Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: dan on March 11, 2025, 02:11:45 pm

Title: Re: UK Parking Control - Parked in a permit area without displaying permit.
Post by: b789 on July 28, 2025, 02:48:52 pm
It's only POPLA. Blend the two together or whatever you want. I'm afraid I really don't have much time to do this for you. I'm sure others will be able to assist if you're really stuck.
Title: Re: UK Parking Control - Parked in a permit area without displaying permit.
Post by: dan on July 28, 2025, 02:40:30 pm
Hello @b789,

I have searched within the forum and draft below 2 versions, could you kindly advice which version is closer to my case and if anything missing or needing addition info?

Version 1 POPLA Appeal Letter (Template for Submission):

Appellant: [Your Name]
POPLA Verification Code: [Enter your POPLA Code]
Parking Charge Reference: [PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Enter your vehicle reg]
Operator: UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC)

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced above and wish to appeal the Parking Charge issued by UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC). I respectfully ask POPLA to consider the following legal and factual grounds for appeal:

 1. The Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by the operator fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). This paragraph requires that the NtK must “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”.

In this case, the NtK merely states a single timestamp: 18:14:47 on 25/02/2025. This is a point in time, not a “period of parking”. There is no start and end time, no duration, and not even a reference to the word “period” in the notice.

As confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], a single timestamp alone does not satisfy the statutory requirement. The failure to specify a period of parking renders the NtK non-compliant, and therefore the operator cannot pursue the registered keeper under PoFA.

2. The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with multiple mandatory provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, most notably:

• Failure to specify the period of parking (PoFA 9(2)(a)); and
• Failure to specify “the land on which the vehicle was parked”, since the address given is fictitious or geographically misleading (PoFA 9(2)(a)).

3. No evidence of contract formation due to absence of a consideration period

Even if PoFA were not engaged, the operator has provided no evidence that a contract was formed with the driver. Under Section 5.1 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (2024), a minimum consideration period must be allowed before any assumption of contractual parking can be made. This period allows the driver to read the signage, assess the terms, and decide whether to accept them. The Code states that a driver remaining on site for more than 5 minutes may be deemed to have accepted the terms, but there is no evidence that the vehicle remained for that long. Without such evidence, there is no basis to conclude that the driver accepted any contractual terms, and therefore no liability can arise.

4. Signage incapable of forming a contract

If, despite the clear absence of keeper liability under PoFA and the lack of any evidence that a contract was formed with the driver, the assessor is still minded to consider the charge, then the operator is put to strict proof that the signage at the site was sufficiently clear, prominent, and unambiguous to form a legally binding contract. I contend that it was not.

5. No evidence of landowner authority

The operator is put to strict proof that they have a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises them to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in their own name.

I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land. In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:

• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.

These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.

Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.

UKPC’s Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with PoFA, and they have failed to establish keeper liability. The signage is unclear and potentially misleading, and they have yet to demonstrate they hold proper landowner authority. As such, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
Registered Keeper

**************
Version 2:

Grounds of Appeal:

1. UKPC has failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and therefore has no right to pursue the keeper.

UKPC is attempting to hold me, the registered keeper, liable for this Parking Charge Notice. However, the Notice to Keeper issued by UKPC is non-compliant with the mandatory provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), meaning no keeper liability can arise.

Specifically:
   •   The NTK fails to specify the actual period of parking, as required under PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a). The PCN refers only to a single timestamp, which cannot be construed as a “period.”
   •   The NTK fails to accurately specify the land on which the vehicle was parked. The location listed is either fictitious or so vague/misleading that it does not meet the legal requirement under PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a).

Since these elements are statutory prerequisites for holding a keeper liable, and UKPC did not identify the driver nor has been informed of the driver’s identity, there is no lawful basis to pursue the keeper. This is a fundamental and fatal flaw in their case.

2. No evidence of landowner authority.

I require UKPC to produce full, unredacted proof of a current landowner contract, evidencing that they have authority to operate at the site, issue charges, and pursue unpaid tickets in their own name.

POPLA and the BPA Code of Practice both require operators to have clear and up-to-date landowner authority. If UKPC fails to produce this evidence, the charge must be cancelled.

3. Inadequate and unclear signage – no contract formed.

The signage at the location was either:
   •   Not clearly visible from the entrance or where the car was parked;
   •   Inadequate in size, clarity, or lighting to establish any binding contract;
   •   Fails to prominently warn of the terms and the £100 charge.

In accordance with Section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice, all terms must be clear, legible, and visible before parking occurs. If the signs are obscured, poorly positioned, or absent, then no contract can be formed.

4. No Grace Periods Observed (if relevant).

If the parking charge relates to a brief overstay, or the vehicle was observed for a short period, the operator must show that it complied with Section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice, which requires a minimum grace period for both arrival and departure.

Conclusion:

UKPC’s Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with PoFA, and they have failed to establish keeper liability. The signage is unclear and potentially misleading, and they have yet to demonstrate they hold proper landowner authority. As such, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel.

                 **************
Also I never mentioned that I was indeed using Nuffield Gym that day at that time as this will disclose the identity of the driver but I think this might have been on my side and helped me to win this case as one off mistake for not using the gym bays?

