Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: bigviv on March 12, 2025, 12:01:09 pm

Title: Re: UKPC Parking Notice to Hirer - Not Parked Correctly within the markings of the bay or space - Brent Cross Shopping C
Post by: bigviv on May 21, 2025, 03:15:27 pm

UKPC cancelled the charge themselves. We could have all saved a lot of time on this...

Thanks everyone for your help!

Title: Re: UKPC Parking Notice to Hirer - Not Parked Correctly within the markings of the bay or space - Brent Cross Shopping C
Post by: bigviv on May 15, 2025, 01:05:08 pm

Hi - underneath is my POPLA appeal, if there's any suggestion on top of this or changes, then please let me know. Thanks!

Grounds for Appeal

1. Non-compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) – No Hirer Liability Established

UKPC has failed to establish hirer liability under Schedule 4 of PoFA. As the hirer, I am not liable for this charge, and the operator has not met the strict requirements to transfer liability from the driver to the hirer.

2. Inadequate Signage – Failure to Form a Contract

The signage within the car park is insufficiently clear to form a contract with the driver. The terms and conditions are not prominently displayed or legible, especially regarding the requirement to park within bay markings.

3. No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss – Charge is Punitive

The charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore punitive, contravening the principles established in case law.

---

Detailed Appeal Statement

1. Non-compliance with Schedule 4 of PoFA

I am the Hirer of the vehicle and I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice issued by UKPC.

UKPC is attempting to transfer liability to me as the Hirer under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). They can only do this if they comply fully with Paragraph 14 of that Schedule.

As of the date of this appeal, UKPC has failed to provide copies of the documents required under PoFA to transfer liability to the hirer.

There are four documents that must be provided with the Notice to Hirer in order to comply with Paragraph 14 of PoFA:

1. A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
2. A copy of the hire agreement;
3. A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement; and
4. A copy of the Notice to Keeper (NtK).

To date, UKPC has not provided all four documents. Without all four of these documents, UKPC has not met the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4. Therefore, they cannot transfer liability to the Hirer and may only pursue the driver, who has not been identified.

If UKPC attempts to rely on any new documents in their evidence pack to POPLA, it is now too late as they were required to have been provided together with the Notice to Hirer within the relevant period of 21 days of the liability having been transferred from the Keeper.

2. Inadequate Signage

The signage in the car park managed by UKPC does not meet the standards set by the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Specifically:

The signs are not prominently placed or easily readable.

The terms and conditions, including the requirement to park within bay markings, are not clearly stated.

Without clear signage, no contract can be formed between the operator and the driver, rendering the charge unenforceable.

<will add the image shared by b789>

3. No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss

The £100 charge does not reflect any genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred by UKPC due to the alleged parking breach. In the case of ParkingEye v. Beavis, the Supreme Court held that charges must not be punitive or unconscionable. In this instance:

There is no evidence of loss suffered by UKPC. The charge is disproportionate to any potential loss. Therefore, the charge is punitive and unenforceable.

---

Conclusion

Given the above points:

UKPC has not established hirer liability under PoFA.

The signage is inadequate to form a contract.

I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

Title: Re: UKPC Parking Notice to Hirer - Not Parked Correctly within the markings of the bay or space - Brent Cross Shopping C
Post by: b789 on May 12, 2025, 05:38:40 pm

Also, you can use this comparison image to show how UKPCs signs do not comply with PoFA 2(3)(b)(ii) because they do not 'adequately' bring the charge to the notice of the driver. The other sign is the one in the Beavis case.

(https://i.imgur.com/wBJ5zRm.jpeg)

Title: Re: UKPC Parking Notice to Hirer - Not Parked Correctly within the markings of the bay or space - Brent Cross Shopping C
Post by: H C Andersen on May 12, 2025, 05:35:58 pm

We're getting there, but aren't there yet.

we received a note from the leasing company (business lease) that there was an impending notice to hirer coming our way some time back.

