Show Posts
1
Private parking tickets / Re: UK Parking Control - Parked in a permit area without displaying permit.
« on: July 28, 2025, 02:40:30 pm »
Hello @b789,
I have searched within the forum and draft below 2 versions, could you kindly advice which version is closer to my case and if anything missing or needing addition info?
Version 1 POPLA Appeal Letter (Template for Submission):
Appellant: [Your Name]
POPLA Verification Code: [Enter your POPLA Code]
Parking Charge Reference: [PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Enter your vehicle reg]
Operator: UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC)
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced above and wish to appeal the Parking Charge issued by UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC). I respectfully ask POPLA to consider the following legal and factual grounds for appeal:
1. The Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by the operator fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). This paragraph requires that the NtK must “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”.
In this case, the NtK merely states a single timestamp: 18:14:47 on 25/02/2025. This is a point in time, not a “period of parking”. There is no start and end time, no duration, and not even a reference to the word “period” in the notice.
As confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], a single timestamp alone does not satisfy the statutory requirement. The failure to specify a period of parking renders the NtK non-compliant, and therefore the operator cannot pursue the registered keeper under PoFA.
2. The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with multiple mandatory provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, most notably:
• Failure to specify the period of parking (PoFA 9(2)(a)); and
• Failure to specify “the land on which the vehicle was parked”, since the address given is fictitious or geographically misleading (PoFA 9(2)(a)).
3. No evidence of contract formation due to absence of a consideration period
Even if PoFA were not engaged, the operator has provided no evidence that a contract was formed with the driver. Under Section 5.1 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (2024), a minimum consideration period must be allowed before any assumption of contractual parking can be made. This period allows the driver to read the signage, assess the terms, and decide whether to accept them. The Code states that a driver remaining on site for more than 5 minutes may be deemed to have accepted the terms, but there is no evidence that the vehicle remained for that long. Without such evidence, there is no basis to conclude that the driver accepted any contractual terms, and therefore no liability can arise.
4. Signage incapable of forming a contract
If, despite the clear absence of keeper liability under PoFA and the lack of any evidence that a contract was formed with the driver, the assessor is still minded to consider the charge, then the operator is put to strict proof that the signage at the site was sufficiently clear, prominent, and unambiguous to form a legally binding contract. I contend that it was not.
5. No evidence of landowner authority
The operator is put to strict proof that they have a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises them to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in their own name.
I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land. In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:
• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
UKPC’s Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with PoFA, and they have failed to establish keeper liability. The signage is unclear and potentially misleading, and they have yet to demonstrate they hold proper landowner authority. As such, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the PCN.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
Registered Keeper
**************
Version 2:
Grounds of Appeal:
1. UKPC has failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and therefore has no right to pursue the keeper.
UKPC is attempting to hold me, the registered keeper, liable for this Parking Charge Notice. However, the Notice to Keeper issued by UKPC is non-compliant with the mandatory provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), meaning no keeper liability can arise.
Specifically:
• The NTK fails to specify the actual period of parking, as required under PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a). The PCN refers only to a single timestamp, which cannot be construed as a “period.”
• The NTK fails to accurately specify the land on which the vehicle was parked. The location listed is either fictitious or so vague/misleading that it does not meet the legal requirement under PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a).
Since these elements are statutory prerequisites for holding a keeper liable, and UKPC did not identify the driver nor has been informed of the driver’s identity, there is no lawful basis to pursue the keeper. This is a fundamental and fatal flaw in their case.
2. No evidence of landowner authority.
I require UKPC to produce full, unredacted proof of a current landowner contract, evidencing that they have authority to operate at the site, issue charges, and pursue unpaid tickets in their own name.
POPLA and the BPA Code of Practice both require operators to have clear and up-to-date landowner authority. If UKPC fails to produce this evidence, the charge must be cancelled.
3. Inadequate and unclear signage – no contract formed.
The signage at the location was either:
• Not clearly visible from the entrance or where the car was parked;
• Inadequate in size, clarity, or lighting to establish any binding contract;
• Fails to prominently warn of the terms and the £100 charge.
In accordance with Section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice, all terms must be clear, legible, and visible before parking occurs. If the signs are obscured, poorly positioned, or absent, then no contract can be formed.
4. No Grace Periods Observed (if relevant).
If the parking charge relates to a brief overstay, or the vehicle was observed for a short period, the operator must show that it complied with Section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice, which requires a minimum grace period for both arrival and departure.
Conclusion:
UKPC’s Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with PoFA, and they have failed to establish keeper liability. The signage is unclear and potentially misleading, and they have yet to demonstrate they hold proper landowner authority. As such, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel.
**************
Also I never mentioned that I was indeed using Nuffield Gym that day at that time as this will disclose the identity of the driver but I think this might have been on my side and helped me to win this case as one off mistake for not using the gym bays?
