Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - DontStandForNonsense

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
1
Draft something and post here first.

How about this:

Subject: Formal Representation Against PCN [] – Contravention Code 46J

I make representations against the above PCN on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur.

At the time of the alleged contravention, my vehicle was not stopped in contravention of the red route restriction, but was engaged in a continuous manoeuvre.

I had briefly entered an adjacent access road after observing that the driver of the lorry visible in the authority’s footage was preparing to move from his position. After waiting momentarily and deciding not to remain there, I reversed out of the access road with the intention of immediately proceeding westbound along Oxford Road.

The CCTV footage provided by the authority captures only a short sequence (approximately 4 seconds). In this footage, my vehicle is positioned at an angle to the carriageway and is indicating, clearly demonstrating that it was in the process of completing a manoeuvre and rejoining the road, rather than being parked or voluntarily stopped.

At that point, I was prevented from completing the manoeuvre by the approach of the enforcement vehicle, which passed in close proximity and made it unsafe to proceed. Moving forward at that moment would have risked a collision. Any brief pause in movement was therefore entirely due to the presence of traffic and not a voluntary act of stopping.

It is well established that a vehicle is not considered “stopped” for the purposes of a red route contravention where it is prevented from proceeding due to traffic conditions. The authority’s own evidence shows a vehicle in a transitional position during a manoeuvre, temporarily constrained by passing traffic, rather than one that has stopped in contravention of the restriction.

Furthermore, the very short duration of the footage does not demonstrate any continuous stationary period or sufficient dwell time to establish that the vehicle was “stopped” within the meaning of the contravention.

In summary:

* The vehicle was engaged in an active manoeuvre, reversing out and preparing to move off.
* Its angled position and use of indicators confirm this.
* Any momentary pause was caused solely by the presence of the enforcement vehicle and the need to avoid a collision.
* The evidence does not demonstrate that the vehicle was voluntarily stopped.

In light of the above, the alleged contravention is not made out and I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,


2
So should I just appeal on this basis?

3
That makes more sense of it - you need to explain this in the reps - if you were working for someone there, perhaps you have a job sheet that shows why you were there?

I had quickly pulled in to the access road when I saw the driver of the lorry close the back and walk to his cab (very difficult to find parking around that area). I turned into the access road to allow me to wait safely until he left. After a couple of minutes of waiting for him to move, I decided to not wait any longer; reversed out to allow me to immediately drive ahead for an alternative space. I was obstructed at that moment from driving ahead and that is how the vehicle took the shot.

4
Reversed out of the access road to drive ahead in the direction the van was facing.

5
Thank you,

How would you suggest I approach it?

Just state I was prevented from completing the manoeuvre? I read that councils always reject appeals in the first instance.

6

Hi all,

I’d appreciate some guidance on whether this is worth contesting.

I’ve received a PCN for contravention 46J, supported by CCTV footage and still images. The video is approximately 4 seconds long and shows my vehicle angled out from the side of the road.

At the time, I was in the process of manoeuvring in order to turn across the carriageway. My vehicle was positioned at an angle, not parallel to the kerb, and I was not parked or waiting in the usual sense.

As I began positioning the vehicle to complete the turn, the enforcement vehicle approached and passed very close by. This prevented me from completing the manoeuvre safely at that moment, as proceeding would have risked a collision.

As a result, there was a very brief pause while the enforcement vehicle passed, after which I would have completed the manoeuvre.

The footage only captures a few seconds and does not show any extended stationary period, but rather a vehicle in a transitional position during a manoeuvre.

My understanding is that a vehicle is not considered “stopped” for the purposes of this contravention if it is prevented from proceeding due to traffic conditions.

Grateful for any advice on whether this would be a strong basis to challenge.

PCN on the following link:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/dZxQMDPRpaD9P7Fe8

7
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!

8
Ok,

Would a solicitors letter be sent by email or post?

9

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.

10
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 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.

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.

11
Thanks for this.

Sent :)

12
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



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,

13
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

14
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.

15
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

Would really appreciate your help.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13