Where is this 'note' pl?

And by the way, whether or not the correct enclosures were given, the NTH doesn't comply with PoFA para. 14.

The NTH:
Under the terms of Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 you are now liable to pay the unpaid Parking Charge.The registered keeper has supplied us with the signed statement to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to you under a hire agreement, a copy of the hire agreement and a statement of signed by you under that hire agreement.

If no payment or representation is received within 28 days the outstanding debt will be forwarded to a debt recovery agency. at which point additional charges will apply in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking.

Under the terms of Schedule 4 of thr Protection of Freedoms Act2012 you are now liable to pay the unpaid Parking Charge. (my emphasis)

Oh really!

As Richard Burton said to Colonel Kramer in Where Eagles Dare:

'Now compare it with my original' (in this case para. 14 PoFA):

14(1)If—

(a)the creditor is by virtue of paragraph 13(2) unable to exercise the right to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges mentioned in the notice to keeper, and

(b)the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below are met,

the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer.


(2)The conditions are that—

(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;

(b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed


If probably fails on (2)(a) because they won't have supplied a copy of the original NTK sent to the hire company. And it certainly fails on (2)(b).

There is NO presumption that the hirer is liable, it is still the driver. However, as with a NTK, the creditor may exercise the right to recover unpaid parking charge from the hirer after a period of 21 days has elapsed.

Not 28 days and there's no liability until the (correctly stated) period has expired.

Title: Re: UKPC Parking Notice to Hirer - Not Parked Correctly within the markings of the bay or space - Brent Cross Shopping C
Post by: bigviv on May 12, 2025, 04:26:32 pm

Hi - awesome, thanks a lot.

Good point about the NtH, can't recall why I didn't post it! here is is and images are here https://imgur.com/a/gRmKHib



[attachment deleted by admin]

Title: Re: UKPC Parking Notice to Hirer - Not Parked Correctly within the markings of the bay or space - Brent Cross Shopping C
Post by: b789 on May 12, 2025, 04:15:33 pm

So, why have you not shown us the NtH? Is there ay evidence of the vehicle not correctly parked within the markings of a bay? Have you checked their website for other evidential photos of the alleged contravention?

The first point of your appeal is the main one that should get it cancelled. However, the wording needs tightening top slightly.

Any other points should be about lack of evidence of the alleged contravention, deficient signage and put them to strict proof of valid landowner authority to operate and issue PCNs in their one name at the location.

HC Andersen's point is valid, as far as procedural clarity: It frames the issue as a binary legal question—has UKPC complied with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 para. 14 or not? It avoids over explaining.

The assessor is pointed directly to the statutory requirements without being burdened by multiple subsidiary points. It subtly places the burden on UKPC and POPLA to prove compliance, not on the hirer to prove non-compliance.

However, it may feel incomplete if the operator does submit documents at evidence stage and the Hirer doesn’t follow through with the indicated “further representations”. It also assumes knowledge. POPLA assessors vary in competence; some might fail to scrutinise the documents unless prompted.

Here is a suggested update to point #1 of the appeal:

Quote

I am the Hirer of the vehicle and I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice issued by UKPC.

UKPC is attempting to transfer liability to me as the Hirer under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). They can only do this if they comply fully with Paragraph 14 of that Schedule.

As of the date of this appeal, UKPC has failed to provide copies of the documents required under PoFA to transfer liability to the hirer.

There are four documents that must be provided with the Notice to Hirer in order to comply with Paragraph 14 of PoFA:

1. A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
2. A copy of the hire agreement;
3. A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement; and
4. A copy of the Notice to Keeper (NtK).

To date, UKPC has not provided all four documents. Without all four of these documents, UKPC has not met the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4. Therefore, they cannot transfer liability to the Hirer and may only pursue the driver, who has not been identified.

If UKPC attempts to rely on any new documents in their evidence pack to POPLA, it is now too late as they were required to have been provided together with the Notice to Hirer within the relevant period of 21 days of the liability having been transferred from the Keeper.

