Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: rhbmcse on November 10, 2025, 12:16:49 pm
-
Copy and paste this, for what it's worth:
I wish to comment on the operator’s evidence as follows.
1. Keeper liability and late service of the NtK
UKPC rely on the “deemed service” provision in Schedule 4 PoFA and simply state that the notice was “issued and sent accordingly.” They have provided no proof of posting (for example, a certificate of posting or any individual track-and-trace record) showing that this specific NtK entered the postal system on the date they claim. A generic assertion that they sent it is not proof of the date on which it was actually posted.
By contrast, I have positively stated the actual date of receipt. PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(6) creates only a rebuttable presumption that a notice is delivered on the second working day after posting. That presumption is expressly subject to “unless the contrary is proved.” My evidence of the actual date of receipt, together with the absence of any proper proof of posting from UKPC, is sufficient to displace that presumption.
In any event, even if POPLA prefers to treat the NtK as “deemed” delivered, I remind the Assessor that I have not admitted to being the driver. UKPC must prove strict compliance with PoFA to hold the keeper liable. Any doubt about service or timing falls against the operator. If PoFA is not fully complied with, the keeper cannot be held liable and the appeal must be allowed on that basis alone.
2. “Parking”, “waiting” and loading – mis-statement of the law
UKPC state that for parking enforcement the terms “parking” and “waiting” are treated as synonymous and that any motorist “waits” for their own purposes is deemed to have parked. That is not an accurate statement of the law.
The county court appeal decision in Jopson v Homeguard Services [2016] B9GF0A9E makes it clear that “parking” is conceptually different from a brief stop for loading/unloading or for a short unavoidable interruption. The Judge expressly held that the concept of parking does not include the time “needed for getting in or out [of the vehicle], loading or unloading it” and that merely stopping for a few moments to carry items is not parking at all. My case is entirely analogous: the vehicle was stationary for just over one minute solely in order to load pre-ordered heavy goods and then immediately left.
UKPC’s own evidence shows a total duration on site of around 1 minute 5 seconds. This is textbook “loading” in the Jopson sense, not “parking”. No contract to pay a parking charge could have arisen from such a fleeting loading stop on a roadway in a retail park.
3. Equality Act 2010 and reasonable adjustments
UKPC accept that a Blue Badge was displayed but say that a Blue Badge does not give an unconditional right to park and refer to the Blue Badge handbook. That misses the point. I am not claiming that the Blue Badge itself overrides their terms. The relevant law here is the Equality Act 2010 and the operator’s duty as a service provider to make reasonable adjustments for disabled customers.
On the day in question:
- The driver is disabled and a Blue Badge holder.
- All disabled bays were occupied, including by vehicles not displaying a Blue Badge.
- The short stop was solely to load heavy goods as close as possible to the collection point, then leave.
Expecting a disabled driver to park further away (even if a bay were available) and manually carry heavy items over distance is not a reasonable expectation and is precisely the type of disadvantage the Equality Act is designed to prevent. A brief stop of around a minute in a roadway, for no other purpose than loading, is an obvious and proportionate “reasonable adjustment” to any general “no parking” policy in that area.
UKPC have produced no evidence that they considered, let alone made, any reasonable adjustment for a disabled customer, nor that they have any written policy dealing with such situations. Instead they seek to apply a rigid “no parking” rule to disabled and non-disabled motorists alike. That is the very definition of a policy which places disabled motorists at a substantial disadvantage.
POPLA may say it cannot adjudicate the Equality Act directly, but it is at least relevant to the overall fairness of the charge and whether UKPC’s rigid reliance on a “no parking” term is reasonable when applied to a disabled motorist engaged in a legitimate loading activity for just over a minute.
4. De minimis and the Single Code of Practice
UKPC rely on Clause 5.1 and Annex B of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice and assert that “unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes” in areas where parking is not allowed. That is a selective and misleading use of the Code.
