Show Posts - nothavingthis

Is anyone able to help on this after having providing the requested details? I have now received a Notice To Owner

Any comments anyone  Quote from: nothavingthis on 10 Jul, 2025 12:13Hi,Apologies, in the past i had not disclosed the pcn number and registration and was able to get the assistance needed from the rest of the letter, hence i thought it was not absolutely necessary. I have re-attached the PCN again showing the required details now.Thank you for providing the link to the guide of how to post such cases, much appreciated.Quote from: jfollows on 09 Jul, 2025 11:34Yet you continue to obscure the information requested more than once which we need to be able to help you? Do you actually read posts from other people? Did you read https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/ ?

Hi,Apologies, in the past i had not disclosed the pcn number and registration and was able to get the assistance needed from the rest of the letter, hence i thought it was not absolutely necessary. I have re-attached the PCN again showing the required details now.Thank you for providing the link to the guide of how to post such cases, much appreciated.Quote from: jfollows on 09 Jul, 2025 11:34Yet you continue to obscure the information requested more than once which we need to be able to help you? Do you actually read posts from other people? Did you read https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/ ? [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I contacted the company and had to request the evidence. I had to complete an ‘informal challenge’ without any info to get the evidence they had sent out to me. I have attached the correspondence sent to me. [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Hi, where can i check what evidence they have eg the pictures they will have taken?I have visited the website (https://chipsidelancashire.org) listed on the back but nowhere to see the evidence. I tried clicking challenge to see if it would show there but it didn't.Yes i am the owner of the car and the V5 registered address is correct and up-to-date.Thank you.Quote from: Incandescent on 24 Jun, 2025 22:43Well, we can do almost nothing for you, because you have blanked out the PCN Number and car registration that allow us to see what photos they may have taken. So please provide these details and we'll have a look.  The PCN looks OK. Are you the owner of the car and if so, is the V5 Registration Certificate address up-to-date ?

Hi all, i was hoping someone can help me. Popped into town and couldn't find any parking, i saw other people going into this car park off Curzon street (just past Burnley Primark - opposite the pet shop) no one else had any permits that i could see so left my car there for literally 10/12 mins came back to find a yellow ticket on my car.Can any one think or see any procedural errors or anything of the sort that i could possibly use.Thank you in advance. [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Hi all, thank you for all the information. I have decided to not make any payment and see where it leads from the advice you guys have given. As long as i have yourselves on my side for help and advice i will take it all the way Quote from: b789 on 16 Mar, 2025 20:41@jfollows, there are no "fines" involved in civil litigation. The county court cannot and will not impose any "fine" as this has nothing to do with statutory law and penalties.If this ever gets to court and all the way to a hearing (unlikely), the county court is simply the ultimate dispute resolution service. The operator (the claimant) says you owe them a debt. You say you don't. A judge will hear the arguments of both sides and based on the facts, will decide whether you owe the debt or not. It is as simple as that. Even if you were to be unsuccessful, it is highly likely that you would pay less than the amount claimed, because extra costs and damages are not allowed in the small claims track of the county court. That is why it is known as the "small claims" court.So, court in this sense is nothing to do with criminal law. That is for higher courts such as the magistrates court, high court and above. This is simply  a way to settle claims over an alleged debt and you don't have a debt until a judge says you do.For anyone with an overactive imagination and thoughts about the Old Bailey, wigs and gowns, here is a short video to explain how a small-claims hearing is conducted in the county court:https://youtu.be/n93eoaxhzpU?feature=shared

Hi,At the debt recovery letter stage and onwards, will they be sending bailiffs?ThanksQuote from: b789 on 06 Mar, 2025 23:16Of course they will be demanding payment. It does not mean that you owe them the money.Our advice is to not pay it and ignore all the debt recovery letters that are going to follow. The debt collectors are powerless except to scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.Once they realise that you are not low-hanging fruit they will then issue a Letter of Claim (LoC) and then an N1SDT Claim Form. We would provide a suitable defence and eventually they will discontinue.However, you sound as though you are going to capitulate and become a part of the problem rather than part of the solution. This is exactly what these predatory companies want... lambs to the slaughter.You either fight this all the way to a win or you waste your money.

