1
Private parking tickets / Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton Retail Park.
« on: November 24, 2025, 02:43:21 pm »
Thank you both for the advice. Will follow suggested course of action mentioned.
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.
Pages: [1]
2
Private parking tickets / Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton Retail Park.
« on: November 24, 2025, 11:56:10 am »
The POPLA appeal was unsuccessful. See report below.
Is there anything further I can do to fight this? Thanks.
Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Jamie Macrae
Assessor summary of operator case:
The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to not parking correctly within the markings of the bay.
Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • The Notice to Keeper (NTK)) fails to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). • No presumption that the Keeper was the driver. • Inadequate signage, no contract formed, the amount of the PCN is not clear. • Lack of landowner authority, no proof of the parking operator’s right to operate. • The appellant has mentioned various county court cases. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal, expands on their grounds of appeal, and raises new grounds of appeal not mentioned within their initial submission.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
POPLA 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. The signs make it clear that motorists using the car park must park within a marked bay, and if these terms and conditions are not met a charge of £100 will be issued. The parking operator has provided a series of photos of the parked position of the vehicle on the day; it is evident the vehicle was not parked wholly within the markings of a bay. As mentioned above the appellant has raised a new ground of appeal, which they did not mention within their initial submission when commenting on the parking operator’s evidence. When extending an invitation to the appellant to comment on the operator's evidence, it wasn't intended as an opportunity for the appellant to introduce new grounds for appeal or submit additional evidence. Consequently, any new grounds for appeal mentioned in their comments cannot be considered. I will now consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. As the appellant failed to provide details of the driver to the parking operator, the parking operator was not able to transfer liability for the PCN to the driver, therefore, the liability remains with the appellant as the registered keeper. While the appellant has mentioned various county court cases within their appeal, however, as county court cases cannot set a precedent, these will not be considered. This sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. It is stipulated in the Code that the parking operator needs to comply with all elements relating to signage by 31 December 2026. Therefore, for any aspects of this case relating to signage, I will be referring to version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. This is applicable for parking events that occurred from 1 February 2024. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that there must be an entrance sign displayed and maintained at the entrance to the site, to inform drivers whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions or prohibited. Section 3.1.2 of the Code contains the principles the entrance sign must display, including whether public parking is available and if a payment is required. Its design must also comply with the standard format as described in Annex A. The entrance sign must take into account the speed of vehicles approaching the car park. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. Signs in general tend to have meaning, and signs within a car park are there to explain relevant terms to motorists wishing to park, such as the requirements to park wholly within a marked bay. The parking operator has provided a series of the site. I can see from the evidence pack there is an entrance sign. Entrance signs are an important part of establishing a contract and would put the driver on notice that terms and conditions applied. Further, specific terms and conditions signage are placed around this site, detailing the terms of use. These signs are in contrasting colours, and I believe they would have been clear and conspicuous to drivers who wish to use the site. A parking operator is not obligated to places signs at each and very bay. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the single Code of Practice and that the motorist had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions on arrival, and, if you agree with them, stay or if you did not agree with them leave the site. Whether the appellant read the terms and conditions is irrelevant, the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to read them. The motorist became bound by the terms and conditions of the site by parking at the site and entered into a contract with the parking operator. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a license agreement document, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land, the appellant has failed to provide any evidence to suggest otherwise. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage itself. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the legibility of the signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online (www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html) should the appellant wish to read it. The signage at the site is clear that failure to park within a marked bay, regardless of the reason, would result in the issue of a PCN. By choosing to park outside of a marked bay, the motorist has accepted the potential consequence of incurring a PCN. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist did not park within a marked bay and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.
Is there anything further I can do to fight this? Thanks.
Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Jamie Macrae
Assessor summary of operator case:
The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to not parking correctly within the markings of the bay.
Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • The Notice to Keeper (NTK)) fails to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). • No presumption that the Keeper was the driver. • Inadequate signage, no contract formed, the amount of the PCN is not clear. • Lack of landowner authority, no proof of the parking operator’s right to operate. • The appellant has mentioned various county court cases. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal, expands on their grounds of appeal, and raises new grounds of appeal not mentioned within their initial submission.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
POPLA 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. The signs make it clear that motorists using the car park must park within a marked bay, and if these terms and conditions are not met a charge of £100 will be issued. The parking operator has provided a series of photos of the parked position of the vehicle on the day; it is evident the vehicle was not parked wholly within the markings of a bay. As mentioned above the appellant has raised a new ground of appeal, which they did not mention within their initial submission when commenting on the parking operator’s evidence. When extending an invitation to the appellant to comment on the operator's evidence, it wasn't intended as an opportunity for the appellant to introduce new grounds for appeal or submit additional evidence. Consequently, any new grounds for appeal mentioned in their comments cannot be considered. I will now consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. As the appellant failed to provide details of the driver to the parking operator, the parking operator was not able to transfer liability for the PCN to the driver, therefore, the liability remains with the appellant as the registered keeper. While the appellant has mentioned various county court cases within their appeal, however, as county court cases cannot set a precedent, these will not be considered. This sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. It is stipulated in the Code that the parking operator needs to comply with all elements relating to signage by 31 December 2026. Therefore, for any aspects of this case relating to signage, I will be referring to version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. This is applicable for parking events that occurred from 1 February 2024. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that there must be an entrance sign displayed and maintained at the entrance to the site, to inform drivers whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions or prohibited. Section 3.1.2 of the Code contains the principles the entrance sign must display, including whether public parking is available and if a payment is required. Its design must also comply with the standard format as described in Annex A. The entrance sign must take into account the speed of vehicles approaching the car park. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. Signs in general tend to have meaning, and signs within a car park are there to explain relevant terms to motorists wishing to park, such as the requirements to park wholly within a marked bay. The parking operator has provided a series of the site. I can see from the evidence pack there is an entrance sign. Entrance signs are an important part of establishing a contract and would put the driver on notice that terms and conditions applied. Further, specific terms and conditions signage are placed around this site, detailing the terms of use. These signs are in contrasting colours, and I believe they would have been clear and conspicuous to drivers who wish to use the site. A parking operator is not obligated to places signs at each and very bay. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the single Code of Practice and that the motorist had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions on arrival, and, if you agree with them, stay or if you did not agree with them leave the site. Whether the appellant read the terms and conditions is irrelevant, the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to read them. The motorist became bound by the terms and conditions of the site by parking at the site and entered into a contract with the parking operator. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a license agreement document, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land, the appellant has failed to provide any evidence to suggest otherwise. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage itself. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the legibility of the signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online (www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html) should the appellant wish to read it. The signage at the site is clear that failure to park within a marked bay, regardless of the reason, would result in the issue of a PCN. By choosing to park outside of a marked bay, the motorist has accepted the potential consequence of incurring a PCN. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist did not park within a marked bay and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.
3
Private parking tickets / Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton Retail Park.
« on: October 06, 2025, 03:28:00 pm »
Thank you. Much appreciated.
4
Private parking tickets / Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton Retail Park.
« on: October 06, 2025, 10:51:14 am »
UKPC has responded to my appeal with the below evidence and comments. I have 7 days to respond to their evidence. See images link below
https://postimg.cc/gallery/6nfRWLD
Please advise for response. Thank you.
https://postimg.cc/gallery/6nfRWLD
Please advise for response. Thank you.
5
Private parking tickets / Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton Retail Park.
« on: September 24, 2025, 10:18:33 am »
Please see updated draft of POPLA appeal below for review. Is there anything else to add or amend? Thank you.
The appeal is based on the following grounds:
1. UKPC’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
2. No Presumption That the Keeper Was the Driver.
3. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed
4. Lack of Landowner Authority – No Proof of UKPC’s Right to Operate
____
1. UKPC’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
• UKPC has not met the statutory requirements under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
• The NtK issued only states that the vehicle was observed at 19:23, which is a single moment in time, not a period of parking.
