That is not the case here. A comparison between the UKPC sign and the Beavis sign makes it immediately obvious that the latter met the “adequate notice” standard, whereas the former does not.
Furthermore, POPLA has previously upheld numerous appeals where UKPC signage was found to be non-compliant with both PoFA and the BPA Code of Practice. The signs in this case suffer from the same fundamental defects: poor layout, inadequate font size, and failure to make key terms—particularly the charge—sufficiently prominent. UKPC has failed to show that any contract could have been formed, and therefore cannot demonstrate that a contravention occurred.
7. Legitimate Interest and ParkingEye v Beavis: UKPC attempts to rely on ParkingEye v Beavis, but this case does not automatically legitimise every £100 charge. That case was context-specific, relating to free parking overstays in a busy retail car park. Here, there is no evidence of obstruction, loss of amenity, or abuse of parking time. The vehicle was parked responsibly in a wide bay designated for families, in a way that ensured safe access for children. UKPC has not shown how issuing a penalty-style charge in this case serves any genuine or proportionate interest.
8. Generalised Assertions: UKPC repeatedly rely on boilerplate language rather than addressing the specific context of this case. They refer to signage and enforcement “throughout the car park” but do not show a site map, illumination, or confirm where the signs were located relative to the vehicle. Assertions that the driver could have parked elsewhere are not evidence. The operator must prove the terms were properly conveyed and that the driver breached them—this has not been done.
In conclusion, UKPC has failed to prove valid PoFA compliance, failed to prove landowner authority, failed to provide adequate signage evidence from the material date, failed to justify the charge under Beavis, and failed to rebut the specific arguments made in my appeal. I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and cancel the PCN.
-
Here's a link to google drive with all the documents they sent
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1TMHhwd32q8dqok-sXT3XIyDajn_QqTod?usp=drive_link
-
Ideally share a copy of it, with personal info redacted, on a service like Dropbox or Google Drive.
-
I've now recieved UKPC's 'evidence' for the POPLA appeal- is there any value in sharing it all here- I've got their T&C's for their rolling contract; the contract with the shopping center; their evidence to show the vehicle was parked next to signage (this also shows that the signage was at the height of the ceiling and not eye level- which is something I think I aught to comment on- this image was part of the initial images in my OP); a case summary which I will copy and paste below- they have included the original images on the day of the alledged contravention as well as images from 2021/2022/2023 that don't reflect the level/location or time (their photos are taken in full daylight-whereas the vehicle was parked after dark so lighting levels are not the same and thus signage is even more difficult to see) where the vehicle was parked- would it be worth mentioning that UKPC need to provide more up to date photos to evidence that their signage is adequate? There is also a signage plan document included- which details which signs should be placed where.
Will my comments actually hold any weight?
Their case summary:
On the 10/01/2025, our parking operative issued a parking charge virtually to vehicle registration XXXX at Lower Precinct Shopping Centre. The parking charge was issued because the vehicle was not parked correctly in the bay markings.
Following the parking event on 10/01/2025, UKPC had reasonable cause to obtain the details of the registered keeper from the DVLA for the purposes of issuing a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by post- a copy of this PCN is included in this pack. The PCN was issued on 13/01/2025
The parking charge rate was £100.00, reduced to £60.00 if payment was received within fourteen days.
An appeal was received from the vehicle's registered keeper on the 29/01/2025, which the appeals department investigated and decided to reject.
Whilst UKPC note the comments, we cannot accept them as evidence when reviewing a parking charge notice. A bay is an area that is clearly defined on both sides in which the vehicle is to park. The vehicle must be positioned within the markings and not protruding any part of the defined area. The vehicle is parked over onto the hatched markings which are not part of the bay. Hatched areas marked in a car park, are done so to prevent motorists from parking in these areas, as they may be deemed inappropriate for parking for various reasons, including that it may cause obstruction to road users for the purposes of access. The back wheels are also protruding on to the pedestrian walkway. While I appreciate there may have been a pillar at the bay, this did not mean that the appellant was exempt from the requirement of parking within the bay. If this meant that the appellant was unable to park correctly they could have parked in an alternative location.