Hi agian,I forgot to mention, after POPLA made their decision, UKPC emailed me a letter as below:Dear Mr xxxxxxxxx,We are writing in relation to the above parking charge, which you chose to appeal with the independent adjudicator POPLA. Having considered the evidence provided by you and UK Parking Control, we can confirm that POPLA have declined your appeal, ruling in favour of UKPC.As such, payment of £65.00 is now due and should be paid to UK Parking Control Ltd within 28 days of the date of this letter. Payment instructions may be found overleaf.If you choose to do nothing the matter will be passed to our debt recovery agent, 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 also be claimed if court action is taken against you. Any unpaid court judgement may adversely affect your credit rating.Yours sincerely,Appeals DepartmentUK Parking Control LimitedQuote from: b789 on 20 Feb, 2025 16:18Never mind. Their decision is not binding on you and has no bearing on anything going forwards. Do not pay anything.Did you not receive a copy of the operators evidence pack at some stage after you submitted the POPLA appeal? If so, why did you bot show us? Did you respond to the operators evidence pack?This POPLA assessor has a bit of a reputation for being ignorant in most matters of contract law and I have already drafted a few formal complaints about his flawed decision making and obvious lack of sufficient contract law knowledge.This is what is going to happen next... you will receive a bunch of useless Debt Recovery Agent (DRA) letters which you can safely ignore. They are powerless except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear. Ignore them.Eventually, you will receive a Letter of Claim (LoC), most likely from DCB Legal (not DCBL). When you get the LoC, come back and we will advise on how to respond. After that, you will receive an actual N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC. Again, we will provide a suitable defence. After many months (could be up to a year or even more), the claim will be either struck out or discontinued and that will be the end of the matter. There is less than 1% chance that this will ever go as far as a hearing.Just ignore everything now except either an loC or the claim. We do not need to know about the useless and powerless DRAs.

Hi,Nope, did not receive any evidence pack at all.Ok, thanks for the information you provided on the usual process of things going forward.I have thought about just paying the £60 or whatever amount it is to finish the matter? I have a lot of stuff going on at the moment and to be honest could do without the stress. One part of me wants to take it to the next steps and see how its pans out.There was also no response from the hospital the letter we sent them, they stopped replying to my emails.Thank you.Quote from: b789 on 20 Feb, 2025 16:18Never mind. Their decision is not binding on you and has no bearing on anything going forwards. Do not pay anything.Did you not receive a copy of the operators evidence pack at some stage after you submitted the POPLA appeal? If so, why did you bot show us? Did you respond to the operators evidence pack?This POPLA assessor has a bit of a reputation for being ignorant in most matters of contract law and I have already drafted a few formal complaints about his flawed decision making and obvious lack of sufficient contract law knowledge.This is what is going to happen next... you will receive a bunch of useless Debt Recovery Agent (DRA) letters which you can safely ignore. They are powerless except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear. Ignore them.Eventually, you will receive a Letter of Claim (LoC), most likely from DCB Legal (not DCBL). When you get the LoC, come back and we will advise on how to respond. After that, you will receive an actual N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC. Again, we will provide a suitable defence. After many months (could be up to a year or even more), the claim will be either struck out or discontinued and that will be the end of the matter. There is less than 1% chance that this will ever go as far as a hearing.Just ignore everything now except either an loC or the claim. We do not need to know about the useless and powerless DRAs.

