Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: TwistedEdge on November 21, 2025, 05:26:17 pm
-
Thank you.
I submitted the comments with the suggestion added – just a matter of waiting now.
-
I think point #3 could be even more explicit - their contract is so redacted as to be almost meaningless - they've completely redacted the name of the landowner, so you've no idea who they claim that is, and whether the entity named is even the owner of the land.
-
How does this sound for my planned comments:
I have reviewed the operator’s evidence pack and make the following comments.
1. Keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
The operator asserts that the Notice to Keeper “complies fully” with Schedule 4 of PoFA but does not demonstrate strict compliance with the mandatory wording required by paragraph 9(2)(f). No explanation or analysis is provided to rebut the appellant’s submission that liability has not been validly transferred from the driver to the keeper. Mere assertion is insufficient where strict compliance is required.
2. Driver not identified
The operator has provided no evidence identifying the driver. The appellant has not admitted to being the driver, and the operator’s evidence does not rebut this point. In the absence of established keeper liability, the charge remains unenforceable.
3. Landowner authority (standing)
The operator relies on a redacted agreement with a managing agent rather than a contract signed by the landowner. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the managing agent had authority from the landowner to delegate enforcement rights to the operator. Assertions of authority are not proof, and the chain of authority remains unproven.
4. Permission granted by the landowner’s agent
The operator dismisses permission granted by on-site security as being given by a “third party” but does not address the principles of agency. The security guard controlling access at a barrier was acting on behalf of the landowner or its agent. The operator’s evidence does not rebut that permission was granted or explain why such permission should be disregarded.
5. Equality Act 2010
The operator’s evidence does not meaningfully address the Equality Act 2010. Assertions that ANPR systems cannot recognise Blue Badges or that there is no automatic exemption do not discharge the statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments. No evidence is provided to show that reasonable adjustments were considered or made in this case.
6. Signage
The signage evidence consists of generic photographs from 2023 and plans which do not demonstrate that clear, prominent, and legible signage was in place and visible to a driver before parking at this barrier-controlled site on the material date. This does not rebut the appellant’s signage challenge.
Conclusion
The operator’s evidence does not rebut the appellant’s grounds of appeal. Keeper liability has not been established, driver identity has not been proven, landowner authority remains unsubstantiated, permission by an authorised agent has not been addressed, and Equality Act duties have not been met. The appeal should therefore be allowed.
-
You need to adjust the privacy settings so they're viewable to the public - it's asking me to sign in.
sorry about that, I tried to be clever by shortening the links – they should work now :)
-
You need to adjust the privacy settings so they're viewable to the public - it's asking me to sign in.
-
Done it!
I've got a few thoughts, but will wait to see what anyone else thinks before I come up with any bad ideas...
Summary: (the one I copied above)
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/3xp3pzt0vgg3h1eaustio/case-summary_Redacted.pdf?rlkey=h34ueysturyv24wr4ew35gytb&st=ruxe8flf&dl=0
Contract:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/j52hk6dvbi1yu2lmlpt8j/Harbour-Exchange-redacted-contract.pdf?rlkey=pn5gijf969y6dtcuhkt000hso&st=hotb4ne8&dl=0
T&C:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/mjonqpt2pe47hxd5hepmt/T-C-s-for-rolling-contract.pdf?rlkey=so9hmyi5vdbs2bkzxrs0ruiq4&st=rznm59ty&dl=0
Signage Plan:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ztl83xefxteervprw23hy/UKPC-Signage-Plan-Harbour-Exchange-Isle-of-Dogs-v.1.pdf?rlkey=3g3w9n3pqzabrghhy8je9s7a8&st=ltvvp0js&dl=0
Lack of exemption "proof":
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ck7utgxqc6mt3ci9azu4t/UKPC-evidence.png?rlkey=pbf5v2wrepagylinscjft9q58&st=k9g30loy&dl=0
-
If I can work out where to upload the files properly I will
A repository such as DropBox or Google Drive works well.
-
There's a lot, and I'm not sure how to upload PDF's, but this is a copy-paste of the main body of their 'evidence' – there are photos of signage taken in 2023 and a contract between the management (not the owners) and UKCP:
On 12/11/2025, a parking event occurred relating to vehicle registration xxxxxxxx The event was recorded by our ANPR cameras at Harbour Exchange because the vehicle was on site over the permitted time of 1 hour.