The appellant chose to park in a manner which was not in compliance with the parking contract, and therefore accepted they could potentially receive a PCN. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park.
Following the parking event, UKPC had reasonable cause to obtain the details of the registered keeper so that a parking charge notice could be issued by post. A copy of this notice is included in this case summary, dated 13/01/2025. Issued 3 days after the date of the parking event (where a Notice to Driver was not served), the parking charge notice complies fully with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in permitting the registered keeper to be held liable to pay this unpaid parking charge.
Page 2 of 31
The highest court in the UK, the Supreme Court, has unambiguously confirmed that parking charges issued on private land are fully enforceable. In the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 their Lordships stated that private parking charges were enforceable because they served a legitimate interest and were in the interests of the public generally. The case confirmed that the amount of the charge does not have to reflect any loss that might have been caused by breach of the terms and conditions of parking. The Supreme Court decision is binding law on all other courts throughout the UK.
The contract between UK Parking Control Ltd and the landowner (or their managing agent) authorising UKPC to provide parking management, and therefore issue parking charges to vehicles breaching the terms of parking, is confidential and we are unable to provide a copy for reasons of commercial sensitivity. We have however provided a redacted copy, with sensitive information covered. The redacted contract confirms our authority in an ongoing agreement. If neither party terminates the contract, as in this case, the contract will continue on a rolling basis. We have provided the T&C’s in relation to the rolling contract.
UKPC must maintain a consistent approach when issuing and upholding a charge. In this instance, this vehicle had been parked on site in direct breach of the terms and conditions of parking on site as stated on signage. The vehicle was parked in close proximity to UKPC signage, please see all photographic evidence to support this.
UK Parking Control signage complies fully with section 3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice and we reject the suggestion that it is vague or misleading. Entrance signage advises motorists that terms of parking apply, and that notices within the car park should be checked to identify the full terms and conditions. These notices are placed throughout the car park. It is ultimately the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they identify the terms of parking, and then decide whether to park their vehicle, or leave the site if they are unable to meet those terms.
The parking charges issued by UK Parking Control Limited are based on a contractual agreement between UKPC and the driver, as detailed on the signage displayed in the car park. The signage states the terms and conditions of parking and explains that a parking charge will be payable if the terms are not met by the driver. We ensure that signage is ample, clear and visible, wholly in line with the British Parking Association Code of Practice. It is settled law that a driver is deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of parking by the act of parking and leaving a vehicle.
Ultimately, it is fundamentally the responsibility of the motorist to identify the terms of parking when leaving their vehicle on private land. If they feel they are unable to adhere to the terms, they may leave the site before agreeing to those terms.
There are sufficient signs advising drivers that not parking within bay markings may result in a parking charge being issued. REGISTERED KEEPER NAME the vehicle was not parked correctly in the bay markings; consequently, the parking charge was issued correctly.
A letter was sent to REGISTERED KEEPER NAME informing of our decision on the 14/03/2025.
-
You simply select "OTHER" and that's it!!!! You do not select anything that implies that you were the driver.
-
Great thanks!
-
Choose 'other' - the text of your appeal sets out the reasons for your appeal.
-
Just trying to submit the POPLA appeal now and you have to pick a reason for appealing the charge; and the options thats most suitable is "I was not improperly parked" and surely this identifies the driver (or it's not an accurate statement) and the next best option would be "other". Or does it not matter which option you pick?
-
Looks good to me unless anyone else has an opinion. You will have an opportunity to respond to the operators evidence pack when they send that, so you will see if they fail to rebut or answer any of your point.
-
Thanks for all the help so far- I've drafted the following appeal after finding some samples on the forums- any advice- particularly on sections 3-5 would be appreciated.
POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC)
APPELLANT: Registered Keeper
PARKING OPERATOR: UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC)
PCN REFERENCE: [Insert PCN Number]
VEHICLE REGISTRATION: [Insert Vehicle Registration]
DATE OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION: 10/01/2025
DATE OF NTK ISSUE: 13/01/2025
The appeal is based on the following grounds:
1. UKPC’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
2. No Presumption That the Keeper Was the Driver
3. The parking bay is a parent and child bay
4. Parking bay has obstruction within it
5. No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
6. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed
7. Lack of Landowner Authority – No Proof of UKPC’s Right to Operate
1. UKPC’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
• UKPC has not met the statutory requirements under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
• The NtK issued only states that the vehicle was observed at 16:46, which is a single moment in time, not a period of parking.
• Case law in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H] confirms that PoFA requires a defined period of parking, and a mere timestamp does not satisfy this requirement.
• Since UKPC has failed to comply with PoFA, Keeper liability does not apply, and they can only pursue the driver, whom they have not identified.
Accordingly, POPLA must rule that the PCN is unenforceable against the Keeper.
2. No Presumption That the Keeper Was the Driver
• UKPC has made no attempt to identify the driver and is attempting to hold the Registered Keeper liable without meeting PoFA compliance.
• In VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9CC], the court reaffirmed that there is no presumption in law that the Keeper was the driver.
• The Registered Keeper has exercised their right not to name the driver, and no adverse inference can be drawn.
As UKPC has not identified the driver, and the Keeper is not liable under PoFA, the PCN must be cancelled.
3. The parking bay was a parent and child bay
• The alleged contravention is “Not parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space”, but UKPC has failed to account for the fact that the bay the driver parked in was a parent and child bay and the hatched area forms part of the bay for use of the driver and the occupants of the vehicle.
• It is not made clear in any signage that the hatched area do not form part of the parent and child bay- as the space to the left of the bay being used during this alleged contravention is also a parent and child bay it is assumed that half the hatched area is for the use of either vehicle.
• The alleged contravention is therefore ambiguous, and the burden of proof lies with UKPC to demonstrate a clear breach.
4. The bay has an obstruction within it
• As is clearly visible in photos provided by UKPC, there is a pillar that protrudes into the parking bay and thus, UKPC have not upheld their duty to provide suitable parking spaces.
• Had UKPC provided bays which are of a suitable size and without obstructions parking within the hatched area or walking path, would not have been necessary.
Since UKPC has failed to provide a suitable parking space, this PCN must be dismissed.
5. No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
• UKPC has not demonstrated that being parked in the hatched area has caused any loss or inconvenience.
• In ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, the Supreme Court held that a parking charge must serve a legitimate interest beyond mere deterrence.
Given that, had the driver parked in a way that would ensure all spaces around it were accessible, the charge doesn’t meet the necessary criteria of serving a legitimate interest.
6. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed
• The signage at this location is high up and contains very small text, making it difficult to read unless the driver actively seeks it out to review the terms and conditions of parking. Even if the driver attempts to read the sign, the charge for breaching any terms is not “adequately” brought to the attention of the driver or anyone attempting to read it.
• The parking charge of £100 is buried in a block of small print, which does not meet the PoFA requirement for “adequate notice”.
• The most prominent text on the sign states “PAY ON EXIT”, which is instructive rather than contractual.
• In ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, the Supreme Court held that a parking information must be clearly and prominently displayed.
Since the terms were not adequately communicated, no contractual agreement was formed, and therefore no breach occurred.
7. Lack of Landowner Authority – No Proof of UKPC’s Right to Operate
• Under Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, UKPC must provide strict proof that it has the landowner’s authority to issue PCNs at this location.
• UKPC has not provided any evidence that it holds a valid contract with the landowner.
• Any contract must include specific clauses permitting the issuing and enforcement of PCNs.
• The proof must be a contractual right flowing from the landowner. A signed statement from an agent of the landowner is not evidence that the agent has the right to make a contractual arrangement with the operator.
UKPC is put to strict proof that it has a legally binding agreement to operate on this land. If no valid contract is provided, this PCN must be cancelled.