I therefore request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the charge.

Title: Re: UKPC Parking Notice to Hirer - Not Parked Correctly within the markings of the bay or space - Brent Cross Shopping C
Post by: bigviv on May 12, 2025, 02:34:59 pm

Hello - I've dug around and did receive a Notice To Hirer ("you were the hirer (your information has been supplied to us by the registered keeper) of the vehicle...etc etc.

It's just the letter, not the other docs required by the PoFA.

Back to the appeal, any comments on that?

Title: Re: UKPC Parking Notice to Hirer - Not Parked Correctly within the markings of the bay or space - Brent Cross Shopping C
Post by: b789 on May 12, 2025, 01:19:53 pm

Did you or did you not, receive an original NtH? A “reminder” is irrelevant.

Whilst it is clear that UKPC are happy to be communicating with the Hirer, you do not know for a fact that the original NtH contained the necessary copies of the required documents. It won’t have, but you cannot be certain of that fact.

As far as POPLA is concerned, you are the Hirer and decline to identify the driver. The NtH did not comply with PoFA para 14 and therefore, that should render everything else pointless.

Title: Re: UKPC Parking Notice to Hirer - Not Parked Correctly within the markings of the bay or space - Brent Cross Shopping C
Post by: bigviv on May 12, 2025, 12:31:21 pm

To clarify, the leasing company sent a note saying they had informed UKPC of the hirer details. I then received a final notice to hirer, assuming that the original notice was lost in the post I guess.

So appealed, rejected, now at the POPLA stage.

Title: Re: UKPC Parking Notice to Hirer - Not Parked Correctly within the markings of the bay or space - Brent Cross Shopping C
Post by: b789 on May 12, 2025, 12:27:48 pm

Those copies of “documents” are required to be provided to the Hirer within 21 days of the operator receiving them from the Keeper. Providing them after this ‘relevant period’ does not require “further representations” and therefore makes the Notice non-compliant with PoFA.

Without having seen the Notice to Hirer (NtH), we are only assuming that a valid Notice was issued to the OP in their name. Any assumption that an NtH was issued in themHirers name is made because the operator is corresponding with them.

Then again, this is UKPC and even if nothing was done and they eventually issued a claim, it would never get anywhere as long as that claim is defended, even poorly, because we know that any claim issued by DCB Legal on behalf of UKPC, will be discontinued.

Title: Re: UKPC Parking Notice to Hirer - Not Parked Correctly within the markings of the bay or space - Brent Cross Shopping C
Post by: H C Andersen on May 12, 2025, 11:28:48 am

To be clear, to whom was the Final Reminder Notice to Hirer (post 1) addressed?

You posted:
we received a note from the leasing company (business lease) that there was an impending notice to hirer coming our way some time back. We then received the attached, a final reminder about parking outside the markings of the bay.

A final reminder of something (the original NTH) which you had not received?

How could you appeal with your draft in those terms without having seen a Notice to Hirer addressed to you?

For POPLA

The creditor has alleged that the driver is liable for a parking charge as at ****. I make no comment on this assertion because I have not seen any original mandated documents regarding their claim. I was the hirer on the day in question.

My 'appeal' to UKPC was to remind them that they could not 'recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer' which is a different matter entirely and the one on which I would invite the assessor to focus.

As at the date of submitting this appeal, the documents I have received from UKPC are as follows:

********
********

I ask the assessor to compare these with the mandatory items specified at para. 14 of Schedule 4:

*******
*******
*******

Should any of the above be supplied by UKPC in their evidence then I may make further representations. However, absent any of these documents the position in law would be clear and the creditor must be instructed to cease any further recovery from the hirer.

..as a working appeal...