The parking charge rate was £100.00, reduced to £60.00 if payment was received within fourteen days.
Following the parking event on 12/11/2025, 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 12/11/2025
An appeal was received from the vehicle's registered keeper on the 10/12/2025, 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. The site is managed by ANPR systems which simply take images of vehicle registration numbers entering and exiting a site; to calculate the total amount of time on site. The vehicle was on site for 1 hour 38 minutes; a sufficient grace period has been provided for this site.
Following the parking event, UKPC had reasonable cause to obtain the details of the registered keeper so that a parking charge notice could be issued by post. A copy of this notice is included in this case summary, dated 18/11/2025. Issued 6 days after the date of the parking event (where a Notice to Driver was not served), the parking charge notice complies fully with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in permitting the registered keeper to be held liable to pay this unpaid parking charge.
The appellant has stated that the keeper liability warning is not in the prescribed PoFA 2012 format. Section 9(2)(f) states that the notice must warn the keeper that:
“if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;”
Having reviewed the notice, I am satisfied that it specifies all of this information. Although I appreciate that it may not be stated verbatim, it contains the necessary information nonetheless. The appellant has stated that there isn’t a clear date that the period of parking. Having reviewed the notice, I can see that it specifies the date as 12/11/2025.
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. We have however provided a redacted copy, with sensitive information covered. The redacted contract confirms our authority in an ongoing agreement. If neither party terminates the contract, as in this case, the contract will continue on a rolling basis.
We have provided the T&C’s in relation to the rolling contract.
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.
Any comments, assurances, or representations made by a third party do not override the parking restrictions in place within a car park governed by clearly displayed terms and conditions. Drivers are required to rely on the signage on site, which forms the basis of the parking contract, regardless of any statements made by individuals who are not a party to that contract. Furthermore, the appellant has provided no evidence to demonstrate that they were granted permission to park beyond the maximum permitted stay of one hour. In the absence of such evidence, the vehicle was subject to the standard parking restrictions, which were exceeded.
For the avoidance of doubt, the purpose of entrance signs is solely to advise motorists they are entering into private land and there are parking conditions they must be aware of. Our signage conforms to the guidelines set out within the code, and we are audited regularly by the BPA for those standards; the signs must be provided to make it easy for motorists to find out what the terms and conditions are and that the signs contain the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. The BPA audits have confirmed that we follow this to their standard.
Please see attached a signage plan showing the signage locations, the entrance signage proof and onsite signage proof. We feel it reasonable to suggest that the driver was advised sufficiently of the terms & conditions of parking on site.
The appellant states that the vehicle was displaying a valid Blue Badge and that the driver is disabled and therefore protected under the Equality Act 2010.
hey further claim that a security guard granted permission to remain on site for longer than the maximum stay as a reasonable adjustment. This assertion is not supported by evidence. The parking charge was issued using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology, which records vehicle entry and exit times. The ANPR system does not recognise or record the display of Blue Badges, nor does it record any alleged verbal permissions. Furthermore, the appellant has provided no evidence to substantiate the claim that permission was granted by a security guard to remain on site beyond the maximum permitted stay.
In the absence of corroborating evidence, this claim cannot be accepted.
For clarity, although it is not strictly required, evidence has been provided to show that the
vehicle registration mark (VRM) is not listed on the authorised parking system for this site. This confirms that no prior approval or arrangement existed for the vehicle to remain beyond the standard permitted stay.
While UKPC recognises its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, the Act does not provide an automatic exemption from parking terms and conditions, nor does it remove the requirement for motorists to comply with clearly displayed time limits.
Reasonable adjustments must be identifiable, proportionate, and supported by evidence. In this case, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that a reasonable adjustment was requested, agreed, or implemented. As such, the vehicle remained subject to the standard parking terms and conditions, which were exceeded.
Accordingly, the parking charge was correctly issued and does not constitute discriminatory treatment.
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 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 over the maximum time permitted may result in a parking charge being issued. MR XXXXXXXXX vehicle was on site over the permitted time of 1 hour; consequently, the parking charge was issued correctly.
A letter was sent to informing him of our decision on the 19/12/2025.
If I can work out where to upload the files properly I will
-
A redacted copy would be useful, your next step is to rebut their evidence, so it would be useful to see what it actually is.
