Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Plywood-Enthusiast on November 20, 2025, 01:44:10 pm
-
From memory that looks like the standard cancellation boilerplate.
There is a fee to pay for POPLA appeals (the POPLA process is paid for by parking operators). I can't remember the ins and outs but from memory I think the fee is greater if it goes to adjudication, so they may have just not fancied their chances.
-
Here's a copy of their cancellation letter. I'm not sure if this normal for UKPC and/or if this is the standard template letter for charge cancellations.
Not sure if they are just hedging their bets - maybe they pay a fee to POPLA if an appeal is accepted or they pay a fee just to have the appeals hearing.
When I read the letter as a layman it sounds a lot like they are bending over backward to appease me and maybe they hope I will let this issue slide and not take up up with the BPA - perhaps BPA complaint is going to be a simple open and shut case if they see the charge has been cancelled already? It's probably an efficient way of managing the BPA admin time to just ignore all complaints made to cancelled charges and prioritise complaints made on active charges.
(https://forumshares.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/cancelled.jpg)
-
Would have liked them to get a smacking from POPLA adjudicator
A win is a win, however it comes about. There's no guarantee that a POPLA adjudicator would have found in your favour.
-
The wording is dreadful, and has been commented on here before.
The industry is populated with former clampers who only care about getting money from their victims, who know that when they refuse valid appeals lots of people give up and pay them.
Good job for not giving in to them and winning in the end. As you say, time and effort costs money.
-
What a complete and utter waste of time. Would have liked them to get a smacking from POPLA adjudicator
The time taken to build my appeal was probably was more than I could earn in the same time. But out of principle I built my case. Went back to the site to take photos, trawled through my travel history and documents to show I was delivering etc.
They knew full well they had no case, but just decided to push it by denying the RK's informal appeal
I love how they worded it like I have paid or something, not that they have closed the parking charge/cancelled the parking charge.
Dear Miss xxxxx,
The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.
If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.
If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.
Kind regards
POPLA Team
-
Got RK to go back and choose "was not the RK or driver option".
Ideally they should just select "other". They are the RK, so saying they were not is not correct.
It shouldn't affect too much.
-
If you're going with the lack of proper consideration period point, I'd be minded to leave out the point about loading. It's a valid point, but not one that POPLA usually agree with in my experience, and also one that might weaken the consideration period point.
The PCO was clearly in a rush. Didnt even have time to print out a physical parking charge and put it on the windscreen.
UKPC rarely issue windscreen tickets - it won't be because the attendant was in a rush, it'll be because they don't use windscreen tickets at that location.
WHat is the attachment count limit for POPLA appeal.
I'm not sure. It's generally easier for the assessor to follow if you can just give them one PDF with everything in, rather than several files that you need them to jump back and forth between.
RK just got the document sent in. I'll upload if interestest. It was a very long time since I helped do a POPLA appeal. and I almost came acropper on the POPLA form, when I was wizzing though and make RK select the option where they inadvertetly claim to be the driver... improper signage is one of my reasons and I almost selected "there was inadequate signage when I was driving" as the option. Got RK to go back and choose "was not the RK or driver option". Fortunately I caught it in time.
-
If you're going with the lack of proper consideration period point, I'd be minded to leave out the point about loading. It's a valid point, but not one that POPLA usually agree with in my experience, and also one that might weaken the consideration period point.
The PCO was clearly in a rush. Didnt even have time to print out a physical parking charge and put it on the windscreen.
UKPC rarely issue windscreen tickets - it won't be because the attendant was in a rush, it'll be because they don't use windscreen tickets at that location.
WHat is the attachment count limit for POPLA appeal.
I'm not sure. It's generally easier for the assessor to follow if you can just give them one PDF with everything in, rather than several files that you need them to jump back and forth between.
-
What was the original appeal?
Can I make a draft appeal with just the default POFA non-compliant line and add the other 3 reasons later?
You can only submit your POPLA appeal once. The codes are generally valid for 33 days to allow for delivery of the rejection notice.
1) non pofa compliant letter to RK
I would put this #2. A linked (but different) issue is that UKPC have not proved that the vehicle was parked for longer than the minimum consideration period of 5 minutes as required by the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice. I would lead with this point, as this means that no contract can have been formed between the driver and UKPC, regardless of any other technical points that might apply. Although whether this point is likely to work depends somewhat on what has been said in the original appeal.
2) procedural impropriety - blocking the appeal within the 28 day period.