Title: Re: UKPC Parking Notice to Hirer - Not Parked Correctly within the markings of the bay or space - Brent Cross Shopping C
Post by: bigviv on May 12, 2025, 08:54:06 am

Hi - here's the appeal drafted, appreciate any help on it:

I am the hirer of the vehicle and wish to appeal this Parking Charge Notice issued by UKPC on the following grounds:
1. The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) and therefore liability cannot be transferred to the hirer.

Under Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), a parking operator seeking to transfer liability to a vehicle hirer must provide the following documentation with the Notice to Hirer (NtH):
•   A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK).
•   A copy of the relevant hire agreement.
•   A statement, signed on behalf of the hire company, confirming the name and address of the hirer and the duration of the hire period.

UKPC’s Notice to Hirer failed to include the above documentation in full. In particular:
•   No copy of the original Notice to Keeper was enclosed.
•   No signed statement from the hire company identifying me as the hirer was provided.
•   No copy of the hire agreement was included.

PoFA stipulates that all these documents must be provided for a parking operator to establish keeper/hirer liability. Without full compliance, UKPC is unable to pursue the hirer and can only seek recovery from the driver, who has not been identified.
 
As such, liability cannot be transferred to me under statute.

2. The photographic evidence does not demonstrate a clear breach of parking terms.

The images provided by UKPC do not clearly show that the vehicle was parked in contravention of the stated terms and conditions.
•   There is no clear evidence that the vehicle was parked outside the lines of a marked bay.
•   The images are inconclusive due to the angle, lack of reference points, and poor clarity.
•   No timestamped series of images has been provided to establish the duration or nature of any alleged contravention.

As such, UKPC has not discharged the burden of proof required to demonstrate a contractual breach. The absence of reliable and objective evidence weakens the basis of the charge.

3. Lack of clear, prominent signage on site.

If UKPC allege that the parking terms were breached, it is necessary for them to provide dated photographs of the relevant signage near the location of the alleged contravention. These should show:
•   That signs were visible, legible, and prominent from the location where the vehicle was parked.
•   That the terms and conditions were clear and accessible at the time of parking.
•   A site map showing the position of signs relative to the bays.

Without sufficient evidence of visible and readable signage, no contract can be deemed to have been established with the driver.

4. UKPC’s conduct appears disproportionate and predatory.

The issuing of a Parking Charge Notice under ambiguous circumstances, with unclear evidence and without statutory compliance, may be seen as inconsistent with guidance issued by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities regarding fair and proportionate parking enforcement.

The approach adopted in this case—particularly the lack of due diligence in evidencing the alleged contravention—raises concerns over the fairness and transparency of UKPC’s conduct. It is respectfully submitted that this undermines confidence in the integrity of private parking enforcement.

5. UKPC may be in breach of data protection principles under the UK GDPR.

As the Notice to Hirer does not meet the statutory conditions under PoFA, UKPC has no lawful basis under Article 6(1)(f) of the UK GDPR to pursue the hirer using their personal data.

The principle of data minimisation and lawful processing requires that data controllers (in this case, UKPC) only process personal information when there is a legitimate legal basis to do so. As UKPC has not met the legal requirements to establish hirer liability, the use of my personal data obtained from the hire company may constitute unlawful processing.

In light of the above, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the Parking Charge Notice. The failure to comply with PoFA Schedule 4, the absence of clear evidence, concerns regarding signage, and potential data protection issues provide multiple, independent reasons why this charge should not stand.

Title: Re: UKPC Parking Notice to Hirer - Not Parked Correctly within the markings of the bay or space - Brent Cross Shopping C
Post by: b789 on May 11, 2025, 04:48:03 pm

DO a search of the forum for other POPLA appeals and put something together that you think is appropriate and then show us here before you send anything and we can then advise on what, if anything needs changing or adding or removing.

Title: Re: UKPC Parking Notice to Hirer - Not Parked Correctly within the markings of the bay or space - Brent Cross Shopping C
Post by: bigviv on May 11, 2025, 03:45:07 pm

Hi, is it just a matter of a few points already mentioned for the popla appeal? Thanks

Title: Re: UKPC Parking Notice to Hirer - Not Parked Correctly within the markings of the bay or space - Brent Cross Shopping C
Post by: bigviv on May 08, 2025, 05:08:18 pm

Hello! So the popla code has now come through.

