Free Traffic Legal Advice

I don't understand if I'm in the right legally here, why didn't the: “my tenancy is the primary contract” get upheld by POPLA?  Or even POPLA rule in my favour because it's obvious the right thing to do, considering I lived at the property and all the mitigating circumstances involved - Unless they (POPLA) are, as I now feel and as you've intimated, all in it together.

Sorry, not sure what happened to my link, it is a threatening letter the here's the text:

-------------------
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 £100.00 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.

Popla decision received, my appeal was rejected even after the information that was provided (which you kindly helped me with).  Please can you let me know my next course of action, just continue to ignore requests for payment?  I'm fully committed to my decision not to pay as I whole-heartedly disagree with their decision.

Full response copied below, redacted personal info:
--
Decision - Unsuccessful
Assessor Name - XXXX
Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle was parked in a permit area without displaying a permit.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal • They had been renting at XXX – the address on the PCN has a postcode for a different road (XXX) at which there is no number XX • They parked the car in their designated bay whilst sorting tax and insurance details • They were aware of the need for a permit but could not get one immediately (it was a Saturday) • The spoke with ‘Property management company’ and their estate agent on the following Monday when offices were open – messages were left • They had handed in their notice for the property at this point also • They believed they had shown the operator they had a right to park here, with the permit absence explained by mitigating circumstances • They do not disagree they parked in a permit controlled parking area without displaying a permit After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant remarks the tenancy agreement allows parking and does not specify a requirement to display a permit. The appellant remarks a court would not find the £100 parking charge enforceable. The appellant has provided evidence to support their appeal. • Email chain with agent and statement about tenancy • V5 image • Image of the PCN The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.
Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The operator has provided documentary evidence to demonstrate the landowner has entered into a contract with them giving them authority to manage and enforce parking terms. A signage plan has also been submitted to demonstrate the private land upon which the alleged parking breach took place is within their controlled parking area. Whilst I do not doubt that the appellant was a tenant/resident of XXXX on the day of this parking event, I do not conclude there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate a tenancy agreement they have with the property agent exempts them from the parking terms enforced on the land surrounding the residential property. If the appellant believed it the terms of the tenancy agreement that authorised parking, it is unclear why they says they were aware of the need to obtain a separate permit to park. Parking operators are required to source details about the registered keeper from the DVLA only. I note the appellant has raised that the PCN was sent to XXX with a postcode listed for a different road. The appellant has sent a copy of their V5 to show when they acquired the vehicle, and notably this has the postcode XXX which is the same as the one used on the PCN and on the balance of probability sourced from the DVLA. I cannot fault the operator for using postcode that the DVLA held and V5 documents show to be the one associated with the appellant’s address at the time. The appellant evidently received the PCN and was able to appeal to the parking operator and subsequently appeal to POPLA. The postcode on the PCN would have no bearing one whether the vehicle parked compliantly and in line with listed terms and conditions on the 1st of October 2025. The terms of use communicated on signage placed by the operator at the site says that vehicles parked in numbered bays (the non-visitor bays) “Must be parked within designated bay with a valid permit displayed”. Notice is also given then failure to comply with the terms of use will result in a PCN for £100. The operator has submitted a series of time and date stamped images of the appellant vehicle parked in bay 17 within their controlled parking area. The operator has also sent digital images to show what a valid parking permit looks like. There is no valid parking permit seen visible in the appellant’s vehicle. The wardens photographs show the vehicle parked in close proximity to the operator’s terms of use signage. The appellant has explained how they came to own the vehicle at short notice and that it was not immediately possible to obtain a valid parking permit to display in the vehicle using bay 17. The appellant could have parked elsewhere until a permit was obtained to avoid receipt of a PCN. I cannot hold the operator ‘UK Parking Control Ltd’ at fault for any delayed responses from third parties such as ‘*Property Management Company*’ or the agent. I acknowledge the appellant states a court would not consider the £100 parking charge enforceable. 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 should the appellant want to read it. After considering the evidence from both parties, I conclude the appellant parked in a permit area without displaying a valid permit 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.

Trust me, you definitely will not be the first to have been snared by this scam. The main point is that you are not liable for the invoice. You have not breached any contract.

As long as you are aware that they will escalate this all the way to a county court claim in the hope that you are gullible enough to pay it out of ignorance and fear. They also know that if you let it go all the way, they are likely to get spanked in court and so will discontinue if the claim isn't first struck out.

Having just looked at the latest statistics for all claims issued in the county court for the last year, less than 3% ever reach a hearing. That's out of 1.73 million claims issued.

Hi b789,  OK if I follow up on just a couple of things with you?

I submitted my appeal to POPLA, mostly with what you provided (I only tweaked a few things to make it sound as if I was writing it, and added some things which I felt were relevant).   POPLA sent my appeal to UKPC who responded literally within an hour or two with 7 documents full of information - mostly picture of where I was parked.

We did establish that because there was no mention of the advertised parking space being permit-oritentated on my tenancy agreement, that I had no contractual agreement with UKPC.  UKPC went into detail about this and I have copy/pasted their response to POPLA:  "

"The contract between UK Parking Control Ltd and the landowner (or their managing
agent) authorising UKPC to provide parking management, and therefore issue
parking charges to vehicles breaching the terms of parking, is confidential and we
are unable to provide a copy for reasons of commercial sensitivity. We have
however provided a redacted copy, with sensitive information covered. The
redacted contract confirms our authority in an ongoing agreement. If neither party
terminates the contract, as in this case, the contract will continue on a rolling basis.
We have provided the T&C’s in relation to the rolling contract.
Although the BPA Code of Practice outlines what authorisation must set out, we
have also shown that beyond checking documentation; there is equipment, signage
and on occasion personnel on site to manage the function of enforcement and this
cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. I am sure that if the parking
operator was not allowed to issue charges on site the landowner would not permit
the parking operator to keep its signage on site nor would the landowner allow
motorists to park on its land without authorisation"

No doubt this is a generic response - hwoever they did provide a copy of the signed contract between UKPC and the land owner. My response to their authorty to issue me a ticket was that my tenancy is the only contract that matters here. My right to live in the flat – and to use the facilities that come with it.  Will this still hold up, baring in mind that the home owner (my landlord) signed a contract with UKPC themselves?  They further state:
"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." 