I'd probably save this for a complaint - they have, eventually, allowed you to appeal (hence why you're now submitting a POPLA appeal) - probably no harm in mentioning it, but if you do, I'd put it at the bottom underneath your stronger points as to why no money is owed.
Good call on the non contratual agreement reached. the photos span a grand total of 12 seconds, 4 photos taken. The PCO was clearly in a rush. Didnt even have time to print out a physical parking charge and put it on the windscreen.
Just wanted to ask. WHat is the attachment count limit for POPLA appeal. Do I have to put everything into one PDF document?
-
Original complaints letter:
Dear Sir/Madam
PARKING CHARGE REF: 3043353011604
Reg: KY08WTL
I am the keeper and NOT the driver of the vehicle. I have been blocked from making an appeal through the UKPCappeals.co.uk website, stating it has been sent for collections. An attempted was made to appeal online on 2nd December 2025
UK PC has blocked my appeal, meanwhile UKPC is still happy to accept the £100 payment for the parking charge. I am still within my statutory right of appeal within 28 days of receipt. The PPSCoP talks about 28 days from when the keeper "receives" the notice, and then explains how “receipt” is worked out for something sent by post.
In my case the timeline is quite straightforward. The alleged contravention was on 28/10/2025. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is dated 05/11/2025. The PPSCoP says that a notice sent by post is presumed delivered on the second working day after the date of posting, unless you can prove otherwise. If UKPC actually posted it on 05/11, the first working day is Thursday 06/11 and the second working day is Friday 07/11. So, for the purposes of the PPSCoP, the NtK is treated as received on 07/11/2025.
The 28-day appeal window in the PPSCoP then runs from that date of deemed receipt, not from the 5th. So Count 28 days from 07/11/2025 and you land on 05/12/2025. That is the last day on which the Keeper must be allowed to lodge an appeal under the Code.
I tried to use the online appeals portal on 02/12/2025, which is only day 25 from deemed receipt. In other words, my appeal attempt was comfortably within the 28-day period the PPSCoP requires.
Now put that alongside what the Code actually says. Section 8.1.2(e) requires that the notice itself tells the recipient they can appeal if they do so within 28 days of receiving the parking charge. The Note under that sub-paragraph is the bit that sets out the “second working day” presumption I have quoted. Section 8.4.1 then says that operators must provide a process which allows the parking charge to be appealed within 28 days, and at §8.4.1(c) it goes further and says they must consider late appeals where the motorist can show exceptional circumstances.
UKPC’s system blocking an appeal on 02/12/2025, and declaring that the case had been sent to debt recovery even though the 28 days from receipt had not yet expired, is flatly contrary to both 8.1.2(e) and 8.4.1(a). I have screenshots to prove this which will be going through the complaints procedure.
That deemed-delivery rule also contains the escape clause I pointed out: the presumption applies “unless the contrary is proved”. UKPC will be put to strict proof of the date the notice actually entered the postal system using a genuine first-class (1–2 day) service. They will not be able to do so. Your invariably rely on hybrid-mail systems offering 2–3 day delivery with no individual proof of posting and no evidence of the exact day the NtK entered Royal Mail’s network.
My captured screenshots of the online appeal page and payment page, showing the date and time when their system wrongly stated that appeals were closed and the matter was with a debt collector, while still happily offering you a £100 payment button. I have also sent a written appeal to UKPC in the keeper’s name, which does not identify the driver.
The narrative for the formal complaint and appeal is therefore simple: contravention on 28/10, NtK dated 05/11, deemed receipt on 07/11 under the PPSCoP, and an online appeal attempt on 02/12 which was within the 28-day period. The refusal to accept that appeal is a breach of 8.1.2(e) and 8.4.1(a). The previous written appeal must therefore be treated as an in-time appeal and processed accordingly, with either cancellation or a rejection including a POPLA code.
Section 11.2 of the PPSCoP then bites. That clause says that where a parking operator receives a complaint that it considers to be or include an appeal against the validity of a parking charge, it must treat it as an appeal for the purposes of the 8.4 timescales unless and until it is clear that the complaint is not relevant to an appeal. The complaint is plainly about the validity of the charge and the handling of the appeal window, so UKPC are required to treat it as an appeal under the Code.
