Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: DontStandForNonsense on December 05, 2025, 04:17:37 pm

Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on August 03, 2026, 09:44:59 am: Okay,

Now I think it is ready?

DEFENCE
1.

The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety.

2.

It is admitted only that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle referred to in the Particulars of Claim. Save for that admission, every allegation is denied.

3.

The Particulars of Claim state only:

"Driver left site designated for customer parking only."

The Defendant is unable to determine from that wording the factual or legal basis of the claim.

The Particulars do not explain:

the contractual term allegedly breached;
the meaning or geographical extent of the alleged "site";
the conduct said to constitute the alleged breach;
whether the allegation concerns the driver, passengers or both;
how the alleged breach was observed; or
the basis upon which the Claimant contends liability arises.

The Defendant should not be required to speculate as to the case to be met.

Given the limited and ambiguous wording of the Particulars of Claim, this Defence is necessarily confined to the matters that can reasonably be understood from the Claimant's pleading. The Defendant reserves the right to address any further or more particularised case advanced by the Claimant during the course of these proceedings.

4.

Without prejudice to the Defendant's position that the Particulars of Claim fail properly to identify the case to be met, if the Claimant's case is that the driver left the retail park in breach of the parking terms, that allegation is expressly denied.

The Defendant's case is that the driver remained within the retail park as a genuine customer of Decathlon before returning directly to the vehicle and leaving the site. Accordingly, no contractual breach occurred.

5.

The Defendant has consistently denied that the alleged breach occurred from the earliest opportunity.

The Defendant's position is supported by contemporaneous evidence created during the visit, which will be relied upon at the witness statement stage.

6.

The photographs disclosed by the Claimant identify only the presence of the parked vehicle. They do not, on their face, evidence the alleged contractual breach pleaded in the Particulars of Claim.

7.

If the Claimant maintains that the alleged contractual breach occurred, it is required to prove:

(a) that the alleged conduct occurred;

(b) that the alleged conduct amounted to a breach of the contractual terms relied upon;

(c) that the operative accurately observed the alleged conduct;

(d) that any observations relied upon were recorded contemporaneously;

(e) that the contractual terms relied upon, including any alleged prohibition upon leaving the site, were clearly, prominently and unambiguously communicated to motorists; and

(f) that the Claimant possessed the necessary authority from the landowner both to enter contracts with motorists and to pursue this claim.

8.

Further, insofar as the Claimant seeks to establish keeper liability pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, such liability is denied.

The Defendant does not admit that the statutory requirements necessary to establish keeper liability have been satisfied and puts the Claimant to strict proof that the conditions prescribed by Schedule 4 have been met.

The Defendant reserves the right to amplify this issue should the Claimant seek to rely upon Schedule 4 or should further relevant information become available during the course of proceedings.

9.

The Defendant disputes the additional sums claimed over and above the original parking charge and requires the Claimant to prove the contractual and legal basis upon which those additional sums are said to be recoverable.

10.

For the reasons set out above, the Court is respectfully invited to dismiss the claim.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: InterCity125 on August 03, 2026, 07:25:09 am: Looks good to me.

You could mention that this is a 'skeleton defence' based on the loose wording in the POC.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on August 02, 2026, 09:19:01 pm: Quote from: tincombe on August 02, 2026, 06:20:01 pm
The claim is founded upon a single factual allegation, namely that the driver left the retail park in breach of the contractual terms relied upon by the Claimant.

That allegation is expressly denied.

The Defendant's case is that the driver remained within the retail park as a genuine customer of Decathlon before returning directly to the vehicle and leaving the site. Accordingly, no contractual breach occurred.

I've highlighted what I think is a mistake: you've tried to interpret their grounds.

I suggest you state exactly what's in the PoC, which is:
Driver left site designated for customer parking only.

Is a non sequitur (A non sequitur is a statement, remark, or conclusion that does not logically or naturally follow from what came before it).

Which is where you should start IMO.

Without further explanation, IMO (and forgetting your admissions on this forum) it is not possible to compile a defence because the roles of 'customer' and 'driver' are not explained. Is their claim that the driver was not a customer and left the site and there was no 'customer', or that the driver was the only customer (in the vehicle) and left the site? So is the breach that 'customers' must remain on the site or that 'drivers' must, but 'customers' are not bound by any restriction. Is the claimant saying that occupants of the car are bound by the same contractual terms which bind the driver and/or that the driver is responsible for occupants' whereabouts?

I haven't the foggiest idea!

As regards 'non compliance', IMO previous posts have overstated the requirement. Para. 9 of Sch. 4, which is the relevant part, uses these terms regarding what a notice must contain:

State;
Warn;
Inform;
Specify.

Previous posts have not differentiated between their legal meanings and IMO have sought to convey that para. 9 must be included, implicitly verbatim, and that its provisions must appear once only in a notice and in the same form as in Sch. 4.

IMO, courts have discretion regarding determining compliance i.e. is the meaning conveyed consistent with the purpose of para. 9, not just whether every word appears.

Thank you.

How about this:

DEFENCE
1.

The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety.

2.

It is admitted only that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle referred to in the Particulars of Claim. Save for that admission, every allegation is denied.

3.

The Particulars of Claim state only:

"Driver left site designated for customer parking only."

The Defendant is unable to determine from that wording the factual or legal basis of the allegation.

The Particulars do not explain:

the contractual term allegedly breached;
the meaning or geographical extent of the alleged "site";
the conduct said to constitute the alleged breach;
whether the allegation concerns the driver, passengers, or both;
how the alleged breach was observed; or
the basis upon which the Claimant contends liability arises.