Any thoughts/advice on the appeal?

Thanks

[attachment deleted by admin]

Title: Re: UKPC Parking Notice to Hirer - Not Parked Correctly within the markings of the bay or space - Brent Cross Shopping C
Post by: jfollows on April 12, 2025, 02:03:29 pm

You don’t name the driver by doing nothing and … not naming the driver.
They’ll eventually deny your appeal “after careful consideration” or some such guff but you don’t care because they’ll also send a POPLA code.

Title: Re: UKPC Parking Notice to Hirer - Not Parked Correctly within the markings of the bay or space - Brent Cross Shopping C
Post by: bigviv on April 12, 2025, 02:01:17 pm

Got it, so not even put in another appeal to say, nope, not gonna name the driver?

Thanks for the quick response!

Title: Re: UKPC Parking Notice to Hirer - Not Parked Correctly within the markings of the bay or space - Brent Cross Shopping C
Post by: jfollows on April 12, 2025, 01:56:18 pm

No response.
Ignore.
It’s a fishing attempt to get you to name the driver.

The moment you name the driver you destroy your defence. In the absence of your doing this they can’t go after the driver, nor can they go after the hirer.

They force you to use POPLA in due course to get this cancelled, because they know that enough people just go along and name the driver or pay up.

Title: Re: UKPC Parking Notice to Hirer - Not Parked Correctly within the markings of the bay or space - Brent Cross Shopping C
Post by: bigviv on April 12, 2025, 01:52:45 pm

I got this now, "demanding" the driver. Any help with the response appreciated. Thanks

[attachment deleted by admin]

Title: Re: UKPC Parking Notice to Hirer - Not Parked Correctly within the markings of the bay or space - Brent Cross Shopping C
Post by: bigviv on March 12, 2025, 02:01:34 pm

awesome, short and sweet! will send that across.

Title: Re: UKPC Parking Notice to Hirer - Not Parked Correctly within the markings of the bay or space - Brent Cross Shopping C
Post by: b789 on March 12, 2025, 01:44:11 pm

Irrespective of the actual alleged contravention, you cannot be liable as the Hirer of the vehicle because UKPC will not have complied with all the requirements of PoFA to be able to transfer liability from the unknown (to them) driver to you, the Hirer.

As they have failed to provide you with the original Notice to Hirer (NtH), you must send a formal complaint to UKPC and tell them that the original was never received and that they must provide you with a copy. You will also require them to provide evidence of the date the original NtH was entered into the postal system as required by the PPSCoP section 8.1.2(e) Note 2.

Even if you did nothing, which is not advised, you would eventually receive a county court debt claim that, if defended, would eventually be discontinued and that would be the end of the matter. However, for now, you must get your formal complaint in.

As you also have time to actually appeal, send the following, verbatim, only as the Hirer (they have absolutely no idea who the driver is unless you blab it to them):

Quote

The NtH would be 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 Hirer.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

Quote

I am the Hirer 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 Hirer (NtH) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the Hirer 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 Hirer cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtH 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: UKPC Parking Notice to Hirer - Not Parked Correctly within the markings of the bay or space - Brent Cross Shopping Ctr.
Post by: bigviv on March 12, 2025, 12:01:09 pm

Hi - we received a note from the leasing company (business lease) that there was an impending notice to hirer coming our way some time back. We then received the attached, a final reminder about parking outside the markings of the bay. 

It doesn't look like in the imgur pics that the lines are even there to be honest.

Just need help with the appeal, a) i didn't receive the first notice, b) it's a lease car so is there a requirement to send the lease agreement or details? c) the lines are worn out and the images don't show the details?

Any help much appreciated.

Thanks

Pics (https://imgur.com/a/gRmKHib)

[attachment deleted by admin]