• Case law in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H] confirms that PoFA requires a defined period of parking, and a mere timestamp does not satisfy this requirement.
• Since UKPC has failed to comply with PoFA, Keeper liability does not apply, and they can only pursue the driver, whom they have not identified.
Accordingly, POPLA must rule that the PCN is unenforceable against the Keeper.
2. No Presumption That the Keeper Was the Driver
• UKPC has made no attempt to identify the driver and is attempting to hold the Registered Keeper liable without meeting PoFA compliance.
• In VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9CC], the court reaffirmed that there is no presumption in law that the Keeper was the driver.
• The Registered Keeper has exercised their right not to name the driver, and no adverse inference can be drawn.
As UKPC has not identified the driver, and the Keeper is not liable under PoFA, the PCN must be cancelled.
3. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed
• The signage at this location is obscure and contains very small text, making it difficult to read unless the driver actively seeks it out to review the terms and conditions of parking. Even if the driver attempts to read the sign, the charge for breaching any terms is not “adequately” brought to the attention of the driver or anyone attempting to read it.
• The parking charge of £100 is buried in a block of small print, which does not meet the PoFA requirement for “adequate notice”.
• In ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, the Supreme Court held that a parking information must be clearly and prominently displayed.
Since the terms were not adequately communicated, no contractual agreement was formed, and therefore no breach occurred.
4. Lack of Landowner Authority – No Proof of UKPC’s Right to Operate
• Under Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, UKPC must provide strict proof that it has the landowner’s authority to issue PCNs at this location.
• UKPC has not provided any evidence that it holds a valid contract with the landowner.
• Any contract must include specific clauses permitting the issuing and enforcement of PCNs.
• The proof must be a contractual right flowing from the landowner. A signed statement from an agent of the landowner is not evidence that the agent has the right to make a contractual arrangement with the operator.
UKPC is put to strict proof that it has a legally binding agreement to operate on this land. If no valid contract is provided, this PCN must be cancelled.
In conclusion, the PCN issued by UKPC is fundamentally flawed on multiple legal and evidential grounds.
• The NtK fails to comply with PoFA due to the absence of a “period of parking,” making Keeper liability impossible.
• There is no presumption that the Keeper was the driver, and UKPC has not identified the driver.
• The signage is inadequate, meaning no contract was formed.
• UKPC has not provided proof of landowner authority.
Given these significant deficiencies, I request that POPLA allow this appeal and cancel the PCN in its entirety.
Signed,
[Registered Keeper's Name]
The appeal is based on the following grounds:
1. UKPC’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
2. No Presumption That the Keeper Was the Driver.
3. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed
4. Lack of Landowner Authority – No Proof of UKPC’s Right to Operate
____
1. UKPC’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
• UKPC has not met the statutory requirements under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
• The NtK issued only states that the vehicle was observed at 19:23, which is a single moment in time, not a period of parking.
• Case law in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H] confirms that PoFA requires a defined period of parking, and a mere timestamp does not satisfy this requirement.
• Since UKPC has failed to comply with PoFA, Keeper liability does not apply, and they can only pursue the driver, whom they have not identified.
Accordingly, POPLA must rule that the PCN is unenforceable against the Keeper.
2. No Presumption That the Keeper Was the Driver
• UKPC has made no attempt to identify the driver and is attempting to hold the Registered Keeper liable without meeting PoFA compliance.
• In VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9CC], the court reaffirmed that there is no presumption in law that the Keeper was the driver.
• The Registered Keeper has exercised their right not to name the driver, and no adverse inference can be drawn.
As UKPC has not identified the driver, and the Keeper is not liable under PoFA, the PCN must be cancelled.
3. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed
• The signage at this location is obscure and contains very small text, making it difficult to read unless the driver actively seeks it out to review the terms and conditions of parking. Even if the driver attempts to read the sign, the charge for breaching any terms is not “adequately” brought to the attention of the driver or anyone attempting to read it.