CONCLUSION
The PCN issued by UKPC is fundamentally flawed on multiple legal and evidential grounds:
• The NtK fails to comply with PoFA due to the absence of a “period of parking,” making Keeper liability impossible.
• There is no presumption that the Keeper was the driver, and UKPC has not identified the driver.
•The hatched area forms part of the parking space to ensure children are abel to enter and exit the vehicle safely.
• The bay has a permanent obstruction within it necessitating parking over the walking path.
• The signage is inadequate, meaning no contract was formed.
• UKPC has not provided proof of landowner authority.
Given these significant deficiencies, I request that POPLA allow this appeal and cancel the PCN in its entirety.
Signed,
[Registered Keeper's Name]
-
Yours is a typical example of the abuse of the system by these rogue operators. In this case, a de minimus contravention that is now being pursued out of greed.
De minimis (non curat lex).
To be pedantic (ablative plural).
Latin O level 1977.
PS It doesn’t matter, I was just amused because you recently and correctly picked me up on a mistake in a recent post I made when I should have known better!
Oh, I found : https://www.surfacelanguages.com/blog/2020/08/27/de-minimus-non-curat-lex/
There was a young lawyer called lex,
who had very small organs of sex.
When done for exposure,
he said with composure,
De minimis non curat lex.
-
Nobody pays a penny to UKPC if they are receiving and following the advice received here. Even if this goes all the way to a court claim, you won't pay a penny because they the claim will either be struck out or discontinued.
Yours is a typical example of the abuse of the system by these rogue operators. In this case, a de minimus contravention that is now being pursued out of greed.
Regarding the dates, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant because there is no period of parking stated which s a breach of paragraph 9(2)(a). Apart from that, the NtK is more or less PoFA compliant. However, even a single failure to fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA renders it non-compliant and so the Keeper cannot be liable. Only the driver can be liable and unless the Keeper identifies the driver, which they are under no legal obligation to do so to an unregulated private parking company, then UKPC have nowhere to go with this.
The BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) is somewhat ambiguous on dates but for the discount period, they start the 14 days clock running from the sate of issue of the NtK. In this case, the NtK issue date was 13th January and the final reminder was issued on 27th January, exactly 24 days later. Where most operators fail with their dates and wording is with the deadline for appeals and payment. The PPSCoP states that appeals must be made and accepted within 28 days of receipt but most operators use date of issue, which is incorrect. You will note that on the back of UKPC NtKs, they actually state that an appeal must be made within 28 days of the date the notice is given (received).
So, the only real failure in the NtK is the fact that they haven to specified a period of parking and that is easily countered should it ever go to court with the persuasive appeal case of Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H] (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=b2uqddq7&dl=0). However, that is enough to invalidate Keeper liability, which was the basis for the initial appeal, which we knew was going to be rejected anyway.
You now have 33 days from the appeal rejection date to submit a POPLA appeal. You should have a search of the forum for other POPLA appeals to see how they should be formatted and how to put the points across. POPLA will not consider any mitigation, only points of law and the PPSCoP.
In your case, there can be no Keeper liability and UKPC have not shown that the person they are pursuing is the liable party. The burden of proof is on UKPC to prove your liability, not for you to prove otherwise. They are not allowed to infer that the Keeper must also be the driver as that has also been thrown out of court in several persuasive appellate cases, including most notably, VCS v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C] (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zra61px7l3if53o3bp9c4/VCS-v-EDWARD-Transcript.pdf?rlkey=bv4bba389nau5qpfglqkpjq5l&st=h2djo8pq&dl=0).
UKPC signage is incapable of forming a contact as it is always in minuscule font and the charge is never adequately brought to the attention of the driver. Always use that in a UKPC POPLA appeal. Also mess with their heads by requiring the operator to provide strict proof that they even have a valid contract flowing from the landowner permitting them to issue PCNs at the location.
Before you submit anything, show us what you think is suitable and we will advise on any corrections and provide suggestions for anything that may be missing.