The escalation narrative is then completed by noting that continuing to block an in-time appeal and pushing the consumer towards “debt collection” while misrepresenting their appeal rights is not only a PPSCoP breach but also an unfair commercial practice under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. This behaviour involves misleading actions and omissions concerning the consumer’s rights of redress, and the use of aggressive commercial pressure. It is conduct that may fall within the CMA’s enforcement remit under the DMCC. If the person reading the complaint does not understand the implications of that, they should pass it immediately to a responsible adult within UKPC who has the intellectual capacity to do so.
Finally, the keeper makes clear that if UKPC refuse to recognise the appeal as in-time or fail to issue a proper rejection with a POPLA code, the matter will be escalated to the BPA, the DVLA, and the CMA for breaches of the PPSCoP, misuse of DVLA data, and unfair commercial practices under the DMCC.
My appeal on this parking charge was supposed to be as follows, please consider this a valid on time appeal:
I am the keeper of the vehicle and NOT the driver, 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.
You are invited to either cancel this charge or issue a POPLA appeal code
Kind Regards
RK details here - reiterated keeper not driver.
-
What was the original appeal?
Can I make a draft appeal with just the default POFA non-compliant line and add the other 3 reasons later?
You can only submit your POPLA appeal once. The codes are generally valid for 33 days to allow for delivery of the rejection notice.
1) non pofa compliant letter to RK
I would put this #2. A linked (but different) issue is that UKPC have not proved that the vehicle was parked for longer than the minimum consideration period of 5 minutes as required by the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice. I would lead with this point, as this means that no contract can have been formed between the driver and UKPC, regardless of any other technical points that might apply. Although whether this point is likely to work depends somewhat on what has been said in the original appeal.
2) procedural impropriety - blocking the appeal within the 28 day period.
I'd probably save this for a complaint - they have, eventually, allowed you to appeal (hence why you're now submitting a POPLA appeal) - probably no harm in mentioning it, but if you do, I'd put it at the bottom underneath your stronger points as to why no money is owed.
-
Hello
I would like some assistance on how to draft the appeal. And clarification on deadline of appeal. THe NOR (notice of rejection) was issued on 11-dec. Today is day 28 according to UKPC. Not sure if POPLA will extend this for a few more days or not. WOuld like help to submit the POPLA appeal.
I am very busy today, would rather do this another day. Can I make a draft appeal with just the default POFA non-compliant line and add the other 3 reasons later?
TIA
RK sent a letter to complaints address at ukpc. Putting in appeal based on non-compliant POFA letter. Also complaining about the early withdrawal of appeals.
UKPC sent a letter to RK on 11-Dec rejecting the appeal and a POPLA code was provided.
There are 3 corrospondonce since OP.
If you count 11-Dec as day 1. Today 7th Jan would be day 28 So I am in a rush to submit the appeal. I know there are a few more days buffer. But I am going to rush through and send this.
My defence:
1) non pofa compliant letter to RK
2) procedural impropriety - blocking the appeal within the 28 day period.
3) loading activity performed for a tower block, land has path to this land, and the tower blocks store their refuse bins on this car park. So driver deduces the car park land belongs to the building.
4) Lack of signage as per below. Driver did not drive by or walk by any signs about parking restrictions, the land looks derelict with no bay markings. You have to walk to the far corner to read parking sign. The driver stopped near where the toyota ch-r is on that picture. And walked towards the Stratosphere tower to make delivery. There is no obvious indication this land is restricted parking. Driver did not receive a windscreen permit. So did not realise they needed to photagrap their delivery iteniery. So this was last due to lack of windscreen permit. UKPC used a warden to manually take photos (which shows less than 1 minute observation). They did not issue ticket via CCTV. In which case driver could have proven they were loading from the CCTV footage.
(https://forumshares.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/ukpc/nosign.jpg)
(https://forumshares.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/ukpc/nosign2.jpg)
The corrospendce receive by RK.
(https://forumshares.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/ukpc/ukpc_0001.jpg)
(https://forumshares.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/ukpc/ukpc_0002.jpg)
(https://forumshares.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/ukpc/ukpc_0003.jpg)
(https://forumshares.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/ukpc/ukpc_0004.jpg)
(https://forumshares.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/ukpc/ukpc_0005.jpg)
(https://forumshares.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/ukpc/ukpc_0006.jpg)
After the letter on 11th December, they have also sent this email reply for some reason:
January 2nd to RK
Good morning,
Thank you for your email.