• The parking charge of £100 is buried in a block of small print, which does not meet the PoFA requirement for “adequate notice”.
• In ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, the Supreme Court held that a parking information must be clearly and prominently displayed.
Since the terms were not adequately communicated, no contractual agreement was formed, and therefore no breach occurred.
4. Lack of Landowner Authority – No Proof of UKPC’s Right to Operate
• Under Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, UKPC must provide strict proof that it has the landowner’s authority to issue PCNs at this location.
• UKPC has not provided any evidence that it holds a valid contract with the landowner.
• Any contract must include specific clauses permitting the issuing and enforcement of PCNs.
• The proof must be a contractual right flowing from the landowner. A signed statement from an agent of the landowner is not evidence that the agent has the right to make a contractual arrangement with the operator.
UKPC is put to strict proof that it has a legally binding agreement to operate on this land. If no valid contract is provided, this PCN must be cancelled.
In conclusion, the PCN issued by UKPC is fundamentally flawed on multiple legal and evidential grounds.
• The NtK fails to comply with PoFA due to the absence of a “period of parking,” making Keeper liability impossible.
• There is no presumption that the Keeper was the driver, and UKPC has not identified the driver.
• The signage is inadequate, meaning no contract was formed.
• UKPC has not provided proof of landowner authority.
Given these significant deficiencies, I request that POPLA allow this appeal and cancel the PCN in its entirety.
Signed,
[Registered Keeper's Name]
6
Private parking tickets / Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton Retail Park.
« on: September 22, 2025, 07:23:52 pm »
Is anyone available to look over the above POPLA appeal and recommend any amendments needed. I will need to submit it soon. Thanks
7
Private parking tickets / Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton Retail Park.
« on: September 21, 2025, 10:39:18 pm »
Please see the following POPLA appeal draft and suggest any amendments or additions to make. Thanks. Much appreciated.
Appeal Draft:
The appeal is based on the following grounds:
1. UKPC’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
2. No Presumption That the Keeper Was the Driver.
____
1. UKPC’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
• UKPC has not met the statutory requirements under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
• The NtK issued only states that the vehicle was observed at 19:23, which is a single moment in time, not a period of parking.
• Case law in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H] confirms that PoFA requires a defined period of parking, and a mere timestamp does not satisfy this requirement.
• Since UKPC has failed to comply with PoFA, Keeper liability does not apply, and they can only pursue the driver, whom they have not identified.
Accordingly, POPLA must rule that the PCN is unenforceable against the Keeper.
2. No Presumption That the Keeper Was the Driver
• UKPC has made no attempt to identify the driver and is attempting to hold the Registered Keeper liable without meeting PoFA compliance.
• In VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9CC], the court reaffirmed that there is no presumption in law that the Keeper was the driver.
• The Registered Keeper has exercised their right not to name the driver, and no adverse inference can be drawn.
As UKPC has not identified the driver, and the Keeper is not liable under PoFA, the PCN must be cancelled.
In conclusion, the PCN issued by UKPC is fundamentally flawed on legal and evidential grounds. The NtK fails to comply with PoFA due to the absence of a “period of parking,” making Keeper liability impossible. And there is no presumption that the Keeper was the driver, and UKPC has not identified the driver.
Given these significant deficiencies, I request that POPLA allow this appeal and cancel the PCN in its entirety.
Signed,
[Registered Keeper's Name]
Appeal Draft:
The appeal is based on the following grounds:
1. UKPC’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
2. No Presumption That the Keeper Was the Driver.
____
1. UKPC’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
• UKPC has not met the statutory requirements under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
• The NtK issued only states that the vehicle was observed at 19:23, which is a single moment in time, not a period of parking.
• Case law in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H] confirms that PoFA requires a defined period of parking, and a mere timestamp does not satisfy this requirement.
• Since UKPC has failed to comply with PoFA, Keeper liability does not apply, and they can only pursue the driver, whom they have not identified.
Accordingly, POPLA must rule that the PCN is unenforceable against the Keeper.