-
Today I received notice of the "evidence pack" from UKPC, uploaded to Popla.
Five documents, roughly titled:
- UKPC Signage Plan
- T&Cs for rolling contract
- Case Summary
- Harbour Exchange redacted contract
- UKPC Evidence (.png that shows I am not on any excluded list)
I won't upload or copy anything unless anyone thinks it is useful...
-
Yes, include it, but tweak the wording so it is clearly about PoFA 9(2)(a) and cannot be brushed off by “the allowed time is in the header”.
PoFA 9(2)(a) requires the Notice to Keeper to specify the period of parking to which the notice relates. A statement of a maximum allowed stay, or the tariff/allowance in the header, is not the same thing. It does not tell you the actual period of parking being alleged.
Likewise, “vehicle duration” is UKPC’s label and is used to describe time on site calculated from ANPR entry/exit images. That can include time spent entering, queuing at a barrier, circulating, waiting, or exiting, which is precisely why “vehicle duration” is not automatically a “period of parking”. The point you are making is therefore valid: UKPC have not specified a period of parking as PoFA requires, and they cannot cure that by pointing to an allowed time limit printed elsewhere on the notice.
On the “carefully considered” wording, there is little value in making it a separate POPLA point. POPLA only decide on evidence and compliance, not on whether the rejection letter is a template. If you mention it at all, keep it to one sentence in passing (for example, that the rejection is generic and does not address the specific PoFA/compliance issues raised) and then move straight back to the substantive points.
-
Thanks everyone.
Do I include this?
* The Notice to Keeper does not specify the required “period of parking” as mandated by paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4. Instead, it refers only to a “vehicle duration”, which is not a defined term in PoFA and does not necessarily represent a period when the vehicle was parked, as opposed to time spent entering, exiting, or waiting on site.
While it only says "Vehicle Duration" in the third box down – which was pointed out to me – it does say the time allowed in the header section.
Also, is there any point of mention their complete lack of "careful consideration"? 🤔
-
PoFA 9.2(a) as there is no mention of the “period of parking”. All that NtK mentions is a “vehicle duration”, whatever that may be.
unless im mistaken there's no "invitation to pay" either
It's in the second paragraph
so it is ::)
-
PoFA 9.2(a) as there is no mention of the “period of parking”. All that NtK mentions is a “vehicle duration”, whatever that may be.
unless im mistaken there's no "invitation to pay" either
It's in the second paragraph
-
If you’re relying on PoFA wording failures, state what the Notice to Keeper says (or fails to say) and why that does not meet the mandatory requirements.
Also add two core POPLA points that you’ve currently missed:
A) No evidence of landowner authority (standing)
UKPC are put to strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation to operate and to issue PCNs at Harbour Exchange Square, and to pursue payment and/or appeals in their own name.
A generic “site agreement”, witness statement, or a contract with a managing agent is not sufficient unless it is shown to be contemporaneous and to flow from the landowner and to confer the necessary rights. The operator must produce an unredacted (save for financials) contemporaneous contract or chain of authority in force on the material date which expressly grants them:
1. authority to manage parking at this location,
2. authority to issue PCNs,
3. authority to pursue payment and enforce in their own name (including litigation, if relied upon).
If UKPC cannot produce this, they have no standing and the charge must fail.
B) Inadequate proof of signage and terms (strict proof required)
UKPC must prove, with contemporaneous photographs from the material date (or at least from the same period) that clear, readable signs were in place and visible to a driver upon entry and throughout the area where the vehicle was parked.
This is a barrier-controlled site where access is managed by security. The operator is therefore put to strict proof of:
1. the exact signs relied upon, their locations, and whether they were visible before parking,
2. that the key terms (including any maximum stay and the £100 charge) were prominent, legible, and capable of being read without leaving the vehicle and searching for signage,
3. that any signs were not obscured, unlit, high-mounted, or positioned such that a driver would not reasonably see and read them.
Stock photos, close-up photos of a sign without context, or photos taken months/years later are not adequate proof of the signage in place at the material time.
Put “No keeper liability (PoFA)” first. Then add “No standing/landowner authority” and “Signage/terms not proven” immediately after. Keep the Equality Act/security-permission point, but drop any “another Blue Badge didn’t get a PCN” point entirely.