The Defendant should not be required to speculate as to the case to be met.

4.

To the extent that the Claimant alleges that the driver left the retail park in breach of the parking terms, that allegation is expressly denied.

The Defendant's case is that the driver remained within the retail park as a genuine customer of Decathlon before returning directly to the vehicle and leaving the site. Accordingly, no contractual breach occurred.

5.

The Defendant has consistently denied that the alleged breach occurred from the earliest opportunity.

The Defendant's position is supported by contemporaneous evidence created during the visit, which will be relied upon at the witness statement stage.

6.

The photographs disclosed by the Claimant identify only the presence of the parked vehicle. They do not, on their face, evidence the alleged contractual breach pleaded in the Particulars of Claim.

7.

If the Claimant maintains that the alleged contractual breach occurred, it is required to prove:

(a) that the alleged conduct occurred;

(b) that the alleged conduct amounted to a breach of the contractual terms relied upon;

(c) that the operative accurately observed the alleged conduct;

(d) that any observations relied upon were recorded contemporaneously;

(e) that the contractual terms relied upon, including any alleged prohibition upon leaving the site, were clearly, prominently and unambiguously communicated to motorists; and

(f) that the Claimant possessed the necessary authority from the landowner both to enter contracts with motorists and to pursue this claim.

8.

Further, insofar as the Claimant seeks to establish keeper liability pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, such liability is denied.

The Defendant does not admit that the mandatory statutory conditions required to invoke keeper liability have been satisfied and puts the Claimant to strict proof of compliance with the statutory requirements.

The Defendant reserves the right to amplify this issue should the Claimant seek to rely upon Schedule 4 or should further relevant information become available during the course of proceedings.

9.

The Defendant disputes the additional sums claimed over and above the original parking charge and requires the Claimant to prove the contractual and legal basis upon which those additional sums are said to be recoverable.

10.

For the reasons set out above, the Court is respectfully invited to dismiss the claim.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: tincombe on August 02, 2026, 06:20:01 pm: The claim is founded upon a single factual allegation, namely that the driver left the retail park in breach of the contractual terms relied upon by the Claimant.

That allegation is expressly denied.

The Defendant's case is that the driver remained within the retail park as a genuine customer of Decathlon before returning directly to the vehicle and leaving the site. Accordingly, no contractual breach occurred.

I've highlighted what I think is a mistake: you've tried to interpret their grounds.

I suggest you state exactly what's in the PoC, which is:
Driver left site designated for customer parking only.

Is a non sequitur (A non sequitur is a statement, remark, or conclusion that does not logically or naturally follow from what came before it).

Which is where you should start IMO.

Without further explanation, IMO (and forgetting your admissions on this forum) it is not possible to compile a defence because the roles of 'customer' and 'driver' are not explained. Is their claim that the driver was not a customer and left the site and there was no 'customer', or that the driver was the only customer (in the vehicle) and left the site? So is the breach that 'customers' must remain on the site or that 'drivers' must, but 'customers' are not bound by any restriction. Is the claimant saying that occupants of the car are bound by the same contractual terms which bind the driver and/or that the driver is responsible for occupants' whereabouts?

I haven't the foggiest idea!

As regards 'non compliance', IMO previous posts have overstated the requirement. Para. 9 of Sch. 4, which is the relevant part, uses these terms regarding what a notice must contain:

State;
Warn;
Inform;
Specify.

Previous posts have not differentiated between their legal meanings and IMO have sought to convey that para. 9 must be included, implicitly verbatim, and that its provisions must appear once only in a notice and in the same form as in Sch. 4.

IMO, courts have discretion regarding determining compliance i.e. is the meaning conveyed consistent with the purpose of para. 9, not just whether every word appears.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on August 02, 2026, 04:29:57 pm: Hi,

Please let me know what you all think?

DEFENCE
1.

The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety.

2.

It is admitted only that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle referred to in the Particulars of Claim. Save for that admission, every allegation is denied.

3.

The claim is founded upon a single factual allegation, namely that the driver left the retail park in breach of the contractual terms relied upon by the Claimant.

That allegation is expressly denied.

The Defendant's case is that the driver remained within the retail park as a genuine customer of Decathlon before returning directly to the vehicle and leaving the site. Accordingly, no contractual breach occurred.

4.

The Defendant has consistently denied that the alleged breach occurred from the earliest opportunity.

The Defendant's position is supported by contemporaneous evidence created during the visit, which will be relied upon at the witness statement stage.

5.

The Particulars of Claim fail to set out the material facts relied upon with sufficient particularity to enable the Defendant fully to understand the case to be met.

In particular, the Particulars fail to identify:

the contractual term allegedly breached;
the geographical extent of the alleged "site";
where the driver is alleged to have gone;
how the alleged breach was observed; and
the factual basis upon which liability is asserted.

The burden rests upon the Claimant to prove each element of its claim.

6.

The photographs disclosed by the Claimant identify only the presence of the parked vehicle. They do not, on their face, evidence the alleged contractual breach upon which the claim is founded.

7.

If the Claimant maintains that the alleged contractual breach occurred, it is required to prove:

(a) that the alleged conduct occurred;

(b) that the alleged conduct amounted to a breach of the contractual terms relied upon;

(c) that the operative accurately observed the alleged conduct;

(d) that any observations relied upon were recorded contemporaneously;

(e) that the contractual terms relied upon, including any alleged prohibition upon leaving the site, were clearly, prominently and unambiguously communicated to motorists; and

(f) that the Claimant possessed the necessary authority from the landowner both to enter contracts with motorists and to pursue this claim.