The parking charge was issued on 28th October 2025 by our parking operative at Stratford Shopping Centre - No permit. Your name and address were obtained from the DVLA, as you are the registered keeper of the vehicle. The parking charge notice was sent to you on 5th November 2025 and a final reminder was sent to you on 19th November 2025. Please see attached PDF copies of these notices. After no payment or appeal was received from you, the parking charge was passed to debt recovery for further action.
Please note that as stated on out initial parking charge notice, an appeal must be made within 28 days of the date of the initial parking charge.
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states that if after 29 days, the Parking Charge has not been paid in full, and the operator does not know both the name and current address of the driver, that they have the right to recover any unpaid part of the Parking Charge from the Registered Keeper.
We received your appeal on 5th December 2025 which was responded to as a gesture of goodwill. A letter was sent on 11th December 2025 stating that the parking charge had been correctly issued. Please see the attached PDF copy of this letter.
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.
We can confirm that UKPC hold the relevant authority from the Landowner or their agent to operate parking management and as a result, issue parking charges on site.
If you do not agree with our decision, you have the opportunity to appeal to POPLA, information on how to do this is provided with our appeal response.
Please be advised that UKPC is a member of the British Parking Association and Approved Operator Scheme, which means that we are a member of a well regulated industry and conform to the relevant requirements and regulations.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Complaints Department
-
thanks b789 Thats reassuring.
I did the appeal late on 2/12/25 and then only realised I should be screenshotting the pages just shortly after midnight and was dreading that I would be clutching at straws with that screenshot because the date on there clearly shows it just after "28 days". But the two extra days for postage comes in handy.
Here are the screenshots to put it on public record. I have sent an email to their complaints, with the aim of escalating to BPA and CMA. I will send this evidence to CMA anyway because other people are getting screwed. In the complaint email I have sent 90% of your post above^ (changed from 'you' to 'i' and proof read it so it makes sense, and removed advice directed to me)
I have uploaded the images below as matter of public record.
(https://forumshares.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/blockedappeal.jpg)
(https://forumshares.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/paymentopen.jpg)
-
You are getting hung up on the wrong “28 days”. The Code does not give them 28 days from the date printed on the notice to shut the door on appeals. The PPSCoP talks about 28 days from when the keeper "receives" the notice, and then explains how “receipt” is worked out for something sent by post.
In your case the timeline is quite straightforward. The alleged contravention was on 28/10/2025. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is dated 05/11/2025. The PPSCoP says that a notice sent by post is presumed delivered on the second working day after the date of posting, unless you can prove otherwise. If UKPC actually posted it on 05/11, the first working day is Thursday 06/11 and the second working day is Friday 07/11. So, for the purposes of the PPSCoP, the NtK is treated as received on 07/11/2025.
The 28-day appeal window in the PPSCoP then runs from that date of deemed receipt, not from the 5th. Count 28 days from 07/11/2025 and you land on 05/12/2025. That is the last day on which the Keeper must be allowed to lodge an appeal under the Code. You tried to use the online appeals portal on 02/12/2025, which is only day 25 from deemed receipt. In other words, your appeal attempt was comfortably within the 28-day period the PPSCoP requires.
Now put that alongside what the Code actually says. Section 8.1.2(e) requires that the notice itself tells the recipient they can appeal if they do so within 28 days of receiving the parking charge. The Note under that sub-paragraph is the bit that sets out the “second working day” presumption I have quoted. Section 8.4.1 then says that operators must provide a process which allows the parking charge to be appealed within 28 days, and at §8.4.1(c) it goes further and says they must consider late appeals where the motorist can show exceptional circumstances.
UKPC’s system blocking an appeal on 02/12/2025, and declaring that the case had been sent to debt recovery even though the 28 days from receipt had not yet expired, is flatly contrary to both 8.1.2(e) and 8.4.1(a). Even if they wanted to argue about when you actually got the NtK, your screenshots show that, taking their own issue date at face value and applying the Code’s deemed delivery rule, you were still well within time when you tried to appeal.
That deemed-delivery rule also contains the escape clause I pointed out: the presumption applies “unless the contrary is proved”. UKPC will be put to strict proof of the date the notice actually entered the postal system using a genuine first-class (1–2 day) service. They will not be able to do so. They invariably rely on hybrid-mail systems offering 2–3 day delivery with no individual proof of posting and no evidence of the exact day the NtK entered Royal Mail’s network. That is not proof of first-class posting, and it does not satisfy the evidential requirement of the Note in the PPSCoP. As soon as UKPC attempt to rely on the presumption, it is rebutted. In other words, your appeal window is not only intact on the deemed-delivery calculation, it is even stronger once the presumption is knocked out.