Annex B and Clause 5.1 explain that a consideration period exists so that drivers can find a space (or decide not to park) and read and understand the terms and conditions, or the consequences of entering an area where public parking is not invited. The Code also makes clear that operators must take into account factors such as layout, traffic flow, and the time required to identify and read signage. It is not intended to legitimise an instantaneous £100 charge for a 65-second stop where the driver is simply loading goods and/or trying to understand the restrictions.
The new Single Code also recognises that disabled motorists may require longer periods than others, both for consideration and for grace. It cannot be correct that an able-bodied motorist in a “normal” bay is effectively afforded 5 minutes’ “consideration” in some contexts, while a disabled driver engaged in an essential loading activity in a roadway of a retail park is given zero tolerance for a one-minute stop.
On any sensible view the duration here is de minimis. In 1 minute and 5 seconds it is not realistically possible to: enter, spot and interpret signage, understand the unusual and onerous “no roadway parking” term, identify that all disabled bays are full (some abused by non-Blue-Badge vehicles), and then somehow find and use an alternative method of loading heavy goods. The time is so trivial that it should fall within a reasonable consideration/grace period even before one takes account of disability.
5. Signage and the nature of the “contract”
UKPC have produced photographs of their entrance sign, main signs and a signage plan. However, the issue here is not whether there are generic UKPC signs on the site, but whether the signage at the precise location of the stop is clear, prominent and capable of forming a contract for this particular alleged contravention.
Their own case summary accepts that the sign in question states “No roadway parking.” That is forbidding wording. It does not offer parking on certain terms for a price; it appears to be a prohibition: “you may not park here.” A sign that simply prohibits parking does not create a contractual licence to park in return for paying a charge. If anything, it suggests that any vehicle remaining there in defiance of the prohibition would be a trespasser. Only the landowner, not UKPC, could seek damages for trespass, and no actual loss has been evidenced.
Furthermore, the operator has not shown that, from the driver’s position on the roadway, these “No roadway parking” signs were obvious, at eye level, and readable in the few seconds available. A small sign high up on a post, with terms in small print, is not “clear and prominent” for a driver momentarily stopping to load. In such circumstances it is unreasonable to assert that the driver entered into a clear and binding contract to pay £100 for a stop lasting around one minute.
UKPC’s blanket assertion that its signage “complies fully” with the Code and that they are audited by the BPA is not evidence of clear contractual terms at this particular location. POPLA must assess what the driver could realistically see and understand within 65 seconds in a busy retail roadway, not rely on generalities.
6. Landowner authority
UKPC have not produced the actual contract with the landowner, only a brief witness statement with the signatory’s details redacted. That document is not a contract; it is merely an assertion that a contract exists. It does not allow any verification of its scope, duration, signatory capacity, or whether it actually covers “no roadway parking” enforcement at this specific location on the material date.
The operator’s promise that they “will provide a copy of the contract to the court if they require it” does nothing to assist POPLA, whose task is to assess the evidence actually produced now. A redacted witness statement from an unidentified person is not “strict proof” of authority in circumstances where the operator seeks to impose £100 charges for a non-parking loading stop on a roadway.
7. Blue Badge and private land
Finally, UKPC’s reference to the Blue Badge handbook is misplaced. I fully accept that the statutory Blue Badge scheme does not of itself grant rights on private land. However, the presence of a clearly displayed Blue Badge in the operator’s own photographs is clear evidence that the driver is disabled. That engages the Equality Act duty to make reasonable adjustments and supports the proposition that an extra minute for loading heavy goods near the entrance is not only fair but required.
The operator’s approach here – ignoring disability, ignoring the trivial duration, and strictly enforcing a “no roadway parking” rule against a disabled customer loading goods for just over a minute – is unreasonable and discriminatory. The charge should not be upheld in those circumstances.
Conclusion
In summary:
- PoFA keeper liability is not properly established, and I have not admitted to being the driver.
- Jopson v Homeguard makes clear that brief loading is not “parking,” directly contradicting UKPC’s attempt to treat “waiting” and “parking” as synonymous.