8.

Further, insofar as the Claimant seeks to establish keeper liability pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, such liability is denied.

The Defendant does not admit that the mandatory statutory conditions required to invoke keeper liability have been satisfied and puts the Claimant to strict proof of full compliance.

The Defendant reserves the right to expand upon this issue should the Claimant seek to rely upon Schedule 4 or should further relevant information become available during the course of proceedings.

9.

The Defendant disputes the additional sums claimed over and above the original parking charge and requires the Claimant to prove the contractual and legal basis upon which those additional sums are said to be recoverable.

10.

For the reasons set out above, the Court is respectfully invited to dismiss the claim.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Signed: ___________________________

Name: ____________________________

Date: _____________________________
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: tincombe on August 01, 2026, 09:26:26 pm: Alleged breach of contract:

Driver left site designated for customer parking only.

Would require, as a minimum, that the driver was the customer i.e. the only person in a vehicle, and that they left the site while the vehicle remained parked.

And their proof is....?

IMO, you deal with the alleged breach first, not procedural matters. After all, what's the benefit in being able to hold the keeper liable for a non-existent parking charge?
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: roythebus on August 01, 2026, 09:07:13 pm: Precisely, if they've got no evidence then they are wasting time.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on August 01, 2026, 08:22:21 pm: Quote from: jfollows on August 01, 2026, 06:13:14 pm
@b789 hasn't been active on these forums for many months now, and didn't bother to explain the reasons why your notice didn't comply with PoFA 2012.
So either you can look for yourself (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4) or one of the other volunteers here may be able to help you.

I can add, although it doesn't help you here, that I believe that whenever I advise non-compliance with PoFA 2012 on this forum I also quote the relevant part of the legislation and why the notice doesn't comply.

Thank you. I'll try and understand how, if at all, the NTK didn't comply AND check the case that was referenced as an example. Not going to lie, legallesse is often utter gibberish to me, but ill try. I hope that in the mean time, a volunteer might understand it all better. Otherwise I think the only approach will be to argue that no evidence was provided (that is quite a straight forward thing for me to understand and argue argue) There is no evidence because non exists.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: jfollows on August 01, 2026, 06:13:14 pm: @b789 hasn't been active on these forums for many months now, and didn't bother to explain the reasons why your notice didn't comply with PoFA 2012.
So either you can look for yourself (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4) or one of the other volunteers here may be able to help you.

I can add, although it doesn't help you here, that I believe that whenever I advise non-compliance with PoFA 2012 on this forum I also quote the relevant part of the legislation and why the notice doesn't comply.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on August 01, 2026, 05:27:32 pm: Quote from: jfollows on August 01, 2026, 03:44:51 pm
Quote from: DontStandForNonsense on August 01, 2026, 02:57:27 pm
Quote from: jfollows on July 29, 2026, 09:48:20 am
Quote from: DontStandForNonsense on July 29, 2026, 07:20:39 am
How and at what point should I be sharing the points? And will the photos taken in store and dialogue relating to the stores products time stamped through whatsapp be used or are they not relevant to the defense?

Your defence will be a written statement, logical simple and clear.

Your original appeal was on the basis of non-compliance with PoFA 2012, so your defence should lead with this and amplify exactly what requirement(s) of the legislation were missed/failed and why.

Personally I would also argue against the meaningless "charge" on the NtK and repeated in the Particulars of Claim.

If this ever gets to court, you will provide a witness statement which would include the other things you mention.

Also note that, in our experience, Moorside Legal is exceptionally incompetent, so you should not assume that they know what they're doing or talking about.

If you post a draft defence here you will likely get comments and suggestions on it. This thread and other information on the forum should give you a good starting point for this.

Do you know exactly how the NTK was non compliant with the PoFA?

No, I assumed that because you said so in your appeal last December that you knew how, or had worked it out since then.

B789 said because of deficiencies in their Notice to Keeper (NtK) they cannot rely on PoFA 2012 to transfer the liability from the unknown driver to the known Keeper. But I'm not sure what those deficiencies were. B789 said they relied on contract law and that they can only hold the driver liable. B789 wen to say Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. But I just don't understand if I should be simply repeating this is the defence or that I should be specific on how. And I don't know how it failed to comply with it specifically.

What i do understand is that they provided no evidence to support their evidence that the driver left the site.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: jfollows on August 01, 2026, 03:44:51 pm: Quote from: DontStandForNonsense on August 01, 2026, 02:57:27 pm
Quote from: jfollows on July 29, 2026, 09:48:20 am
Quote from: DontStandForNonsense on July 29, 2026, 07:20:39 am
How and at what point should I be sharing the points? And will the photos taken in store and dialogue relating to the stores products time stamped through whatsapp be used or are they not relevant to the defense?

Your defence will be a written statement, logical simple and clear.

Your original appeal was on the basis of non-compliance with PoFA 2012, so your defence should lead with this and amplify exactly what requirement(s) of the legislation were missed/failed and why.

Personally I would also argue against the meaningless "charge" on the NtK and repeated in the Particulars of Claim.

If this ever gets to court, you will provide a witness statement which would include the other things you mention.

Also note that, in our experience, Moorside Legal is exceptionally incompetent, so you should not assume that they know what they're doing or talking about.

If you post a draft defence here you will likely get comments and suggestions on it. This thread and other information on the forum should give you a good starting point for this.

Do you know exactly how the NTK was non compliant with the PoFA?