Don't worry too much about POPLA. If it isn't successful, then it doesn't matter as their decision is not binding on you. It would then go to a county court claim which I can guarantee with greater then 99.9% certainty it would either be struck out or discontinued.
-
PoFA 9.2(a) as there is no mention of the “period of parking”. All that NtK mentions is a “vehicle duration”, whatever that may be.
unless im mistaken there's no "invitation to pay" either
-
Thanks for replies thus far. I'm not massively confident doing this, so maybe someone can help and tell me if the following works?
## POPLA Appeal
POPLA Verification Code: xxxxxxxxxx
Parking Charge Reference: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Operator: UK Parking Control Ltd
Appellant: Registered Keeper
Introduction
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I am submitting this appeal to POPLA in respect of the Parking Charge Notice issued by UK Parking Control Ltd. I deny that the charge is enforceable and set out below the grounds on which this appeal should be allowed.
1. No keeper liability – failure to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
UK Parking Control Ltd have not established keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
While the Notice to Keeper includes wording referring to potential keeper liability after 28 days, it nevertheless fails to comply fully with the mandatory requirements of PoFA and does not validly transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
In particular:
* The Notice to Keeper does not correctly or fully set out the mandatory warning required by paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 in the prescribed form.
* The Notice to Keeper fails to strictly comply with PoFA, which requires full and exact compliance; partial or paraphrased compliance is insufficient.
* UKPC’s own wording and approach demonstrates reliance on driver liability rather than a clear and unequivocal transfer of liability to the keeper under Schedule 4.
* The Notice to Keeper does not specify the required “period of parking” as mandated by paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4. Instead, it refers only to a “vehicle duration”, which is not a defined term in PoFA and does not necessarily represent a period when the vehicle was parked, as opposed to time spent entering, exiting, or waiting on site. Am unsure of this point as the duration is mentioned in the header
As strict compliance with PoFA is required in order to establish keeper liability, and as the Notice to Keeper does not meet that standard, UKPC may only pursue the driver. The appellant has not identified the driver and is under no obligation to do so.
POPLA has consistently held that where an operator fails to strictly comply with PoFA, keeper liability does not arise and the appeal must be allowed.
2. The operator has failed to identify the driver
UKPC have provided no evidence as to the identity of the driver. The appellant has not admitted to being the driver, and no presumption exists in law that the registered keeper was the driver.
As keeper liability has not been established, and the driver has not been identified, the charge is unenforceable.
3. Failure to make reasonable adjustments – breach of the Equality Act 2010
The vehicle was displaying a valid Blue Badge. The driver is disabled and therefore protected under the Equality Act 2010.
Under sections 20 and 29 of the Equality Act 2010, service providers have a positive duty to make reasonable adjustments to avoid placing disabled persons at a substantial disadvantage.
In this case:
* A security guard controlling access to the site permitted entry after being informed that the disabled driver would require longer than the standard maximum stay.
* This permission was reasonably understood to be a reasonable adjustment to accommodate disability-related needs.
* Issuing a parking charge after permission was granted is a failure to make reasonable adjustments and constitutes discriminatory treatment.
The Equality Act duty overrides any contractual terms or signage. A private parking operator cannot enforce time limits rigidly where doing so disadvantages a disabled person and no reasonable adjustment has been made.
4. Permission granted by the landowner’s agent – no contract capable of being formed
The security guard managing access to the site was acting as an agent of the landowner.
By permitting entry after being informed of the need for extended time, the landowner (via its agent) authorised the stay. Any alleged contract based on signage is overridden by explicit permission from an authorised representative.
Under established principles of agency and estoppel, a party cannot penalise a motorist for acting in reliance on permission granted by the landowner’s agent.
Accordingly, no breach of contract occurred.
5. Inconsistent and discriminatory enforcement
A second vehicle, also displaying a valid Blue Badge and permitted entry by security under similar circumstances, did not receive a Parking Charge Notice.
This inconsistent enforcement demonstrates that extended stays for disabled motorists were permitted at the site and that UKPC’s enforcement was selective and unreasonable.
Targeting one disabled motorist while allowing another to park without penalty amounts to unfair and discriminatory treatment.
Conclusion
UK Parking Control Ltd have failed to establish keeper liability, have not identified the driver, and have acted in breach of the Equality Act 2010 by failing to make reasonable adjustments and by enforcing the charge inconsistently despite permission being granted by the landowner’s agent.
