Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: LJO12 on January 30, 2025, 06:15:47 pm

Title: Re: UKPC PCN - McDonalds Car Park Overstay
Post by: b789 on February 02, 2025, 02:02:21 pm
Due to the deficient signage used by UKPC, they do not adequately inform the driver of the charge for breach of contract. Therefore, PoFA paragraph 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii) has not been complied with as the UKPC signs are not adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.
Title: Re: UKPC PCN - McDonalds Car Park Overstay
Post by: LJO12 on February 02, 2025, 12:47:59 am
Great, thank you.

Do UKPC/similar organisations not always provide a POPLA code? What would be the ramifications if they didn't?

If you don't mind explaining, what part of the Protection of Freedoms Act doesn't the NtK comply with? I am looking up schedule 4  online atm.
Title: Re: UKPC PCN - McDonalds Car Park Overstay
Post by: b789 on February 01, 2025, 06:01:00 pm
As UKPC will reject any appeal, no matter what points are raised, it needs to be simple and the main aim is to get them to issue a POPLA code with their rejection.

Easy one to deal with... 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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: UKPC PCN - McDonalds Car Park Overstay
Post by: LJO12 on February 01, 2025, 02:29:12 pm
No, I was unaware of how CCJ's are issued. Thank you for that information, it is very helpful and puts my mind at ease for the driver.

How would be best to proceed with the appeal to UKPC? Should the inadequate signage be mentioned?

Thanks again!
Title: Re: UKPC PCN - McDonalds Car Park Overstay
Post by: b789 on January 31, 2025, 02:13:47 pm
UKPC signs are always inadequate.

What CCJ? Do you have any understanding of how someone gets a CCJ? Nothing we advise on here will make anyone get a CCJ.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: UKPC PCN - McDonalds Car Park Overstay
Post by: LJO12 on January 31, 2025, 01:50:35 pm
Thank you for the quick response!

Would you say that the signage is inadequate in this specific example (based on the photos provided)?

I understand what you mean about the initial appeal being rejected, however my concern is what happens with the CCJ. Is there a chance it can be held against the registered keeper long term and affect credit scores or anything like that?

Any additional help or wording would be appreciated yes, I find the invoice charge ridiculous.

Thanks again!
Title: Re: UKPC PCN - McDonalds Car Park Overstay
Post by: b789 on January 30, 2025, 07:09:35 pm
UKPC signs are always consistently bad. Without going into the whole reason, they have had their claims struck out in court because their signs are not capable of forming a contract with the driver.

However, these days, a claim by UKPC will never get as far as hearing because they will use a bulk litigation firm that will discontinue the claim as long as it is defended and the defendant is not low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree.

Any initial appeal is going to be rejected, no matter what. Also, a secondary appeal to POPLA is unlikely to be successful because their Notice to Keeper (NtK) is PoFA compliant and they are able to transfer liability to the Keeper if the drivers identity remains unknown.

There have been some successful POPLA appeals over the woefully inadequate UKPC signs but you are dealing with a not so independent appeals service with an inconsistent level of reliable quality assessors. I'd reckon you would have a 30:70 chance of a successful POPLA appeal.

Where this would most likely end is when they issue a county court claim. As long as the claim is defended (with our assistance), they will eventually discontinue and that will be the end of the matter.

Still want advice on how to deal with this speculative invoice form an unregulated private parking company for an alleged contractual breach by the driver?
Title: UKPC PCN - McDonalds Car Park Overstay
Post by: LJO12 on January 30, 2025, 06:15:47 pm
On 23/1/25 I received a letter in the post addressed to me, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, which stated that a driver of the vehicle was recorded on private property in a McDonalds car park (on 20/1/25) and overstayed from the allowed time limit of 1 hour 30 mins, staying for a total of 3 hours and 5 minutes. UKPC want to charge £50 if paid within 14 days or £100 if paid within 28 days for this 'breach' of apparent terms and conditions that the driver agreed to when parked on private land.

The driver of the vehicle was unaware that McDonalds car parks had limits to stay, and did not and does not agree to any terms and conditions for a contract that was not made explicitly and extremely clear. As they entered the car park just before 18:00 it was already dark (and raining) they missed the signage due to the conditions. The driver went back to take pictures of the car park and noticed that some signage was visible (to be fair) whereas other signage was slightly less than visible (placed on an angle to the entrance, slightly obscured by trees further down). Additionally, there is some construction work going on right now at the entrance of the McDonalds car park (as seen in photos) however the driver cannot recall whether the construction work was ongoing at the time of the offence and whether that would have potentially obscured the signage at that time. As you can see on the photos provided by the company on entrance and exit, it's completely pitch black and only the lights of the car are visible.

The driver of the vehicle was a customer at the McDonalds and can provide bank statements etc if that helps the case.

Photos of both the PCN and the car park have been attached. Also, here is an imgur link with some extra photos of the McDonalds car park due to post restrictions: https://imgur.com/a/NhXMl2X (https://imgur.com/a/NhXMl2X)

Just wondering whether a case for an appeal can be made here or whether the driver is out of luck and should pay the lower priced £50 charge instead? The driver has never had a PCN before and doesn't want to be harassed by debt collectors etc and has no real idea of what could happen.

Any and all help would be appreciated with this.

Cheers! :)

[attachment deleted by admin]