No, I assumed that because you said so in your appeal last December that you knew how, or had worked it out since then.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on August 01, 2026, 02:57:27 pm: Quote from: jfollows on July 29, 2026, 09:48:20 am
Quote from: DontStandForNonsense on July 29, 2026, 07:20:39 am
How and at what point should I be sharing the points? And will the photos taken in store and dialogue relating to the stores products time stamped through whatsapp be used or are they not relevant to the defense?

Your defence will be a written statement, logical simple and clear.

Your original appeal was on the basis of non-compliance with PoFA 2012, so your defence should lead with this and amplify exactly what requirement(s) of the legislation were missed/failed and why.

Personally I would also argue against the meaningless "charge" on the NtK and repeated in the Particulars of Claim.

If this ever gets to court, you will provide a witness statement which would include the other things you mention.

Also note that, in our experience, Moorside Legal is exceptionally incompetent, so you should not assume that they know what they're doing or talking about.

If you post a draft defence here you will likely get comments and suggestions on it. This thread and other information on the forum should give you a good starting point for this.

Do you know exactly how the NTK was non compliant with the PoFA?
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on August 01, 2026, 02:32:06 pm: Quote from: b789 on December 06, 2025, 01:12:17 pm
Before you continue with this, get it into your head that you must NEVER, EVER identify the driver. You have clearly done so to us, maybe inadvertently, but if you respond to the PCN like that, you will have blabbed the drivers identity and thrown away one of the best defences you will ever have for these charges!

UKPC have NO IDEA who the driver is unless you blab it to them. Because of deficiencies in their Notice to Keeper (NtK) they cannot rely on PoFA 2012 to transfer the liability from the unknown driver to the known Keeper. The driver is always liable and unless you, as the Keeper, refer to the driver in the third person, you will have shot yourself in both feet with a single shot! You never say silly things like "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that". Don't tell 'em your name Pike!

So, to the PCN itself... what evidence have they provided to support their allegation that "driver left site designated for customer parking"? I'll bet you that they have not provided ANY evidence to support their allegation. Also, their NtK is not fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the Keeper liable if the driver is not identified.

There is no legal obligation on the known keeper to reveal the identity of the unknown driver to an unregulated private parking firm and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

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

Quote
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. UKPC has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. UKPC have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Come back the they reject the appeal and give you a POPLA code. No initial appeal is ever successful because there is no money in it for them if they accept.

Hiya,

Do I repeat this in the court form or do I need to know the specific POFA defects?
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on July 31, 2026, 01:21:16 pm: I would instinctively say that no evidence has been provided that the driver was not a customer or that the driver left the site or am I to repeat the line from the appeal "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"

Unsure of what a defense should be.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on July 30, 2026, 05:48:50 pm: Quote from: jfollows on July 29, 2026, 09:48:20 am
Quote from: DontStandForNonsense on July 29, 2026, 07:20:39 am
How and at what point should I be sharing the points? And will the photos taken in store and dialogue relating to the stores products time stamped through whatsapp be used or are they not relevant to the defense?

Your defence will be a written statement, logical simple and clear.

Your original appeal was on the basis of non-compliance with PoFA 2012, so your defence should lead with this and amplify exactly what requirement(s) of the legislation were missed/failed and why.

Personally I would also argue against the meaningless "charge" on the NtK and repeated in the Particulars of Claim.

If this ever gets to court, you will provide a witness statement which would include the other things you mention.

Also note that, in our experience, Moorside Legal is exceptionally incompetent, so you should not assume that they know what they're doing or talking about.

If you post a draft defence here you will likely get comments and suggestions on it. This thread and other information on the forum should give you a good starting point for this.

Sorry are you saying that the defense should lead with the defect alluded to by B789 post "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." Do I need to specify how their NTK doesn't comply or is it simply enough to repeat what was said in the original appeal by keeping it general?
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: jfollows on July 29, 2026, 09:48:20 am: Quote from: DontStandForNonsense on July 29, 2026, 07:20:39 am
How and at what point should I be sharing the points? And will the photos taken in store and dialogue relating to the stores products time stamped through whatsapp be used or are they not relevant to the defense?

Your defence will be a written statement, logical simple and clear.

Your original appeal was on the basis of non-compliance with PoFA 2012, so your defence should lead with this and amplify exactly what requirement(s) of the legislation were missed/failed and why.

Personally I would also argue against the meaningless "charge" on the NtK and repeated in the Particulars of Claim.

If this ever gets to court, you will provide a witness statement which would include the other things you mention.

Also note that, in our experience, Moorside Legal is exceptionally incompetent, so you should not assume that they know what they're doing or talking about.

If you post a draft defence here you will likely get comments and suggestions on it. This thread and other information on the forum should give you a good starting point for this.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: jfollows on July 29, 2026, 08:08:16 am: Quote from: DontStandForNonsense on July 29, 2026, 07:20:39 am
Thank you.

I'm guessing that the ball is currently in my court and that they are waiting on my to respond with my defense?

Quote
If you received a N1SDT claim form dated 15 July then you can file AoS by 3 August followed by defence by 17 August.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: InterCity125 on July 29, 2026, 07:38:32 am: You cannot.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on July 29, 2026, 07:23:21 am: How can I modify an earlier comment that is no longer showing the modify option?
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on July 29, 2026, 07:20:39 am: Thank you.

I'm guessing that the ball is currently in my court and that they are waiting on my to respond with my defense?