- The driver is disabled; a Blue Badge was displayed; all disabled bays were full; a one-minute loading stop near the collection point is a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act.
- The duration of 1 minute 5 seconds is plainly de minimis and falls within any fair consideration/grace period, particularly for a disabled motorist.
- The signage is forbidding (“No roadway parking”) and incapable of forming a contract for a £100 charge, and its prominence at the exact location is not proved.
- Landowner authority has not been strictly proved; a short redacted witness statement is not equivalent to a contract.
For all of the above reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA upholds my appeal and instructs UKPC to cancel this Parking Charge Notice.
-
Simply, you need to rebut any of the points that they make that you don’t agree with, and if there are points in your appeal which have not been discussed by them you can imply that they therefore agree with them. So worth thinking about this as you process their response, in addition to restating your original appeal points.
-
Hi all,
I've not heard anything else back from the forum following my last post but as @b789 has said - "it's only POPLA".
I'll reply to them stating that my original comments still stand, highlighting the lack of response from them within a 14 day time frame and also throw in that I'd reasonably expect that if parking were disallowed on the roadway then there should be some kind of standard recognised marking, in this case, Double yellow lines with key markings indicating that parking is not permitted, even for disabled users.
I don't expect any joy, but I'll jump through the hoops and go from there.
Thanks all,
Br,
Rob.
-
Ok - so the latest installment.
UKPC have responded to my POPLA with a whole barrage of documentation to include
Copy of their Entrace Sign
Copy of their 'Main' Sign
A 'witness statement' with the landowner signature redacted which 'presumably' grants UKPC authority to operate on their land
A site plan of their current sign locations. Links below:
https://ibb.co/5xCzqCH9
https://ibb.co/GQQqnymn
https://ibb.co/LhtLG78f
https://ibb.co/SD2Fp0dL
Case and Summary - which reads (I apologise - you've probably read these before but just for completeness) :
Site Name Snowhill Retail Park
Contravention Date/Time 17/10/2025 12:30
Lower Charge Rate £60.00
Contravention No Parking
On 17/10/2025, a parking event occurred relating to vehicle registration XXXXXX.
The event was recorded by our ANPR cameras at Snowhill Retail Park because the
vehicle was parked in an area where no parking is allowed.
The parking charge rate was £100.00, reduced to £60.00 if payment was received
within fourteen days.
Following the parking event on 17/10/2025, 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 25/10/2025
An appeal was received from the vehicle's registered keeper MR x on
the 10/11/2025, 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. Clause 5.1 Annex B of the Private Parking
Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) states that unauthorised motorists will
not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period
in spaces designated for specific users or where parking is not allowed. In this case,
parking is not permitted, therefore, the appellant would not be granted any period
of time to remain stationary within this area. While the signage specifies “No
roadway parking”, UKPC maintains that this falls under the broader term “No
Parking”, as the roadway is designated as a non-parking area. Therefore, the two
terms are interchangeable in this context. The photographic evidence shows that
the vehicle was parked partially on the roadway.
Please note that while the appellants state they did not receive the Parking Charge
Notice until 07/11/2025, we have no control over any issues relating to the postal
service. We can confirm that the relevant correspondence was issued and sent
accordingly. In accordance with Paragraph 8(6) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), a notice sent by post is presumed—unless proven
otherwise—to have been delivered, and therefore 'given', on the second working day
after the date of posting. For the purposes of this provision, a 'working day' excludes
Saturdays, Sundays, and public holidays.
Definition of parking Whether an individual can be said to have 'parked' as opposed
to merely 'stopped' or 'waited' is a question of fact to be determined on the
circumstances of each case. However, for the purposes of parking enforcement, the
terms 'parking' and 'waiting' are generally treated as synonymous. In essence, a
motorist who 'waits' at a site for their own purposes is deemed to have 'parked'
within the meaning of the applicable terms and conditions. Accordingly, by parking,
Page 2 of 13
waiting, or otherwise remaining at the site, the appellant became subject to the
terms and conditions in force, which apply uniformly to all motorists irrespective of
the reason for their presence.