You captured screenshots of the online appeal page and payment page, showing the date and time when their system wrongly stated that appeals were closed and the matter was with a debt collector, while still happily offering you a £100 payment button. You have also sent a written appeal to UKPC in the keeper’s name, which does not identify the driver.
The narrative for the formal complaint and appeal is therefore simple: contravention on 28/10, NtK dated 05/11, deemed receipt on 07/11 under the PPSCoP, and an online appeal attempt on 02/12 which was within the 28-day period. The refusal to accept that appeal is a breach of 8.1.2(e) and 8.4.1(a). The previous written appeal must therefore be treated as an in-time appeal and processed accordingly, with either cancellation or a rejection including a POPLA code.
Section 11.2 of the PPSCoP then bites. That clause says that where a parking operator receives a complaint that it considers to be or include an appeal against the validity of a parking charge, it must treat it as an appeal for the purposes of the 8.4 timescales unless and until it is clear that the complaint is not relevant to an appeal. The complaint is plainly about the validity of the charge and the handling of the appeal window, so UKPC are required to treat it as an appeal under the Code.
The escalation narrative is then completed by noting that continuing to block an in-time appeal and pushing the consumer towards “debt collection” while misrepresenting their appeal rights is not only a PPSCoP breach but also an unfair commercial practice under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. This behaviour involves misleading actions and omissions concerning the consumer’s rights of redress, and the use of aggressive commercial pressure. It is conduct that may fall within the CMA’s enforcement remit under the DMCC. If the person reading the complaint does not understand the implications of that, they should pass it immediately to a responsible adult within UKPC who has the intellectual capacity to do so.
Finally, the keeper makes clear that if UKPC refuse to recognise the appeal as in-time or fail to issue a proper rejection with a POPLA code, the matter will be escalated to the BPA, the DVLA, and the CMA for breaches of the PPSCoP, misuse of DVLA data, and unfair commercial practices under the DMCC.
-
I was going to write and submit an appeal on the last day on behalf of the keepr.
I tried to post on 2/12/2025, which would have been the the 28th day since the wrote the parking charge.
The infraction was 28/10/25, the first charge letter was dated 5/11/25 and a remind letter was 19/11/25 it was 2/12/25 when a appeal was attempted however the page says it is no longer eligble for appeal. Isn't there 28 days from the date the ticket was issued to appeal?
I wrote and sent a letter out to UKPC with the written appeal.
I have kept screenshots of the appeals page and payment page with the date and time in the frame.
The appeals page says appeals are closed it is now been sent to debt collection with fees, the payment page still has the £100 payment option.
-
The ONLY lawful way to transfer liability for the charge if for the Keeper to provide the drivers details to the creditor and pass the NtK to the driver. PoFA 9(2)(e)(ii) applies.
The Notice MUST state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges; or if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver.
So, unless the Keeper does the above, even if you try to intervene and admit to being the driver, there is nothing to stop them going back to the Keeper and pestering them in future.
If they do what PoFA says they must do in order to transfer liability away from themselves as Keeper, then all they have to do is as stated. After that, there is NO legal recourse for them to even contact the Keeper about this ever again.
-
Play nicely kids.
The OP is talking about the keeper (someone else), throwing him under the bus, not t'other way round.
Ideally the keeper will deal with it until conclusion but if they're just going to pay and you're more up for a fight they could name you.
The RK is someone else, its a big ask for them to receive letters in their name for the next 6 years with supposedly legal letters for a parking charge they have not incurred themselves. They are of a nervous disposition and will not accept the letters are fake and can be ignored.
I(the driver) will be drafting the appeal. submitted as them, with their permission of course. I would rather get this dealt at POPLA stage and provide full delivery to POPLA and throw a big bank of evidence their way to get the charge cancelled. evidence including drivers name (my name) in the unredacted documents.
If you think even POPLA is going to be 50:50 and I'm relying on it never going to county court. I might as well have the letters come in my name and have a strong defence for court if they wish to take it there.
I'd rather go to court as the driver and defend myself, than have the RK to receive 3-4 letters a year and possibly go to court.
-
Play nicely kids.
The OP is talking about the keeper (someone else), throwing him under the bus, not t'other way round.
Ideally the keeper will deal with it until conclusion but if they're just going to pay and you're more up for a fight they could name you.