How and at what point should I be sharing the points? And will the photos taken in store and dialogue relating to the stores products time stamped through whatsapp be used or are they not relevant to the defense?
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: jfollows on July 28, 2026, 03:35:58 pm: Thank you, I found it. So another appeal point should be that
Quote
Driver left site designated for customer parking only
is verbal diarrhea and meaningless, although it shouldn't be the primary appeal point.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on July 28, 2026, 02:42:36 pm: Quote from: jfollows on July 28, 2026, 02:06:03 pm
The N1SDT claim form also, please, I couldn't see it there.

Thought I had added it. I've now definitely done it again. SHould be showing now.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: jfollows on July 28, 2026, 02:06:03 pm: The N1SDT claim form also, please, I couldn't see it there.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on July 28, 2026, 01:59:40 pm: Quote from: DontStandForNonsense on July 28, 2026, 01:29:28 pm
Thank you. Yes I returned the AOS a few days ago.

I have now since received the a file from them relating to my FOI request. It essentially contains:

1. Their original Notice to keeper
2. Copy of our original appeal
3. A copy of the letter they sent requesting the full name and address of the driver
4. A copy of our reply to their request
5. A copy of their letter rejecting our appeal (this is the one I found late because it had been emailed to me and was in my junk folder)
6. 3 images taken of the front of my van timed a few seconds apart (seemed to have been taken by a human because of the straight on angle)
7. A screen shot of a system page showing the vehicle details
8. A screen shot of a system showing the vehicle keeper details (name, address of the keeper)
9. A screen shot of a system showing the details and status of the PCN (Rejected status, Received date, Name of Keeper, That it is with the debt collector, location of contravention, rejection reasons - left site, POPLA ref )

There are no images of a driver at all and by extension, none of the driver 'leaving site', no notes of the incident by the observer of what was observed or details of the driver, and no letters that may have been sent by any solicitors or deb collectors acting since on their behalf. So for instance, they have not included the letter I received from QDS solicitors or ZZPS debt collectors. I di dask them to include all related data including those held by their acting agents (not how I worded it). I would expect there to notes by the person who claims to have observed the contravention.

Link to related docs (https://photos.app.goo.gl/SFifQwLD1Kxi59A6A)
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: jfollows on July 28, 2026, 01:40:09 pm: Please post relevant documents, such as the N1SDT form with the password and personal details (but not dates) redacted. The original NtK I know is in the first post of this thread, but it will be important to see things like the Particulars of Claim on the N1SDT because the NtK said it was issued because "Driver left site designated for customer parking only", whatever that nonsense actually means, and it's important for us not to forget this point.

We should also remember that your original appeal was on non-compliance with PoFA 2012. Your defence should expand on this a little by stating which part of the legislation was not complied with.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on July 28, 2026, 01:29:28 pm: Thank you. Yes I returned the AOS a few days ago.

I have now since received the a file from them relating to my FOI request. It essentially contains:

1. Their original Notice to keeper
2. Copy of our original appeal
3. A copy of the letter they sent requesting the full name and address of the driver
4. A copy of our reply to their request
5. A copy of their letter rejecting our appeal (this is the one I found late because it had been emailed to me and was in my junk folder)
6. 3 images taken of the front of my van timed a few seconds apart (seemed to have been taken by a human because of the straight on angle)
7. A screen shot of a system page showing the vehicle details
8. A screen shot of a system showing the vehicle keeper details (name, address of the keeper)
9. A screen shot of a system showing the details and status of the PCN (Rejected status, Received date, Name of Keeper, That it is with the deb collector, location of contravention, rejection reasons - left site, POPLA ref )

There are no images of a driver at all and by extension, none of the driver 'leaving site', no notes of the incident by the observer of what was observed or details of the driver, and no letters that may have been sent by any solicitors or deb collectors acting since on their behalf. So for instance, they have not included the letter I received from QDS solicitors or ZZPS deb collectors. I di dask them to include all related data including those held by their acting agents (not how I worded it). I would expect there to notes by the person who claims to have observed the contravention.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: jfollows on July 27, 2026, 08:32:49 pm: If you received a N1SDT claim form dated 15 July then you can file AoS by 3 August followed by defence by 17 August.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on July 27, 2026, 07:59:48 pm: Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Really don't want to end up with a CCJ!
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on July 24, 2026, 05:11:23 pm: Quote from: jfollows on June 25, 2026, 04:22:33 pm
The NtK is in the original post.
It wasn’t received last week.
So now you think you might have received a Letter of Claim from some solicitor.
If that’s what you’re missing, make sure the SAR addresses this.
The Letter of Claim is likely to be from DCB Legal, but that’s only a guess.

June 25: Sent SAR
June 29: Acknowledgment received
July 8: DPO requested proof of ID
July 12: Proof of ID sent

July 22: Received HM Courts Claim form with issue date as 15 July.
Claimant is UK Parking Control

Address of Sending Documents given as:
Moorside Legal Services Ltd

-----------------------------

I have not yet received back my SAR and will return the Aknowledgment of Service with 'I intend to defend all of this claim' selected.

One more thing that I think will be very useful in proving my statement is that I was going through some old pictures on my wifes phone and found I had whatsapp'd her several pictures of my daughter trying on a coat while at the store on the retail park. I followed up with a link to another coat in store for my wife to review for my son. We had back and forth whats app correspondence about the coats and everything is time-stamped on whatsapp.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on June 26, 2026, 07:07:34 pm: Quote from: jfollows on June 25, 2026, 04:22:33 pm
The NtK is in the original post.
It wasn’t received last week.
So now you think you might have received a Letter of Claim from some solicitor.
If that’s what you’re missing, make sure the SAR addresses this.
The Letter of Claim is likely to be from DCB Legal, but that’s only a guess.