2. No Presumption That the Keeper Was the Driver
• UKPC has made no attempt to identify the driver and is attempting to hold the Registered Keeper liable without meeting PoFA compliance.
• In VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9CC], the court reaffirmed that there is no presumption in law that the Keeper was the driver.
• The Registered Keeper has exercised their right not to name the driver, and no adverse inference can be drawn.
As UKPC has not identified the driver, and the Keeper is not liable under PoFA, the PCN must be cancelled.
In conclusion, the PCN issued by UKPC is fundamentally flawed on legal and evidential grounds. The NtK fails to comply with PoFA due to the absence of a “period of parking,” making Keeper liability impossible. And there is no presumption that the Keeper was the driver, and UKPC has not identified the driver.
Given these significant deficiencies, I request that POPLA allow this appeal and cancel the PCN in its entirety.
Signed,
[Registered Keeper's Name]
8
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Tower Hamlets PCN, code 11, parked wo payment, Sidney Street.
« on: September 17, 2025, 03:27:57 pm »
Apologies.
https://imgur.com/a/sjeGH87
Google maps link:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/H1LZwvLy9nk8cbAV7?g_st=ac
https://imgur.com/a/sjeGH87
Google maps link:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/H1LZwvLy9nk8cbAV7?g_st=ac
9
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Tower Hamlets PCN, code 11, parked wo payment, Sidney Street.
« on: September 17, 2025, 02:55:29 pm »
See images of PCN, street sign and maps location link below.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. The driver parked in the bay possibly without realising it was a paid parking bay only and not a permit holders bay aswell. As the car has a tower Hamlets permit to park in that area.
Can you offer any advise on a possible appeal and whether any more info is required.
Thanks.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. The driver parked in the bay possibly without realising it was a paid parking bay only and not a permit holders bay aswell. As the car has a tower Hamlets permit to park in that area.
Can you offer any advise on a possible appeal and whether any more info is required.
Thanks.
10
Private parking tickets / Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton Retail Park.
« on: September 15, 2025, 10:37:14 pm »
Is anyone able to help me put together a POPLA appeal for the above case. Thanks. Will be much appreciated
11
Private parking tickets / Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton Retail Park.
« on: September 14, 2025, 07:37:18 pm »
I don't have any experience in doing a POPLA appeal and did a search but couldn't find anything similar to mine. Any chance you can help me with a draft or show me one I can use please. Thank you.
12
Private parking tickets / Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton Retail Park.
« on: September 10, 2025, 11:40:55 am »
Please see rejection response letter to initial appeal below. Please advise on appeal to POPLA.
https://imgur.com/a/OJABczS
https://imgur.com/a/OJABczS
13
Private parking tickets / Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton Retail Park.
« on: September 10, 2025, 09:15:59 am »
The initial appeal was rejected as expected. And now need to appeal to POPLA. Please advise on next steps. Thank you.
And I can't see attachments option to add a picture of response letter for some reason.
And I can't see attachments option to add a picture of response letter for some reason.
14
Private parking tickets / Re: NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton Retail Park.
« on: August 14, 2025, 04:00:46 pm »
Thank you. I will send the appeal as written above and get back once I've received a response. Much appreciated.
15
Private parking tickets / NTK from UKPC for not parking within Bay marking. Beckton Retail Park.
« on: August 13, 2025, 11:24:20 pm »
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, I received this NTK as you can see attached. The driver seems to have parked the car in the car park and went into the shops. It looks to me that the red car parked next to my vehicle is also over the bay marking. This could have therefore forced the driver to park awkwardly and not within the markings. This can be seen in the pics attached.
Google maps link to parking location:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Zc8V2vWZtLWTnkQb8?g_st=ac
Parking charge date is 06/08/25. Please advise on next steps to appeal.
Thank you.
Google maps link to parking location:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Zc8V2vWZtLWTnkQb8?g_st=ac
Parking charge date is 06/08/25. Please advise on next steps to appeal.
Thank you.
Pages: [1]