In the present case, the appellant contends that the display of a Blue Badge should
have entitled them to park in the location in question. However, it must be
emphasised that the possession of a Blue Badge does not confer an unconditional
right to park, nor does it override the specific terms and conditions applicable to all
users of a private car park. It is incumbent upon the motorist to ensure they are fully
informed as to where and under what circumstances the Blue Badge is valid. Further
clarification on this point can be found within the Blue Badge Handbook, particularly
in relation to provisions governing ‘off-street’ parking. Accordingly, the appellant
remained bound by the site's terms and conditions, regardless of the display of a
Blue Badge.
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. As a member of
the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme, UKPC is regularly
audited to ensure that all relevant contracts are in place. UKPC will provide a copy
of the contract to the court if they require it. At this stage we have included a
witness statement that confirms the agreement authorising UKPC to issue parking
charges at Snowhill Retail Park. This statement complies fully with the Code of
Practice and confirms our authority in an agreement.
Although the BPA Code of Practice outlines what authorisation must set out, we
have also shown that beyond checking documentation; there is equipment, signage
and on occasion personnel on site to manage the function of enforcement and this
cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. I am sure that if the parking
operator was not allowed to issue charges on site the landowner would not permit
the parking operator to keep its signage on site nor would the landowner allow
motorists to park on its land without authorisation.
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
Page 3 of 13
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 parking in this area may result in a
parking charge being issued. MR X's the vehicle was parked in an area
where no parking is allowed; consequently, the parking charge was issued correctly.
A letter was sent to MR X informing him of our decision on the
17/11/2025.
So I now have 7 days to provide my "Comments on the operator evidence"
I'd appreciate any advice as to what these comments should be, or whether they make any difference or not. I could of course mention that there was no road marking to indicate that I could not park there as has been mentioned above. Awaiting your expert advice.
Best regards,
Rob.
-
What I also noticed when I examined the car park (using Google Maps) was that there was no specific signage or road markings which prohibited the driver from stopping where he / she did. ie No double yellows / reds - No hatching - Or any other wording leading a driver to consider that stopping their was prohibited.
You can broadly see this in the PCN.
-
Thank you so much.
I have changed "grace" to "consideration" and submitted the POPLA appeal as per your advice.
I will revert once I have a response from them.
Br,
Rob.
-
Point #4 should refer to "consideration period" not "grace period".
It's only POPLA. Give it a go and see what happens.
-
So, I popped my details so far into AI, and asked it to write a POPLA appeal for me. How does this look ?
Draft POPLA Appeal
POPLA Code: [Insert POPLA Code] Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM] PCN Reference: [Insert PCN Number] Appellant: [Insert Your Name] (Keeper)
Summary of Appeal
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I submit this appeal on the following grounds:
Keeper Liability not established: The Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not delivered within the relevant period required by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
No Breach of Contract (Loading is not Parking): The vehicle was stopped briefly for the purpose of loading, which is distinct from parking (Jopson v Homeguard).
Breach of the Equality Act 2010: The operator failed to make reasonable adjustments for a driver with a protected characteristic (Blue Badge holder).
De Minimis: The duration of the stop (1 minute 5 seconds) is trivial and falls within a reasonable grace period.
Inadequate Signage: The operator has not proved that clear and obvious signs formed a contract.
No Landowner Authority: The operator has not proved they have the authority to issue charges on this land.
Detailed Grounds for Appeal
1. Keeper Liability not established (PoFA Schedule 4 Non-Compliance) The operator has issued a Notice to Keeper (NtK) citing the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) to claim keeper liability. However, they have failed to meet the strict conditions required to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.
The alleged contravention took place on 17/10/2025. The NtK is dated 25/10/2025. However, this document was not received by me until 07/11/2025.
PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(5) specifies that the relevant period for service of the notice is 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.
While PoFA Paragraph 9(6) creates a rebuttable presumption that a notice is delivered on the second working day after posting, I hereby rebut this presumption. I certify that the Notice was not received until 07/11/2025, which is 21 days after the event and well outside the statutory 14-day limit.