Thank you so much for your kind help.
Dan
Title: Re: UK Parking Control - Parked in a permit area without displaying permit.
Post by: dan on July 28, 2025, 12:49:52 pm
Ok, thank you very much for the reply, I will take a look now.
Title: Re: UK Parking Control - Parked in a permit area without displaying permit.
Post by: b789 on July 27, 2025, 03:19:16 pm
As expected and predicted. Now you can do a search of the forum for some recent POPLA appeals to see how they are formatted and what to include in them.

You have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection to submit your POPLA appeal. Draft something up and show us here and we will advise on any changes before you submit anything.
Title: Re: UK Parking Control - Parked in a permit area without displaying permit.
Post by: dan on July 27, 2025, 02:29:45 pm
Hi @b789,

UKPC sent me the attached letter following my response as you advised on last communication. Could you kindly advise if I should now write to Popla. I have no intention to pay them a single penny! Thank you
Dan

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: UK Parking Control - Parked in a permit area without displaying permit.
Post by: dan on April 18, 2025, 07:48:03 pm
Thank you so so much, I really appreciate. I will write back as advised.
Title: Re: UK Parking Control - Parked in a permit area without displaying permit.
Post by: b789 on April 16, 2025, 05:01:51 pm
You can either ignore that letter or, if you're mischievous and feel like teasing them, you could respond with the following:

Quote
Subject: Re: Parking Charge Reference 3049250561813

To the UKPC Appeals Department,

Thank you for your recent letter dated 9 April 2025.

It is disappointing, albeit unsurprising, that your response made no attempt to address the actual substance of the appeal. Instead, it appears to be yet another template letter designed to pressure the registered keeper into revealing the identity of the driver—an approach I can only describe as disingenuous at best.

For the avoidance of doubt, your Notice to Keeper fails to comply with multiple mandatory provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, most notably:

• Failure to specify the period of parking (PoFA 9(2)(a)); and
• Failure to specify “the land on which the vehicle was parked”, since the address given is fictitious or geographically misleading (PoFA 9(2)(a)).

This means you cannot hold the keeper liable, no matter how many veiled threats or flimsy appeals you issue. Attempting to suggest otherwise either demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the legislation you claim to rely on, or a wilful attempt to mislead—neither of which reflects particularly well on your organisation.

I am under no legal obligation to name the driver, and I have no intention of doing so. If you genuinely believe your position is strong, you are welcome to issue a formal rejection and provide a POPLA code. I am more than happy to take this up with an assessor who, with any luck, has a firmer grasp of statutory requirements than your Appeals Department appears to.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]
Title: Re: UK Parking Control - Parked in a permit area without displaying permit.
Post by: dan on April 16, 2025, 04:40:21 pm
Hi @b789,

UKPC sent me the attached letter after I have made the appeal as you advised (same quote used). Could you kindly advice what to do now?
The letter was also received today 16th April 2025 and they are giving me 7 days to reply from the date of the letter which is today? They are requesting the full name and addres of the driver.
Thank you for helping me appealing this again.
Dan

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: UK Parking Control - Parked in a permit area without displaying permit.
Post by: dan on March 12, 2025, 10:21:47 am
Hi @b789,

thank you so much I really appreciate your time and help. It is clear they just want to make money and I will appeal with your quote. Thank you so so much.
Dan
Title: Re: UK Parking Control - Parked in a permit area without displaying permit.
Post by: b789 on March 11, 2025, 07:42:23 pm
That Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is cannot hold the Keeper liable. The postal Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant because it fails to state the relevant land where the alleged contravention occurred. There is no such address as "Lime Square, Lime Square, Green Park, Reading, Berkshire, R30 3UR".

Google maps brings up a bus stop with the name "Lime Square" on it in Oak Way, Reading, RG2 6AD.

(https://i.imgur.com/oNwJrTD.png) (https://maps.app.goo.gl/UioYPxjWXRgKuTgUA)

There is a Tesla Supercharger which is located in 'Green Park' on a road named 'Lime Square' but that actual address and post code is 250 S Oak Way, Reading RG2 6UG.

The Post Code RG30 3UR is a location over a mile away from any Lime Square although there is a "Green Park" with that post code.

In other words, the location stated in the NtK cannot be identified as relevant land and therefore fails PoFA 9(2)(a).

Additionally, the NtK also fails PoFA 9(2)(a) because it does not state the "period of parking".

So, UKPC cannot hold the Keeper liable and they have no idea of the drivers identity as long as the Keeper doesn't blab it to them inadvertently or otherwise.

No one pays a penny to UKPC no matter what as long as they follow the advice we provide. For now, simply appeal with the following and wait for the rejection with a POPLA code:

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: UK Parking Control - Parked in a permit area without displaying permit.
Post by: dan on March 11, 2025, 02:11:45 pm
Hi, seeking help to contest this parking charge.
I went to the gym (Nuffield Reading Green Park) and used a different bay than the one I should (Health members only bays) I have proof from the gym I attended the gym that day at that time.
Also I noticed that they have written incorrect postcode ''RG30 3UR'' but the car park is actually located in Lime Square Green Park RG26UL. Incorrect Address on the Ticket: The ticket specifies an incorrect location, which misrepresents the actual site where my vehicle was parked?
Thank you


[attachment deleted by admin]