Yes, I have sent a SAR addressing the possibility that the letter may have been sent by their ssolicitors
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: jfollows on June 25, 2026, 04:22:33 pm: The NtK is in the original post.
It wasn’t received last week.
So now you think you might have received a Letter of Claim from some solicitor.
If that’s what you’re missing, make sure the SAR addresses this.
The Letter of Claim is likely to be from DCB Legal, but that’s only a guess.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: InterCity125 on June 25, 2026, 04:13:06 pm: They normally reply to SAR requests very quickly - I'm guessing because a percentage of people pay up once they see all the 'evidence'.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on June 25, 2026, 12:37:22 pm: Early Dec 2025: NTK
Mid Dec: Replied as per B789 suggested letter
19th Dec: They replied asking for the drivers details
~20th Dec: Replied with suggested 2nd letter from B789
7th Jan: UKPC rejected appeal and provided a POPLA Ref(didn't see this letter till much much later - it went into my junk folder)
12th Feb: Letter from ZZPS requesting outstanding balance
17th April: Letter from QDR Solicitors requesting payment

So upon the advice of jfellows I was waiting on the "Letter of Claim"

One may have been posted to us a week or so ago, but since my daughter misplaced it, I can't be sure. Is there an issue with me picking up the phone and asking for a copy? I worry that a SAR willtake weeks and weeks.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: jfollows on June 24, 2026, 10:02:45 am: I think you’ve also confused us, so I suggest you give us a clear timeline of what you have received and when. If you received a Notice to Keeper in December, it’s unlikely you received one last week as well.

If you don’t have stuff, you should send a Subject Access Request to the relevant party (the parking company for the NtK).

If you can’t get your facts in order for us here, it’s unlikely you will be able to make a good defence to any court claim.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on June 24, 2026, 09:13:10 am: Quote from: InterCity125 on June 20, 2026, 08:11:26 am
When was this received?

Is the POPLA Code still live?

I'd confused myself because of how long its all taken. That letter I saw previously and did reply upon earlier advice in the forum. I was waiting on a NTK.

Last week it seems we received a NTK. I hadn't seen it myself but my wife opened it and our young daughter seems to have misplaced it! Pretty sure it was for this PCN but I can't be certain.

Do you think it would be okay to write to the parking company or solicitor acting on their behalf? I'd ask for a copy of their latest letter (assuming it was from them)
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: jfollows on June 21, 2026, 11:53:58 am: The rejection letter was posted above, I think (Reply #9), dated 7 January 2026, so its POPLA code will no longer be usable, being valid for something like 33 days from the date of the letter.

If this is the letter referred to in Reply #21, that is.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: InterCity125 on June 21, 2026, 07:36:27 am: Quote from: DontStandForNonsense on June 20, 2026, 08:37:11 pm
Do I need to start an appeal to be able to check if the code is still live?

When was rejection letter received?

Yes, you could try starting the appeal process to see if the code works.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on June 20, 2026, 08:37:11 pm: Do I need to start an appeal to be able to check if the code is still live?
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: InterCity125 on June 20, 2026, 08:11:26 am: When was this received?

Is the POPLA Code still live?
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on June 19, 2026, 07:05:40 pm: We received a rejection letter to our appeal and they provided a POPLA reference. Here is what they said:

Dear Mr ,

Thank you for your recent communication concerning parking charge reference 3087153261105.
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 occupant left site whilst the vehicle remained parked on
site
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 £60.00 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.
Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department
UK Parking Control Limited
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on April 25, 2026, 03:56:20 pm: Quote from: jfollows on April 25, 2026, 03:36:58 pm
Quote from: DontStandForNonsense on April 25, 2026, 03:33:33 pm
I don't understand?

Are you saying the letter isn't a letter of claim?
Yes

It would say that it was and it would give you 30 days to pay if it were.

Thank you.

Okay we shall ignore till we see something titled letter or claim from them
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: jfollows on April 25, 2026, 03:36:58 pm: Quote from: DontStandForNonsense on April 25, 2026, 03:33:33 pm
I don't understand?

Are you saying the letter isn't a letter of claim?
Yes

It would say that it was and it would give you 30 days to pay if it were.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on April 25, 2026, 03:33:33 pm: I don't understand?

Are you saying the letter isn't a letter of claim?
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: jfollows on April 25, 2026, 02:49:50 pm: Quote
Come back when you get a Letter of Claim from a solicitor.
What you have received and posted isn’t.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on April 25, 2026, 02:33:51 pm: Quote from: b789 on December 19, 2025, 02:19:33 pm
You can email them back with the following response:

Quote
Subject: Re: PCN [insert reference] – Driver Details Not Required

Dear UKPC Appeals Department,

Thank you for your template fishing attempt.

Your request for the driver’s details is noted and declined. You have already been informed that I am the keeper, and that your Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, you cannot transfer liability from the unidentified driver to me.

If your staff are unable to understand why your NtK is non‑compliant, I suggest you review Schedule 4 more carefully. Keeper liability is a strict statutory regime: partial or almost compliance is not compliance. You do not get to rely on PoFA unless you meet every requirement, which you have not.

Your continued attempts to obtain the driver’s identity are noted. I will not be assisting you in curing your own statutory defects.

You now have two options:

1. Issue a POPLA code, or
2. Cancel the PCN and save us both further wasted time.

If you require guidance on my position, you may refer to the response famously given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).