As the keeper, I cannot be held liable unless the operator can provide concrete evidence (such as a certificate of posting or a track-and-trace record) proving that the Notice was actually posted via First Class mail on the working day immediately following the "Date of Issue." A generic bulk-mail print log is insufficient to prove the specific date of entry into the postal system for this specific letter. Since the Notice was served late, the operator has forfeited the right to claim keeper liability.
2. No Breach of Contract (Loading is not Parking) The vehicle was not "parked" in the definition of the term established by case law. The vehicle was stationary for a total of 1 minute and 5 seconds for the sole purpose of collecting pre-ordered heavy goods.
In the key appeal case of Jopson v Homeguard Services [2016] B9GF0A9E, His Honour Judge Harris QC found that the act of stopping to load or unload does not constitute "parking." The Judge distinguished between "parking" (leaving a car) and "stopping" (a temporary pause for a specific purpose, such as loading). As the vehicle was engaged in loading heavy goods—an activity incompatible with "parking"—no breach of the parking contract occurred.
3. Breach of the Equality Act 2010 (Reasonable Adjustments) The driver of the vehicle is a Blue Badge holder and suffers from a disability that limits their mobility and ability to carry heavy items over distance. A valid Blue Badge was clearly displayed and is visible in the operator's own evidence.
On the day in question, all designated disabled bays were occupied (some by vehicles not displaying Blue Badges). Under the Equality Act 2010, service providers are under a statutory duty to make "reasonable adjustments" to allow disabled persons to access their services.
Forcing a disabled driver to park in a distant bay (had one even been available) and carry heavy goods is not a reasonable expectation. A temporary stop of 65 seconds nearest to the collection point to load goods is a "reasonable adjustment" to the parking policy. By issuing a PCN for this necessary accommodation, the operator is engaging in indirect discrimination and is in breach of the Equality Act 2010.
4. De Minimis and Grace Periods The operator’s evidence shows the vehicle was present for a mere 1 minute and 5 seconds. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires operators to allow a reasonable grace period. A duration of roughly one minute is de minimis (too small to be concerned with by the law) and clearly falls within the time required for a driver to assess the situation, attempt to locate a valid bay, or load goods. It is unreasonable to suggest a contract to park was formed, accepted, and breached in such a trivial timeframe.
5. Inadequate Signage The operator is put to strict proof that their signage is prominent, clear, and legible, and that it specifically forbids the activity of loading/unloading. If the signage is "forbidding" (e.g., "No Parking"), it offers no license to park and therefore no contract can be formed; the matter would be one of trespass, for which only the landowner can sue for actual damages (which are zero).
6. No Landowner Authority The operator is put to strict proof that they have a valid contract with the landowner that specifically authorises them to pursue parking charges in their own name at this location, and that this authorisation was in effect on the date in question. A redacted or generic witness statement is insufficient; I require a copy of the actual contract chain.
Conclusion For the reasons stated above—specifically the failure to serve the NtK within the PoFA 14-day limit and the protection afforded by the Equality Act—this charge is invalid and must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
-
You have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection to submit your POPLA appeal. Just do a search of the forum for other recent POPLA appeals to get an idea of how to put one together. No rush.
When you think you have something ready to submit, show it to us here and we can then advise on any edits, etc. There are literally hundreds of POPLA appeals you can have a read through.
-
OK - so I got my appeal rejected, just as you said I would ! It's almost as though you've been through this before...
So I guess my next hoop to jump through is the POPLA appeal.
Is there a specific template document that I should complete for this, or just continue to state my case as I already have done to UKPC in my own words ?
Obviously I'm looking to take advice before I do anything that may reduce my chance of success based on this statement:
"I can confirm that if you follow the advice you receive here, you will not pay a penny to UKPC. If POPLAS is not successful, it will go all the way to a county court claim being issued. As long as it is defended, and we provide the defence etc., it will either be struck out or discontinued. That is not a guess. It is said with greater than 99.9% certainty."