Hi all,I have just received an outcome for POPLA and unfortunately the appeal has been unsuccessful on this occasion.DecisionUnsuccessfulAssessor NameStuart LumsdenAssessor summary of operator caseThe operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to no valid pay and display ticket.Assessor summary of your caseThe appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The windscreen notice is a Notice to Driver (NTD) and the Notice to Keeper (NTK) was premature as the operator must wait 28 days before issuing a NTK after issuing the NTD. • The NTK does not comply with PoFA. • UKPC have not proved the the individual being pursued is the driver. • The operator has breached the BPA Code of Practice due to inadequate signage and as such, no contract can be formed. • There is no evidence of landowner authority. The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: • A copy of a notice attached to the windscreen. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.Assessor supporting rational for decisionPOPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and evidence provided of a note attached to their windscreen advising they will be sent a PCN through the post. I appreciate the wallet it was encased in, but it is not a Notice to Driver, it’s just an advisory notice explaining a PCN will be sent. It does not breach any code or PoFA as it is not a NTD. I acknowledge no driver details have been provided and as such, I need to establish if the operator has complied with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in PoFA must be adhered to. PoFA schedule 4, is a piece of legislation which enables operators to pursue the keeper of a vehicle when they do not have the drivers name or contact details. I have reviewed the PCN and note that the breach occurred on 18th September 2024, and the PCN was issued on 20th September 2024, well within 14 days specified in PoFA. The Notice to Keeper goes on to state that if after 28 days the full amount has not been paid and they do not know the name and address of the driver, they have the right to purse the registered keeper. It also instructs the keeper to pass the notice to the driver. As such, I must conclude that the operator has complied with the requirements of PoFA. As the operator is relying on PoFA, they do not need to demonstrate who was driving as they can hold the keeper liable, which is the appellant. The parking operator is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and must comply with it’s Code of Practice which sets out minimum guidelines for private parking operators. Section 19.3 of the Code relates to specific terms signs and states: Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing 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. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. I have reviewed the parking operators evidence pack, and it has provided date stamped images of signs throughout the site next to the appellants vehicle. The signs advise that motorists must display a valid pay and display ticket. The operator has provided images of the appellants vehicle parked on site without a ticket on display. As the operator has shown that clear and compliant signs are in place and was next to the appellants vehicle, they have demonstrated that they have fully complied with the code of practice above. It’s always the responsibility of the driver to review the signs once parked and comply with the terms and conditions. As no pay and display ticket was on display, I must conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. I note the driver has questioned landowner authority and as such, I have reviewed the document provided. Section 7.1 of the Code of Practice relates to written authorisation and states: If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. The operator has provided a copy of the landowner agreement which stipulates the land in question, the date of the agreement from 2012 for an initial 12 month period and is also signed by both parties. As signs were clearly still visible and in place at the time of the breach, I find this more than suitable to demonstrate the operator has authority to issue PCN’s on site. After considering the evidence, I can see that the terms of parking were made clear, and that the driver broke them by failing to display a valid pay and display ticket. I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and refuse this appeal. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.