-
POPLA won’t take “mitigating circumstances” into account, which I think you’re relying on.
Basically they’ll say if you couldn’t park “correctly” then you should have parked somewhere else.
Stick to lack of PoFA compliance meaning you can not be liable, you will get help on how to spell this out I’m sure. No hurry.
-
Just in case its useful, the final reminder letter I received in the post.
(https://i.imgur.com/WDbZeAE.jpeg)
-
I've finally recieved a rejection to my initial appeal.
Here is the letter:
(https://i.imgur.com/elahK60.jpeg)
I believe I have a case at POPLA because of the awkward shape of the parking space the driver was forced to park in- it was a parent and child space and the driver had three children under 8 with them- but the pillar at the front of the parking space meant the driver had to park very slighly on the hashed marking in order to ensure they and the cars around them could get in and out of their vehicles.
(https://i.imgur.com/WfzTPMM.jpeg) This is the original NtK.
I also believe the NtK isn't POFA compliant but I'm not sure on what grounds? I'm certain they have calculated their dates incorrectly, because I recieved a "final notice" in the post on 27/01/2025 which clearly showed the 14 day early payment discount had already ended on that date- whereas, according to my calculations it shouldn't have ended till: 29/01, and thus the end of the 28 day period- which isn't stated on any of the letters should have been: 12/02.
Alledged contrvention: 10/01
NtK dated: 13/01
So first day of the 28 day period should be: 16/01
Final Reminder stating 14 days have lapsed and 14 days remaining: 27/01 which is only 12 days after the NtK?
Any help with crafting my appeal to POPLA would be appreciated.
-
It's not "done and dusted", but why would you want to "follow it up"? Te=he ball is in their court and if they haven't responded within the required timeframe, then you can make a formal complaint later. Just wait for them to respond.
-
Having ignored the recent correspondance, it has been 28 days since I submitted the appeal and have not had a response. Should I follow up or hope its done and dusted?
-
Don't tell 'em your name Pike!
-
Yes, ignore.
Anything you would say to them in writing would likely be to your detriment.
-
Thanks for the help so far. I submitted the appeal as above and I was expecting a rejection but I have just been sent a letter asking for the drivers name and address in order for the appeal to be considered.
(https://i.imgur.com/R4Df9oB.jpeg)
Am I correct in thinking that I can ignore this, or do I reiterate that I will not be confirming the details of the person driving?
-
You will not be paying a penny to UKPC if you follow the advice. For now, hopefully, UKPC have no idea who the driver is. Do not blab the drivers identity if you are the Keeper who has received the Notice to Keeper (NtK) by saying things like "I did this or that". As the Keeper, you only refer to the driver in the third person such as "The driver did this or that".
The NtK is not PoFA compliant and there can be no Keeper liability. The only way that UKPC would know the drivers identity is if the Keeper blabs it, inadvertently or otherwise.
As the Keeper is the named person on the NtK heed the following instructions and follow them without editing anything in the appeal.
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:
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.
The appeal will be rejected, no matter what is in it but it puts them on notice that they are not dealing with low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and gets a POPLA code.
Come back when you receive the appeal rejection or any other correspondence from them for the next steps.
-
I have recieved this PCN for not parking wholly within the bay. I am the registered keeper. The bay in question is a parent and child bay that has a massive pillar within it that obstructs a larger car from parking properly. Had the car been exactly within the signed bay, the 3 children in the backseat would not have been able to exit the vehicle and the car on the right hand side of the vehicle would have also been significantly obstructed- all of which has not surprisingly, been ignored by the parking attendant.
(https://i.imgur.com/LyWLkQJ.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/kCqRYXL.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/OTOsrJF.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/DNqJtEq.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/i8XcOEY.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/7Dm7x6b.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/2lAc3Bj.jpeg)
The photo of the signage isn't very clear and I don't have my own photos.
Asking the shopping center management to intervenet is wholly useless as it clearly states on their website to contact UKPC directly.
Any ideas how to appeal this successfully?