-
Please spare me the whinge about only taking this as far as POPLA!!!! I can guarantee with greater than 99.9% certainty that if POPLA is unsuccessful, this would NEVER reach a hearing and the claim would eventually be discontinued.
Nothing pisses me off more than people who simply fund these scammers and therefore become part of the problem rather than the solution.
If you want the easy, very little effort solution to this, then do nothing. NO appeal. No POPLA. Ignore the useless debt recovery letters. Ignore the Letter before Claim (LoC) and simply defend the claim when it arrives. You are guided through the very simple process of acknowledging service and we provide the defence which you simply copy and paste.
The rest of the process involves one more emailed form (N180 DQ) to send and a less than 5 minute phone call with a mediator where all you do is say "I offer £0" and that is the extent of any work you must do. The claim will eventually be discontinued just before the claimant has to pay the £27 trial fee.
But hey, it's your money and if you want to throw the driver under the bus and waste good money, who am I to argue?
I don't know why I bother sometimes!
-
I think you may be misremembering the old advice you read on PePiPoo, the legal situation as regards keeper liability has not changed.
A breach of contract can be pursued for up to 6 years - by default the parties to any such contract are the driver and the operator. If an operator wants to recover charges from the registered keeper rather than the driver, they must meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This sets deadlines for the issuance of various notices. These deadlines are irrelevant if the operator knows the identity of the driver and can take action against them directly.
-
Can the keeper name the driver at popla stage passed 56 days of sending the letter out?
The keeper can name the driver at any point before the commencement of proceedings.
However, the driver would not have the benefit of any of the defences offered by UKPC's lack of PoFA compliance.
Letters from debt collectors need not be a source of stress - despite their shrill protestations they are ultimately powerless to do anything other than issue letters.
I understand, the last time I did this I recall being told after a number of days the identification of driver is useless to them because UKPC have a deadline to issue notice to driver from infraction. After a certain time they cannot do this. This was from the old pepipoo forum advice.
If that is no longer a case, then can I do a POPLA appeal with delivery proofs by redacting the driver name? That would involve using the delivery invoice with blacked out driver names.
-
Can the keeper name the driver at popla stage passed 56 days of sending the letter out?
The keeper can name the driver at any point before the commencement of proceedings.
However, the driver would not have the benefit of any of the defences offered by UKPC's lack of PoFA compliance.
Letters from debt collectors need not be a source of stress - despite their shrill protestations they are ultimately powerless to do anything other than issue letters.
-
Thanks b789
I will copy paste that into the informal appeal on behalf of the keeper.
I do not want to put that on the keeper and stress them out with fake baliff letters sent in their name. I really want this quashed at POPLA and do all angles, including the fact that driver was there legitimately doing deliveries, lack of signage of parking rules etc.
Can the keeper name the driver at popla stage passed 56 days of sending the letter out?
My plan of action.
informal appeal based on ^ on day 28 of notice.
expect a rejecton at informal appeal
file popla appeal on 28 days of rejection.
Hopefully the elongation of time of at least 56 days at least means UKPC are too late to send anything to driver after driver is identified for POPLA appeal.
Does that make sense?
-
This is the advice I give for the initial appeal: 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.
-
If the OP is not the RK, but wants to assist the RK, a family member, then the OP can just do everything in the RKs name. This is not some clandestine operation to deceive anyone.
No initial appeal is going to be successful, no matter how prosaic the appeal. There is no money in it for these scammers. You are not dealing with some corporate organisation with a dedicated customer service ethos. This firm is a bunch of ex clamper thugs who are members of the BPA cartel. They want your money and will pursue the RK all the way to a county court claim.
You may also want to think that POPLA is some kind of independent organisation. They aren’t. They are a private business, funded by he very same firms they are supposedly adjudicating. POPLA assessors are, in general, just ordinary people who have received some minimal training. They aren’t not legally qualified in any way. Some of them are utter morons with very little ability to understand contract law. POPLA are answerable to no one. There is no overreaching organisation or ombudsman that they must answer to.
If POPLA accept the appeal, then good. However, if they don’t, their decision is not binding on the appellant. They can be safely ignored. It is the next step of the process where most of the low-hanging fruit are picked off.