Thank you so much for your kind help.
Dan
I have searched within the forum and draft below 2 versions, could you kindly advice which version is closer to my case and if anything missing or needing addition info?
Version 1 POPLA Appeal Letter (Template for Submission):
Appellant: [Your Name]
POPLA Verification Code: [Enter your POPLA Code]
Parking Charge Reference: [PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Enter your vehicle reg]
Operator: UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC)
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced above and wish to appeal the Parking Charge issued by UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC). I respectfully ask POPLA to consider the following legal and factual grounds for appeal:
1. The Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by the operator fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). This paragraph requires that the NtK must “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”.
In this case, the NtK merely states a single timestamp: 18:14:47 on 25/02/2025. This is a point in time, not a “period of parking”. There is no start and end time, no duration, and not even a reference to the word “period” in the notice.
As confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], a single timestamp alone does not satisfy the statutory requirement. The failure to specify a period of parking renders the NtK non-compliant, and therefore the operator cannot pursue the registered keeper under PoFA.
2. The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with multiple mandatory provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, most notably:
• Failure to specify the period of parking (PoFA 9(2)(a)); and
• Failure to specify “the land on which the vehicle was parked”, since the address given is fictitious or geographically misleading (PoFA 9(2)(a)).
3. No evidence of contract formation due to absence of a consideration period
Even if PoFA were not engaged, the operator has provided no evidence that a contract was formed with the driver. Under Section 5.1 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (2024), a minimum consideration period must be allowed before any assumption of contractual parking can be made. This period allows the driver to read the signage, assess the terms, and decide whether to accept them. The Code states that a driver remaining on site for more than 5 minutes may be deemed to have accepted the terms, but there is no evidence that the vehicle remained for that long. Without such evidence, there is no basis to conclude that the driver accepted any contractual terms, and therefore no liability can arise.
4. Signage incapable of forming a contract
If, despite the clear absence of keeper liability under PoFA and the lack of any evidence that a contract was formed with the driver, the assessor is still minded to consider the charge, then the operator is put to strict proof that the signage at the site was sufficiently clear, prominent, and unambiguous to form a legally binding contract. I contend that it was not.
5. No evidence of landowner authority
The operator is put to strict proof that they have a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises them to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in their own name.
I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land. In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:
• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
UKPC’s Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with PoFA, and they have failed to establish keeper liability. The signage is unclear and potentially misleading, and they have yet to demonstrate they hold proper landowner authority. As such, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the PCN.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
Registered Keeper
**************
Version 2:
Grounds of Appeal:
1. UKPC has failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and therefore has no right to pursue the keeper.
UKPC is attempting to hold me, the registered keeper, liable for this Parking Charge Notice. However, the Notice to Keeper issued by UKPC is non-compliant with the mandatory provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), meaning no keeper liability can arise.
Specifically:
• The NTK fails to specify the actual period of parking, as required under PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a). The PCN refers only to a single timestamp, which cannot be construed as a “period.”
• The NTK fails to accurately specify the land on which the vehicle was parked. The location listed is either fictitious or so vague/misleading that it does not meet the legal requirement under PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a).
Since these elements are statutory prerequisites for holding a keeper liable, and UKPC did not identify the driver nor has been informed of the driver’s identity, there is no lawful basis to pursue the keeper. This is a fundamental and fatal flaw in their case.
2. No evidence of landowner authority.
I require UKPC to produce full, unredacted proof of a current landowner contract, evidencing that they have authority to operate at the site, issue charges, and pursue unpaid tickets in their own name.
POPLA and the BPA Code of Practice both require operators to have clear and up-to-date landowner authority. If UKPC fails to produce this evidence, the charge must be cancelled.
3. Inadequate and unclear signage – no contract formed.
The signage at the location was either:
• Not clearly visible from the entrance or where the car was parked;
• Inadequate in size, clarity, or lighting to establish any binding contract;
• Fails to prominently warn of the terms and the £100 charge.
In accordance with Section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice, all terms must be clear, legible, and visible before parking occurs. If the signs are obscured, poorly positioned, or absent, then no contract can be formed.
4. No Grace Periods Observed (if relevant).
If the parking charge relates to a brief overstay, or the vehicle was observed for a short period, the operator must show that it complied with Section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice, which requires a minimum grace period for both arrival and departure.
Conclusion:
UKPC’s Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with PoFA, and they have failed to establish keeper liability. The signage is unclear and potentially misleading, and they have yet to demonstrate they hold proper landowner authority. As such, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel.
**************
Also I never mentioned that I was indeed using Nuffield Gym that day at that time as this will disclose the identity of the driver but I think this might have been on my side and helped me to win this case as one off mistake for not using the gym bays?
Thank you so much for your kind help.
Dan