Now I'm not really sure how to respond to this, other than saying that I had a sign in my car that if it's photographed, then the individual/company who took that photo, if they didn't obtain permission first, they will need to pay a £100 charge.  I will create a sign and take a picture of it in my car.   However, I know this is a facetious response and I don't really want to go down that route as I do not find this whole situation funny.

Lastly, with regards to my comments to POPLA that the parking charge notice said I wasn't parked in the space the notice said I was, UKPC's response was:

"Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 refers to ‘relevant land’, which
must be specified on a parking charge. However, the act does not require the
identity of the road, or city or any other place- only the ‘relevant land’ is essential.
The name of the land provided by UKPC has been chosen to reflect the site, and in
the cases of large sites, a single name is chosen for convenience, with one address
for ease of location. Of course, large sites such as XXXXX often consist of many
interior roads and areas and it would be impractical to detail every section in one
address of the parking charge notice. Instead, only the name of the relevant land and
a single address are included and as such, we are confident that we have correctly
identified the relevant land, to reasonably reflect the car parking area the parking
charge was issued, and we reject the motorist’s argument that we have failed to do
so."
 
I have written my reply to this, please let me know if you feel any adjustments are required: I have quoted their paragraph and stated: UKPC have stated "the act does not require the identity of the road, or city or any other place- only the ‘relevant land’ is essential".  The parking charge notice should be considered invalid because they did not adhere to schedule 4, as per their comments.   In my charge notice they DID identify the road where I was parked - and it was incorrect. I was not parked at XXXX like the notice states.  I was parked in the parking space allocated to me at XXX when I signed the tenancy agreement.  I have attached confirmation of where my car was parked (in the picture in their notice) in my previous submission, along with an email from my Estate Agent confirming this.

As always, thanks again for your help fighting this.

Good. So we now need to see the PCN, your appeal wording and their appeal rejection. You only need to redact your won personal info, the PCN number and the VRM. Leave everything else unredacted, especially all the dates and times.

You can search the forum for recent POPLA appeals and start to put something together which you can show us before you submit anything.

This will be a life learning experience for you. If you have any pre-existing concerns about this, feel free to ask and we'll try and explain.

PCN attached (redacted)

https://postimg.cc/56Mg07Vx

Appeal wording used:

The reason for my appeal is I am a tenant in the property where my car was parked (in Flat XX, XXX)- this is where you sent the parking charge notice to (please see attached) (edit:  this shows a picture of my car in its designated parking space at the address the PCN was sent to). I did not have a parking permit before purchasing this vehicle on 27/09 because I did not own any vehicle before or during my tenancy here. I recently purchased the vehicle (please see attached - edit: this is the V5C showing acquisition date) 3 days before I was given the charge notice. I did not have time to arrange for a permit from the Estate Agent who let the property to me and I do not have a XXXXX (edit - Management company of the property I was renting) account to request one independently because I am not the property owner. I spoke to my Estate Agent who will happily verify everything I'm saying: XXXXXXXXXXXX Estate Agents in XXX - contact name: XXX - Email address: xXXXXX.  Telephone No: XXX - Happy to provide any further information should you require.

I genuinely (stupidly) thought as soon as they knew I lived at the property, they'd waive the charge. I also replied late to the PCN because I don't really look at hard post anymore as I deal with nearly everything of importance online, but it was still replied to within the allotted time.

Their response:  We have carefully considered your appeal based on the information provided and the evidence supporting the parking charge. In this instance having completed our assessment, we consider the parking charge to have been correctly issued, as the vehicle was parked on site without displaying a valid permit. Our appeals process is now concluded, you may now choose one of the following options: - here they outline how I can pay, if I want to appeal to POPLA or what happens if I just ignore their request - I think you'll be aware that this is mostly generic info so I've not added it to this post.

It was at this point I came to the conclusion that this isn't going away and can't believe they're following through with it.  I started a POPLA appeal, not before going over everything in fine detail this time, noticing the error on the PCN where it states where I was parked (wrong postcode and it saying "in an area" instead of in a designated parking spot.  I didn't want to leave anything to chance with POPLA, so I posted on another forum and someone kindly directed me to here.

I am putting some wording together for POPLA now, thanks again for your help.

Yes, the signs mean nothing if your lease or equivalent do not require you to have a permit.

Thank you for your response.  I do believe, however, that if I use the argument that "my tenancy agreement doesn't state that I require a permit", that their default response would be that my tenancy agreement doesn't say anything about a parking space being part of my tenancy.   

What, PRECISELY, does your lease/tenancy agreement say about parking? What it doesn't say about parking is equally important. For example, does your lease make any mention of a requirement to display a permit?

Once you have shown us everything that your lease says about parking, we can then give you the advice you need on how to deal with this.

Thank you for your response.  I just read through the tenancy agreement and nowhere does it mention anything in there about a parking space.   I read through it thoroughly and also did a search for key words such as park/parking, space, vehicle, permit = nothing at all.   The advertisement which was on rightmove did say it was for a 1-bedroom flat with allocated parking space - mentions nothing about a permit on that, however, the car park itself has a few signs saying this requires a permit.