The debt recovery stage is designed to intimidate the gullible into paying up because the majority are ignorant of their rights and how this process works. Suddenly they start receiving letters from debt collectors which threaten all sorts of nastiness and throw in scary words like “CCJ” and Bailiff” etc. suddenly, a fake £70 has been added and the recipient goes into “poop their pants” mode and many just pay up because of their ignorance of how the debt recovery system works,
Suffice it to say, debt collectors are not a party to any contract allegedly breached by the driver. They are powerless except to be able to prey on the majority of victims ignorance of the civil justice system. It doesn’t help that most people will have no idea about the difference between the civil and criminal justice system.
The number of motorists we deal with here, think that “court” is the equivalent of a wigged judge, robes, barristers and so on. Their ignorance of the system extends to nightmares that one a claim is issued, they have a CCJ and their credit record is trashed. Again, the majority, who have not been educated by us, capitulate and pay up, as I say, out of ignorance and fear.
However, nothing could be further from the truth and these scamming firms know it but hate us for making a tiny pinprick in their armour and profits. In the vast majority of cases, these vexatious firms of scamming ex-clampers never follow through all the way to a hearing.
In most cases, the claim will either be struck out or discontinued. They don’t want a spanking in court. They know their witness statements are mendacious. Their adherence to the law is tenuous, at best. Most defendants are unsure of their rights and consumer law. Most have no idea how contract law works in these cases.
In the very few that ever get as far as a hearing, the majority are won. The very few that are not successful end up paying less than the original claim amount because most judges are aware of the fake add on £70 fees which are an attempt at “double recovery” and opens the claimant up to costs orders for unreasonable behaviour.
I can say with greater than 99.9% confidence, that in this case, a UKPC claimant will be represented by DCB Legal for the claim. As long as the claim is defended, and we provide the template for the defence, the claim will either be struck out of discontinued just before they have to pay the £27 trial fee.
The process takes approximately 9-12+ months from receipt of the PCN to successful conclusion. There is a bit of time involved in the appeal process and the defence and Directions Questionnaire submission but apart from that, you are hand held all the way through the process.
So, the advice, should you care to take it, is to make as little effort as necessary on the initial appeal, put some minimal effort in the POPLA appeal and, if unsuccessful, ignore the useless debt recovery stage and come back when a Letter of Claim (LoC) is received and defend and win with a greater than 99.9% chance of success.
-
The driver hasn't been identified. It would be sensible to keep it that way.
-
If you want help here, from people who do so out of interest and because they want to help people, I suggest you need to be more helpful in your interactions. Saying “I’ve already told you” to someone trying to help isn’t going to advance your cause.
-
Jeez, what a waste of time and effort all this waffle about insurance etc. All we need to know is whether the drivers identity has been identified. You state you were the driver but are not the Keeper of the vehicle.
Unless the Keeper has thrown you under the bus by identifying you as the driver, you have no part to play in any appeal at this stage. As the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is addressed to the Keeper, only the named Keeper can appeal.
Irrespective of everything else, whether the driver has been identified and they have received a new notice in their name or whether the Keeper appeals in their capacity as the Keeper, neither will pay a penny to UKPC if they follow the advice here.
Whilst the NtK is not PoFA compliant which means that the Keeper cannot be liable if the driver is not identified, that does not mean they will not continue to pursue this all the way to a county court claim. There is very little chance that a POPLA appeal would succeed either.
All you need to know is that once a county court claim is filed, as long as it is defended with the template defence we provide, it will, in due course, be discontinued.
All you need to know for now, is that all debt recovery letters can be safely ignored as debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.
So, the first thing we need to know, has the driver been identified? If not, then the Keeper has to do the appeal. We will advise on that once the status of the driver is known. Identified or not.
That has been address in my post just before^
No haven't been in touch with them at all. They dont know who the driver is.
RK is a member of the household. It's not a nod and a wink "someone who isn't the keeper did that", genuinly RK and driver are two seperate people.
For the time being I will draft an informal appeal to UKPC and send it through the RK to file.. just to get the POPLA case reference.
-
Jeez, what a waste of time and effort all this waffle about insurance etc. All we need to know is whether the drivers identity has been identified. You state you were the driver but are not the Keeper of the vehicle.
Unless the Keeper has thrown you under the bus by identifying you as the driver, you have no part to play in any appeal at this stage. As the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is addressed to the Keeper, only the named Keeper can appeal.
Irrespective of everything else, whether the driver has been identified and they have received a new notice in their name or whether the Keeper appeals in their capacity as the Keeper, neither will pay a penny to UKPC if they follow the advice here.