Hi,Nope, no reply fro Mr Appiah yet.I will use what you have provided for the POPLA appeal, i want to take this opportunity to thank you for the time you have put into this and in helping me, Thank you! Quote from: b789 on 20 Nov, 2024 13:16Have you had a response from Mr Appiah yet?Here is a more detailed POPLA appeal based on your circumstances:QuotePOPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC)PCN Number: [Insert PCN Number]Vehicle Registration: [Insert Vehicle Registration]POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC)Grounds for Appeal1. The Windscreen Note Constitutes a Notice to Driver (NtD) Under PoFA, and the Notice to Keeper (NtK) Was Premature.2. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the Requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).3. UKPC Has Not Proven That the Individual Being Pursued Was the Driver.4. Inadequate Signage Breaching the BPA Code of Practice.5. No Evidence of Landholder Authority.1. The Windscreen Note Constitutes a Notice to Driver (NtD) Under PoFA, and the NtK Was Premature. The Windscreen Note Was Presented as a Notice to Driver (NtD)The document left on the vehicle windscreen was enclosed in a yellow plastic envelope marked “Parking Charge Notice”, giving the appearance of a formal NtD. The design, language, and presentation of this document were clearly intended to mimic an official NtD, fulfilling the role of an NtD for all practical purposes.By leaving this document on the vehicle, UKPC initiated the procedural process described in Schedule 4, Paragraph 8 of PoFA, which requires operators to wait a minimum of 28 days before serving a Notice to Keeper (NtK).UKPC Cannot Circumvent PoFA by Issuing an Improper NtD. If UKPC claims the windscreen note was not a valid NtD, they are effectively admitting to issuing a non-compliant notice.This non-compliance cannot exempt them from PoFA requirements. UKPC cannot rely on the windscreen note as evidence of a contravention while simultaneously denying its status as an NtD to circumvent the 28-day timeline mandated by Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(4).Premature NtKUKPC issued the NtK only two days after leaving the windscreen note. This premature issuance violates PoFA, rendering the NtK invalid.2. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with PoFATo transfer liability to the registered keeper, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). UKPC’s NtK fails to meet the mandatory requirements, rendering it invalid.Omission of Mandatory InformationSchedule 4, Paragraph 8(2) of PoFA specifies the information that must be included in the NtK. UKPC’s NtK omits a key detail, the period of parking to which the charge relates. Without this information, the NtK is non-compliant with PoFA, and the operator cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper.PoFA specifically states, irrespective of whether under paragraph 8 or 9 that the notice MUST: "specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates." An NtK, whether issued under paragraph 8 or 9 of Schedule 4 of PoFA is required to fully comply with ALL the requirements of the Act. Partial or even substantial compliance is insufficient.3. UKPC Has Not Proven That the Individual Being Pursued Was the DriverUKPC has not identified the driver at the time of the alleged contravention and instead relies on assumptions that the registered keeper was the driver.Legal RequirementsSchedule 4 of PoFA allows liability to be transferred to the registered keeper only if the operator fully complies with ALL its requirements. UKPC has provided no evidence, to establish the identity of the driver. The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. The NtK can only hold the driver liable.Relevant Legal PrecedentIn VCS v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C], the court considered the issue of driver identification. From paragraph 31 onwards, it was emphasised that:• A parking operator must present substantive evidence to demonstrate who the driver was at the time of the alleged contravention.• Liability cannot simply be presumed based on the registered keeper’s details or their correspondence.This case reinforces that unless the operator identifies the driver, they cannot hold anyone liable as the driver unless PoFA's strict conditions for transferring liability to the registered keeper are met. In this case, UKPC has failed to provide any such evidence, relying solely on the registered keeper’s details to pursue this charge.4. Inadequate Signage Breaching the BPA Code of PracticeUKPC’s signage at the site fails to meet the standards set by the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, Section 19.Poor Visibility and ClarityThe signs were either obscured, too small, or positioned in a way that made them unreadable. Key parking terms were not clearly communicated, leading to confusion.Failure to Form a ContractThe lack of clear, prominent, and legible signage means no contract was formed between the driver and UKPC. This invalidates the parking charge.5. No Evidence of Landholder AuthorityUKPC is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules.A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, consideration periods, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and, of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement). Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:(a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined(b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation(c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement(d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs(e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreementConclusionIn light of the above points, this Parking Charge Notice is invalid and unenforceable. UKPC has failed to:• Adhere to the procedural requirements of PoFA regarding Notices to Driver and Keeper.• Issue a Notice to Keeper that complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).• Establish who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention.• Provide clear and adequate signage in line with BPA guidelines.• Demonstrate their authority to operate on the land in question.I request that POPLA allow this appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

@b789 Any suggestions on my draft? thanksQuote from: nothavingthis on 18 Nov, 2024 22:36Quote from: b789 on 23 Oct, 2024 12:43As expected. UKPC will always reject an appeal. There's no money it for them if they don't.So, you now have a POPLA code and you need to prepare an appeal to them based on the points I have already given you earlier. You have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection to submit the POPLA appeal so, no rush.Show us what you think is suitable for the POPLA appeal and we will provide corrections and suggestions to make sure it is suitable for submission.No one pays UKPC PCNs if they are getting advice here. Even if it went all the way to a court claim, it would eventually be discontinued.Good evening,I hope you can provide some feedback on my POPLA appeal below, thanks in advance!POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC)PCN Number:

Vehicle Registration:

Grounds for Appeal:    Failure to Adhere to the Requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).    The Operator Has Not Shown That the Individual Being Pursued Is the Driver.    Inadequate Signage Leading to a Breach of the BPA Code of Practice.    No Evidence of Landholder Authority.    Misleading and Predatory Tactics.1. Failure to Adhere to the Requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)To hold a registered keeper liable for a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), UKPC must fully comply with all procedural and substantive requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). This includes:    Premature Issuance of the Notice to Keeper (NtK):        Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(4) of PoFA mandates that when a Notice to Driver (NtD) has been issued, the operator must wait a minimum of 28 days before serving a Notice to Keeper (NtK).        In this case, an NtD was affixed to the vehicle, yet the NtK was sent before the 28-day period had elapsed, violating the statutory timeline. This procedural failure invalidates the ability of UKPC to transfer liability to the registered keeper.    Omission of Required Information in the NtK:        Paragraph 8(2) of PoFA outlines specific information that must be included in the NtK. UKPC's NtK does not meet these requirements in full. For example, it fails to:            Clearly state the period of parking to which the charge relates.            Specify the steps taken to identify the driver before pursuing the registered keeper.        The absence of this information renders the NtK non-compliant with PoFA, meaning the registered keeper cannot be held liable.2. The Operator Has Not Shown That the Individual Being Pursued Is the DriverUKPC has relied solely on the assumption that the registered keeper was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. Under Paragraph 4(1) of PoFA, only the driver can be held liable unless strict compliance with PoFA enables the operator to transfer liability to the registered keeper.    No evidence, such as photographic identification of the driver, has been provided by UKPC.    As per the legal principle established in CPS Ltd v AJH Films Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1453, liability cannot simply be inferred based on keeper information without substantiating evidence.Since UKPC has not identified the driver and has failed to meet the conditions for keeper liability, the PCN cannot be enforced.3. Inadequate Signage Leading to a Breach of the BPA Code of PracticeThe British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires that parking terms and conditions be clearly and prominently displayed. In this case:    Signs at the location were either obscured, too small, or positioned in a way that made them unreadable.    The signage failed to comply with BPA Code of Practice Section 19, which requires that terms be clear, unambiguous, and visible to all motorists.    At the time of the alleged contravention, the signage did not adequately communicate the parking terms, leading to confusion.This failure undermines any alleged contractual agreement and invalidates the claim.4. No Evidence of Landholder AuthorityUKPC has failed to demonstrate its authority to issue parking charges on this land. According to Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, parking operators must have written authorization from the landholder confirming their authority to manage parking at the site.    UKPC has not provided a copy of their contract with the landowner or evidence of their legal authority to issue PCNs.    Without such proof, UKPC cannot demonstrate that they have the right to enforce parking terms or pursue charges.5. Misleading and Predatory TacticsUKPC’s conduct in this matter was misleading and predatory:    The NtK was issued prematurely, and their response to my initial appeal was dismissive, failing to address key legal points raised regarding PoFA compliance.    The aggressive issuance of this PCN during a maternity-related hospital visit reflects poorly on UKPC’s adherence to BPA’s principles of fairness and proportionality.The NHS Car Parking Guidance 2022 emphasizes the importance of parking policies that accommodate patients and their families, particularly in urgent medical situations. UKPC’s actions in this case contravene these principles and bring disrepute to their parking management practices.ConclusionIn light of the above points, this PCN is invalid and unenforceable. UKPC has failed to:    Comply with the procedural requirements of PoFA.    Establish who was driving the vehicle at the time.    Provide evidence of clear and adequate signage.    Demonstrate landholder authority.    Conduct themselves in a manner consistent with BPA’s Code of Practice and NHS Car Parking Guidance.I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the PCN.Yours sincerely,

Quote from: b789 on 23 Oct, 2024 12:43As expected. UKPC will always reject an appeal. There's no money it for them if they don't.So, you now have a POPLA code and you need to prepare an appeal to them based on the points I have already given you earlier. You have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection to submit the POPLA appeal so, no rush.Show us what you think is suitable for the POPLA appeal and we will provide corrections and suggestions to make sure it is suitable for submission.No one pays UKPC PCNs if they are getting advice here. Even if it went all the way to a court claim, it would eventually be discontinued.Good evening,I hope you can provide some feedback on my POPLA appeal below, thanks in advance!POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC)PCN Number:

Vehicle Registration:

Grounds for Appeal:    Failure to Adhere to the Requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).    The Operator Has Not Shown That the Individual Being Pursued Is the Driver.    Inadequate Signage Leading to a Breach of the BPA Code of Practice.    No Evidence of Landholder Authority.    Misleading and Predatory Tactics.1. Failure to Adhere to the Requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)To hold a registered keeper liable for a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), UKPC must fully comply with all procedural and substantive requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). This includes:    Premature Issuance of the Notice to Keeper (NtK):        Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(4) of PoFA mandates that when a Notice to Driver (NtD) has been issued, the operator must wait a minimum of 28 days before serving a Notice to Keeper (NtK).        In this case, an NtD was affixed to the vehicle, yet the NtK was sent before the 28-day period had elapsed, violating the statutory timeline. This procedural failure invalidates the ability of UKPC to transfer liability to the registered keeper.    Omission of Required Information in the NtK:        Paragraph 8(2) of PoFA outlines specific information that must be included in the NtK. UKPC's NtK does not meet these requirements in full. For example, it fails to:            Clearly state the period of parking to which the charge relates.            Specify the steps taken to identify the driver before pursuing the registered keeper.        The absence of this information renders the NtK non-compliant with PoFA, meaning the registered keeper cannot be held liable.2. The Operator Has Not Shown That the Individual Being Pursued Is the DriverUKPC has relied solely on the assumption that the registered keeper was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. Under Paragraph 4(1) of PoFA, only the driver can be held liable unless strict compliance with PoFA enables the operator to transfer liability to the registered keeper.    No evidence, such as photographic identification of the driver, has been provided by UKPC.    As per the legal principle established in CPS Ltd v AJH Films Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1453, liability cannot simply be inferred based on keeper information without substantiating evidence.Since UKPC has not identified the driver and has failed to meet the conditions for keeper liability, the PCN cannot be enforced.3. Inadequate Signage Leading to a Breach of the BPA Code of PracticeThe British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires that parking terms and conditions be clearly and prominently displayed. In this case:    Signs at the location were either obscured, too small, or positioned in a way that made them unreadable.    The signage failed to comply with BPA Code of Practice Section 19, which requires that terms be clear, unambiguous, and visible to all motorists.    At the time of the alleged contravention, the signage did not adequately communicate the parking terms, leading to confusion.This failure undermines any alleged contractual agreement and invalidates the claim.4. No Evidence of Landholder AuthorityUKPC has failed to demonstrate its authority to issue parking charges on this land. According to Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, parking operators must have written authorization from the landholder confirming their authority to manage parking at the site.    UKPC has not provided a copy of their contract with the landowner or evidence of their legal authority to issue PCNs.    Without such proof, UKPC cannot demonstrate that they have the right to enforce parking terms or pursue charges.5. Misleading and Predatory TacticsUKPC’s conduct in this matter was misleading and predatory:    The NtK was issued prematurely, and their response to my initial appeal was dismissive, failing to address key legal points raised regarding PoFA compliance.    The aggressive issuance of this PCN during a maternity-related hospital visit reflects poorly on UKPC’s adherence to BPA’s principles of fairness and proportionality.The NHS Car Parking Guidance 2022 emphasizes the importance of parking policies that accommodate patients and their families, particularly in urgent medical situations. UKPC’s actions in this case contravene these principles and bring disrepute to their parking management practices.ConclusionIn light of the above points, this PCN is invalid and unenforceable. UKPC has failed to:    Comply with the procedural requirements of PoFA.    Establish who was driving the vehicle at the time.    Provide evidence of clear and adequate signage.    Demonstrate landholder authority.    Conduct themselves in a manner consistent with BPA’s Code of Practice and NHS Car Parking Guidance.I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the PCN.Yours sincerely,

Quote from: H C Andersen on 10 Nov, 2024 17:06Have you sent this letter? Do you have a copy of the Trust's Car Parking Policy?Hi, yes i sent the letter, well sent it in email format. They have sent acknowledgment but no response as of yet.I do not have a copy of the trust parking policy, but from a quick google search i can see this : https://elht.nhs.uk/your-visit/car-parking