For all of the above reasons, the appeal must be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.
-
Strangely I received another, follow up email at around 2am – dated today.
Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Following a full review of your appeal regarding Parking Charge Notice (PCN) reference xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, we regret to inform you that your appeal has been unsuccessful.
The outstanding balance of £100.00 must be paid within 14 days from the date of this email. If payment is not received within this timeframe, your case will be referred to a debt recovery agency, and the balance will increase to £170.00.
To make payment, please visit Pay Parking Charge - UKPC (https://paycharge.co.uk/) and enter your reference number: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Kind regards,
UKPC
Their rejection letters are worse than the council's. 🙄
-
They haven’t “carefully considered” anything, they have rejected your appeal because they know this means you may well pay them, which is their only desired outcome.
You need to construct a POPLA apeal, in which you need to guide the assessor through the key points, but there are many sample examples here. I suggest you have a search and then post your intended appeal here. Note that even if POPLA rejects your appeal you are under no obligation to pay.
-
I have received this response to my appeal - this is word by word copy and paste
Thank you for your recent communication concerning parking charge..
---- details removed--------
We have carefully considered your appeal based on the information provided and the evidence supporting the parking charge. In this instance having completed our assessment, we consider the parking charge to have been correctly issued, as the vehicle was on site over the permitted time.
Our appeals process is now concluded, you may now choose one of the following options:
1) Pay the parking charge detailed above at the rate of £100.00 to UK Parking Control Ltd. PLEASE REFER OVERLEAF FOR PAYMENT OPTIONS AND ADDRESS DETAILS.
2) Make an appeal to the independent adjudicator POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) using the verification code provided above. Please note that if you wish to appeal to POPLA, you will lose the right to pay the discounted rate of £60.00 even if you are within the timeframe, and should POPLA reject your appeal you will be required to pay the full amount of £100.00.
If you opt to pay the parking charge you will be unable to appeal with POPLA. Appeals to POPLA must be made within twenty-eight days from the date of this letter. To appeal with POPLA, please visit www.popla.co.uk. If you are unable to access the internet, you may appeal by post – this must be done using a POPLA postal form which may be obtained by contacting POPLA by phone (0330 159 6126) or post (PO Box 1270, Warrington, WA4 9RL).
By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.
3) If you choose to do nothing, the parking charge will automatically increase after thirty-five days from the date of this letter and the matter will be passed to our debt resolution partner, at which point you will be liable to pay an additional charge of £70, in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking.
Further charges will be claimed if court action is taken against you, any unpaid court judgement may adversely affect your credit rating.
What's the best next step? 🤔
-
PoFA 9.2(a) as there is no mention of the “period of parking”. All that NtK mentions is a “vehicle duration”, whatever that may be.
-
Thank you for that. I will send this, unaltered.
Out of curiosity, which part "does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012"?
-
Luckily for you, this is a UKPC PCN. You may be lucky and successfully appeal it, but in all likelyhood, this will drag on for 9-12+ months and will end when they finally discontinue a county court debt claim.
The one thing I can guarantee with greater than 99.9% certainty, is that if you follow the advice here, you will not be paying a penny to UKPC.
Whilst you can argue “reasonable adjustment”, it will not work for the appeals process. It may work in a court claim, but it would never reach a hearing stage as any claim, if not struck out first, will be discontinued before any trial fee has to be paid.
As an initial appeal is futile, I advise you to simply appeal in in order to get a POPLA code. Whilst their Notice to Keeper (NtK) is generally PoFA compliant, never give them the drivers details anyway.
Simply appeal to UKPC as the Keeper only with the following:
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.
-
Received a parking charge from UKPC – for overstaying in a car park where the security guard let the driver through the barrier, a blue badge holder.
He took the car details at the desk and stated it was fine without specifying any time limit.
The driver displayed the blue badge, parked in a disabled spot – but apparently overstayed – although the driver cannot recall any signage, and trusted the security guard who said it was fine...
In hindsight, there is a 'maximum 1 hour' sign – but I am wondering whether there is a claim for reasonable adjustments under the equality act?
What's the best approach at this point?
(https://i.postimg.cc/PfRW5Lrv/fronty.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fLgwYQJ5/backy.jpg)