Whilst the NtK is not PoFA compliant which means that the Keeper cannot be liable if the driver is not identified, that does not mean they will not continue to pursue this all the way to a county court claim. There is very little chance that a POPLA appeal would succeed either.
All you need to know is that once a county court claim is filed, as long as it is defended with the template defence we provide, it will, in due course, be discontinued.
All you need to know for now, is that all debt recovery letters can be safely ignored as debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.
So, the first thing we need to know, has the driver been identified? If not, then the Keeper has to do the appeal. We will advise on that once the status of the driver is known. Identified or not.
-
oh that, "i" as in plywood enthusiast? Is that an issue?
No haven't been in touch with them at all. They dont know who the driver is.
I'm just relaying my account to FTLA to give the full scope of the issue.. POPLA stage hasn't started yet. I am looking for advice on how to do the informal/internal appeal - its worth a shot to appeal without giving any driver information - although that would be difficult to do.
Is there a link on how to do the POFA non-complaint angle. If I recall correctly, you wait just before 28 days to do the internal appeal state the parking invoice is not pofa complaint and ask for POPLA code and then hope they dont send out a POFA compliant letter, wait 56 days since issuance of original letter and tell POPLA they havent sent a POFA complaint letter.
I thought the lack of windscreen ticket was a major issue, attendant clearly took photos in person so why didnt they issue a ticket there and then?
-
You may wish to amend your original post so the driver is not identified.
The NtK is not PoFA compliant so there is no keeper liability - the period of parking is not stated - whilst the additional pictures may show a period of parking, these are not shown on the NtK.
Thanks. I think I sorted out the identification of the driver. I presume it was the relation to keeper mentioned? and nothing else?
You use the word “I” all the time. But if the keeper has named you as the driver it doesn’t matter any more.
-
You may wish to amend your original post so the driver is not identified.
The NtK is not PoFA compliant so there is no keeper liability - the period of parking is not stated - whilst the additional pictures may show a period of parking, these are not shown on the NtK.
Thanks. I think I sorted out the identification of the driver. I presume it was the relation to keeper mentioned? and nothing else?
The insurance documents will have driver details. I presume I present that evidence at the POPLA appeal and never to UKPC.
-
You may wish to amend your original post so the driver is not identified.
The NtK is not PoFA compliant so there is no keeper liability - the period of parking is not stated - whilst the additional pictures may show a period of parking, these are not shown on the NtK.
-
To save everyone some time. here are the attendant photos. It wasnt that I never found a windscreen ticket on my windscreen. they never put any on. As evidenced by their own photos. Please note the elapsed time on the photos. They dont span very long.
(https://forumshares.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/stratford/1.jpg)
(https://forumshares.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/stratford/2.jpg)
(https://forumshares.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/stratford/3.jpg)
(https://forumshares.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/stratford/4.jpg)
(https://forumshares.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/stratford/5.jpg)
-
Hello All
Got a parking ticket out doing a delivery shift with someone else's car (properly insured to do so), driver is not the keeper. I delivered to two buildings from the locations from the online retailer.
I have access to a payment page showing my delivery shift. But not the addresses I deliver to - as you can imagine with GDPR they dont now want us to hang on to addresses and names we deliver, any longer than necessary.
I also have a third party motor insurance that covers for the shifts and they independqantly have an engaged and disengaged time which shows when I started my shift and when I did my last delivery. That could be a 2nd evidence for my delivery.
I would have been able to provide exact proof that I was doing deliveries if I had screenshotted the app while I was on the shift. The attendant did not issue a windscreen ticket and took photos and went via letter route - is that proper way to do it?
If I had a CCTV ticket, the operater would have seen my taken out parcel to deliver and see the total time I was there did not exceed more than 10 minutes. I could have raised that issue with POPLA - requesting them provde the full footage of the stay and to review the footage to see if I took parcels out.
Since the attendant was there - they should give me a windscreen ticket so I know about the penality at the time and take my screenshots.
A very long time ago I successfully appealed these tickets through POPLA with the NTK/NTO. I completely forgot which was which. Appealed on grounds of liability does not transfer etc.
The land lacks signage and looks like derelict land, you cannot even notice any bay markings there. I do not think I drove by any signs. The photo of the sign theey shows was quite far back in the wall, under a nasty leaky aircon unit. That could be mistaken for a urination spot - who wants to walk up there?
(https://forumshares.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/ky08_0001.jpg)
(https://forumshares.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/ky08_0002.jpg)