Many thanks.
Rob.
-
Wow. I am blown away by your response. Thank you so much for your advice. I quite astonishingly received a further threatening letter from them. This time, dated 8/11/25. Received 14/11. That's some 6 days later. It seems they are not so keen at getting their mail into the postal system.
This time, a final reminder as they have heard nothing in 14 days. Basically your 14 day discount period is up. Pay us £100 now or in 14 days we'll pass you over to a debt collection agency.
I shall continue to follow the advice posted above and not deviate. Currently awaiting their refusal of my appeal.
Many thanks.
Rob.
-
It matters not one iota the actual date you received the Notice to Keeper (NtK). The only fact that matters is whether it was deemed to have been served within the relevant period. In this case, the date of the alleged contravention (definitely NOT an "offence") was 17/10/2025 and the date the NtK was 'issued" is 25/10/2025 which means it was "deemed" 'given' (served) on 28/10/2025, which is 11 days, therefore compliant with PoFA para 9(5).
However, PoFA para 9(6) states "...unless the contrary is proved". So how do you suppose you can prove non-delivery within the relevant period? You do so by way of a rebuttable presumption. If you rebut that the NtK was delivered (given) within the relevant period, the burden of proof is on the creditor (UKPC) to show that it was entered into the postal system by guaranteed 1-2 day delivery no later than 29/10/2025.
They either evidence a signed for delivery note (no chance) or proof of posting no later than 29/10/2025 with a first class service. As these firms use a bulk mail collator, they will require a proof of 1-2 day delivery method and the actual date it was entered into the postal system. I can guarantee that they do not hold this proof. They will try and fob off with a hybrid email receipt that only evidences that the NtK was queued for submission to their bulk mail consolidator and it will also evidence that they used a 2-3 day service, not a 1-2 day service.
Their own Code of Practice states the following:
A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose, “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. Therefore, parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)
So, you now wait for their appeal rejection, which is guaranteed. You will then be able to appeal to POPLA but there is often the chance you get one of the more moronic assessors and it is not successful. Not to worry, because a POPLA decision is not binding on you.
I can confirm that if you follow the advice you receive here, you will not pay a penny to UKPC. If POPLAS is not successful, it will go all the way to a county court claim being issued. As long as it is defended, and we provide the defence etc., it will either be struck out or discontinued. That is not a guess. It is said with greater than 99.9% certainty.
What you need do is get your head around the fact that no OFFENCE has been committed and there is no such thing as a "registered owner". In fact, have a look at the front of your V5C registration document and tell us what the big, bold, white capital letters on a red background say.
-
Hi there,
The driver was not revealed - only myself as keeper.
Br,
Rob.
-
You appealed before seeking advice?
Was the driver revealed in the appeal or was the appeal make pure as keeper?
-
Hi all,
received the above presumably automated PCN on Friday 7/11/25. Date of alleged offence 17/10/25. Letter dated 25/10/25.
I am the registered owner of the vehicle.
On the date of the alleged offence the driver had visited the retail park to collect reserved goods. All disabled bays within the vicinity were occupied, some without disabled badges being displayed. No parking bays were available within the vicinity. The driver is unable to carry the large item for collection for any distance due to their disability and so pulled up directly outside the retail outlet, collected their goods and departed.
The recorded duration by UKPC is 1 minute, 5 seconds which would probably be consistent with collecting the goods pre-ordered.
The blue disabled badge can be seen clearly within the CCTV camera recorded image provided.
I am unable to provide images of the signage at present but can obtain this shortly and will provide.
I have responded via online appeal stating that the PCN has only been received 21 days after the alleged offence and should have been received within 14 days. Also stated that the Disabled Badge can clearly be seen within the images provided.
Their automated response says they will respond within 28 days.
Should this be sufficient / are there any further steps I should take at this point ?
Links to images below:
https://ibb.co/s9p5Wfp0
https://ibb.co/n8YR6yYS
Br,
Rob.