I look forward to your POPLA code or your confirmation of cancellation.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]

Okay so we've received a letter from their solicitors. Would really appreciate help with next steps or how to respond.

Here is the link Solicitors Letter P1 (https://photos.app.goo.gl/UM4dq3pdHAUULKxG7)
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on February 23, 2026, 05:32:21 pm: Quote from: InterCity125 on February 23, 2026, 04:45:25 pm
A Letter of Claim would normally be sent by post to the same postal address as the original PCN.

Hope they don't catch us out again!
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: InterCity125 on February 23, 2026, 04:45:25 pm: A Letter of Claim would normally be sent by post to the same postal address as the original PCN.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on February 23, 2026, 04:40:03 pm: Ok,

Would a solicitors letter be sent by email or post?
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DWMB2 on February 23, 2026, 03:40:15 pm: Quote from: DontStandForNonsense on February 23, 2026, 03:27:37 pm
Are they not obliged to send letters like this by post as well?
No - if you appeal electronically, they're entitled to respond electronically.

Quote from: DontStandForNonsense on February 23, 2026, 03:27:37 pm
No wonder why they insist on using their website to appeal
They don't insist on online appeals - the notice you received outlines that appeals can be submitted either by post or online. Online is generally recommended because it's free, and there's less risk of post going missing
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on February 23, 2026, 03:27:37 pm: Are they not obliged to send letters like this by post as well? No wonder why they insist on using their website to appeal. Forces you to give your email. I wonder how many people lose the right to appeal because of missing they email while expecting it in the post.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: jfollows on February 23, 2026, 03:09:57 pm: Ignore ZZPS.
Come back when you get a Letter of Claim from a solicitor.
Search the forum for
ZZPS
and
UKPC
in the meantime.

You are now too late to appeal to POPLA.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on February 23, 2026, 03:07:29 pm: Quote from: b789 on December 19, 2025, 02:19:33 pm
You can email them back with the following response:

Quote
Subject: Re: PCN [insert reference] – Driver Details Not Required

Dear UKPC Appeals Department,

Thank you for your template fishing attempt.

Your request for the driver’s details is noted and declined. You have already been informed that I am the keeper, and that your Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, you cannot transfer liability from the unidentified driver to me.

If your staff are unable to understand why your NtK is non‑compliant, I suggest you review Schedule 4 more carefully. Keeper liability is a strict statutory regime: partial or almost compliance is not compliance. You do not get to rely on PoFA unless you meet every requirement, which you have not.

Your continued attempts to obtain the driver’s identity are noted. I will not be assisting you in curing your own statutory defects.

You now have two options:

1. Issue a POPLA code, or
2. Cancel the PCN and save us both further wasted time.

If you require guidance on my position, you may refer to the response famously given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).

I look forward to your POPLA code or your confirmation of cancellation.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]

Hello,

So I just received a letter from a debt collection company (https://photos.app.goo.gl/c34SoWeUXdWx3d1N9) for this ticket which confused me because I did not recall hearing back from them about my appeal. I then went into my email and searched 'UKPC'. They had rejected the appeal but, it had gone into my email junk folder. I had thought they would reply by post. Here is their Rejection 7th January 2026 (https://photos.app.goo.gl/iShV3P6rBXAfjdTi9).

The debt recovery letter arrived in the post like the original ticket, but interestingly their rejection letter with 28 days to contest was sent by email with no postal copy.

I'm really annoyed about this because I think this is very underhanded.

WOuld really appreciate help with this.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on December 19, 2025, 03:32:40 pm: Thanks for this.

Sent :)
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: b789 on December 19, 2025, 02:19:33 pm: You can email them back with the following response:

Quote
Subject: Re: PCN [insert reference] – Driver Details Not Required

Dear UKPC Appeals Department,

Thank you for your template fishing attempt.

Your request for the driver’s details is noted and declined. You have already been informed that I am the keeper, and that your Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, you cannot transfer liability from the unidentified driver to me.

If your staff are unable to understand why your NtK is non‑compliant, I suggest you review Schedule 4 more carefully. Keeper liability is a strict statutory regime: partial or almost compliance is not compliance. You do not get to rely on PoFA unless you meet every requirement, which you have not.

Your continued attempts to obtain the driver’s identity are noted. I will not be assisting you in curing your own statutory defects.

You now have two options:

1. Issue a POPLA code, or
2. Cancel the PCN and save us both further wasted time.

If you require guidance on my position, you may refer to the response famously given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).

I look forward to your POPLA code or your confirmation of cancellation.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on December 19, 2025, 01:56:53 pm: Quote from: b789 on December 06, 2025, 01:12:17 pm
Before you continue with this, get it into your head that you must NEVER, EVER identify the driver. You have clearly done so to us, maybe inadvertently, but if you respond to the PCN like that, you will have blabbed the drivers identity and thrown away one of the best defences you will ever have for these charges!

UKPC have NO IDEA who the driver is unless you blab it to them. Because of deficiencies in their Notice to Keeper (NtK) they cannot rely on PoFA 2012 to transfer the liability from the unknown driver to the known Keeper. The driver is always liable and unless you, as the Keeper, refer to the driver in the third person, you will have shot yourself in both feet with a single shot! You never say silly things like "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that". Don't tell 'em your name Pike!

So, to the PCN itself... what evidence have they provided to support their allegation that "driver left site designated for customer parking"? I'll bet you that they have not provided ANY evidence to support their allegation. Also, their NtK is not fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the Keeper liable if the driver is not identified.

There is no legal obligation on the known keeper to reveal the identity of the unknown driver to an unregulated private parking firm and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

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

Quote
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. UKPC has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. UKPC have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Come back the they reject the appeal and give you a POPLA code. No initial appeal is ever successful because there is no money in it for them if they accept.

They replied with:
Link to actual letter (https://photos.app.goo.gl/SFifQwLD1Kxi59A6A)

Thank you for your recent correspondence in relation to parking charge reference 3087153261105.

To assist us in making a decision regarding your appeal, please confirm the full name and address of the driver to our Appeals Department within seven days of the date of this letter.

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 discusses the recovery of unpaid parking charges. It allows parking operators to hold the registered
keeper liable to pay unpaid parking charges if the operator has not been provided the name and a serviceable address of the driver.

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.

This information may be confirmed by submitting another appeal on our website at www.ukpcappeals.co.uk, or by post to the address overleaf. Please
ensure that if writing to us by post that you include the parking charge reference number and vehicle registration.

Failure to provide this information will give us no alternative other than to make our final decision based on the previous information received. At this stage
a POPLA verification code will be provided. The parking charge has been placed on hold whilst under appeal and may be settled in full at the current PCN rate of £60.00.

Yours sincerely,
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on December 12, 2025, 02:21:03 pm: Quote from: DWMB2 on December 10, 2025, 03:15:35 pm
If possible please don't use the Report to Moderator function for this as it sends email notifications to all 5 of us.

I wouldn't worry too much about having accidentally revealed who was driving here. UKPC are issuing around 1,500 charges a day - they'll not be expending time trawling this forum for the extremely small minority who put up a fight.

Oki doki :)

Thank you
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DWMB2 on December 10, 2025, 03:15:35 pm: If possible please don't use the Report to Moderator function for this as it sends email notifications to all 5 of us.

I wouldn't worry too much about having accidentally revealed who was driving here. UKPC are issuing around 1,500 charges a day - they'll not be expending time trawling this forum for the extremely small minority who put up a fight.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: b789 on December 10, 2025, 01:35:46 pm: Just use the "report to a moderator" and state what you want them to do with your OP.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on December 09, 2025, 09:15:57 pm: Quote from: b789 on December 06, 2025, 01:12:17 pm
Before you continue with this, get it into your head that you must NEVER, EVER identify the driver. You have clearly done so to us, maybe inadvertently, but if you respond to the PCN like that, you will have blabbed the drivers identity and thrown away one of the best defences you will ever have for these charges!

UKPC have NO IDEA who the driver is unless you blab it to them. Because of deficiencies in their Notice to Keeper (NtK) they cannot rely on PoFA 2012 to transfer the liability from the unknown driver to the known Keeper. The driver is always liable and unless you, as the Keeper, refer to the driver in the third person, you will have shot yourself in both feet with a single shot! You never say silly things like "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that". Don't tell 'em your name Pike!

So, to the PCN itself... what evidence have they provided to support their allegation that "driver left site designated for customer parking"? I'll bet you that they have not provided ANY evidence to support their allegation. Also, their NtK is not fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the Keeper liable if the driver is not identified.

There is no legal obligation on the known keeper to reveal the identity of the unknown driver to an unregulated private parking firm and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

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

Quote
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. UKPC has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. UKPC have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Come back the they reject the appeal and give you a POPLA code. No initial appeal is ever successful because there is no money in it for them if they accept.

Thank you. Is there a way for me to delete the OP so that I can repost without the incorrect wording?

PS, I can imagine that this rogue operator are sending tickets to genuine shoppers even though they used the site correctly (less than max time allowed and without leaving the site). I expect most will just pay them when in fact they should be raising complaints to the landlord or whoever else.
Title: Re: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: b789 on December 06, 2025, 01:12:17 pm: Before you continue with this, get it into your head that you must NEVER, EVER identify the driver. You have clearly done so to us, maybe inadvertently, but if you respond to the PCN like that, you will have blabbed the drivers identity and thrown away one of the best defences you will ever have for these charges!

UKPC have NO IDEA who the driver is unless you blab it to them. Because of deficiencies in their Notice to Keeper (NtK) they cannot rely on PoFA 2012 to transfer the liability from the unknown driver to the known Keeper. The driver is always liable and unless you, as the Keeper, refer to the driver in the third person, you will have shot yourself in both feet with a single shot! You never say silly things like "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that". Don't tell 'em your name Pike!

So, to the PCN itself... what evidence have they provided to support their allegation that "driver left site designated for customer parking"? I'll bet you that they have not provided ANY evidence to support their allegation. Also, their NtK is not fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the Keeper liable if the driver is not identified.

There is no legal obligation on the known keeper to reveal the identity of the unknown driver to an unregulated private parking firm and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

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

Quote
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. UKPC has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. UKPC have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Come back the they reject the appeal and give you a POPLA code. No initial appeal is ever successful because there is no money in it for them if they accept.
Title: Issued with a ticket (NTK) for being parked in a retail park
Post by: DontStandForNonsense on December 05, 2025, 04:17:37 pm: A few days ago we received a Notice to Keeper and the reason given was 'Driver left site designated for customer parking only'

Crazy thing is, the driver was there as a customer! I know that some of these retail parks have time limits because they had a ticket for spending more than 2 hours at a site once, but this time around, it was definitely much less than an hour.

They went to Decathalon to find a winter jacket for my daughter, and then Hobbycraft for some christmas lights. They didn't end up getting anything and drove out perhaps 40 minutes after arrival.

Please see the NTK_Link (https://photos.app.goo.gl/9Ha8RhBKdV3JuiVm7)

Would really appreciate your help.