#6 Re: UKPC Kingsley Village, Fraddon. Not parked within the markings of bay or space.
on 13 Feb, 2026 21:56 in Private parking tickets
I've now had a reply from POPLA.Any advice would be appreciated.It states: 'You have 7 days from the operator evidence submission date - 13/02/2026. You will not have opportunity to edit or add further detail once you have submitted your comments.'The case summary includes the text as well as some site photos and the prior correspondence.QuoteOn the 21/12/2025, our parking operative issued a parking charge virtually to vehicle registration xxxx at Kingsley Village Shopping Park (Car Park 1). The parking charge was issued because the vehicle was not parked correctly in the bay markings.Following the parking event on 21/12/2025, UKPC had reasonable cause to obtain the details of the registered keeper from the DVLA for the purposes of issuing a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by post- a copy of this PCN is included in this pack. The PCN was issued on 24/12/2025The parking charge rate was £100.00, reduced to £60.00 if payment was received within fourteen days.An appeal was received from the vehicle driver MR CHRISTOPHER on the 04/01/2026, which the appeals department investigated and decided to reject.Whilst UKPC note the comments, we cannot accept them as evidence when reviewing a parking charge notice. A bay is an area that is clearly defined on both sides in which the vehicle is to park. The area in which the appellant’s vehicle was parked was not an authorised parking bay, as there were no clear line markings delineating a designated parking space. The bays are clearly identifiable and distinguishable from the unmarked area used by the appellant. By parking outside ofa designated bay, the appellant’s vehicle was positioned in a manner that caused an obstruction.The appellant asserts that keeper liability does not apply under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 on the basis that the driver has not been identified. However, the operator has fully complied with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. A copy of the Notice to Keeper has been provided, which contains all mandatory information prescribed by the Act and was issued within the required statutory timescales. As such, keeper liability has been correctly established, and the appellant’s submission on this point is without merit.We can confirm that the relevant correspondence was issued and sent accordingly. we have no control over any issues relating to the postal service. In accordance withParagraph 8(6) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), a notice sent by post is presumed—unless proven otherwise—to have been delivered, and therefore 'given', on the second working day after the date of posting. For the purposes of this provision, a 'working day' excludes Saturdays, Sundays, and public holidays.For the avoidance of doubt, the purpose of entrance signs is solely to advise Page 2 of 25motorists they are entering into private land and there are parking conditions they must be aware of.Our signage conforms to the guidelines set out within the code, and we are audited regularly by the BPA for those standards; the signs must be provided to make it easy for motorists to find out what the terms and conditions areand that the signs contain 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. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. The BPA audits have confirmed that we follow this to their standard.Signage does not need to be positioned immediately adjacent to every vehicle that parks on site, it is the responsibility of the motorist to take reasonable steps to observe and comply with the instructions displayed on the entrance signage. Motorists are expected to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions of parking as clearly communicated at the point of entry.Please see attached a signage plan showing the signage locations, the entrance signage proof and onsite signage proof. We feel it reasonable to suggest that the driver was advised sufficiently of the terms & conditions of parking on site. A driver is permitted a consideration period by clause 5.1 Annex B of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) to review the signs and decide if they are going to stay or go. The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with the motorist. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave. The consideration period may end earlier than the times prescribed in Annex B where there is evidence that the driver has accepted the terms and conditions. The vehicle was parked adjacent to the signage and no one was at the signage or in the vehicle, which supports the conclusion that a parking event did take place.The appellant has stated that the keeper liability warning is not in the prescribed PoFA 2012 format. Section 9(2)(f) states that the notice must warn the keeper that: “if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;” Having reviewed the notice, I am satisfied that it specifies all of this information. Although I appreciate that it may not be stated verbatim, it contains the necessary information nonetheless. The appellant has stated that there isn’t a clear date that the period of parking. Having reviewed the notice, I can see that it specifies the date as 21/12/2025.The contract between UK Parking Control Ltd and the landowner (or their managingagent) 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 Page 3 of 25have 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.UKPC must maintain a consistent approach when issuing and upholding a charge. In this instance, this vehicle had been parked on site in direct breach of the terms and conditions of parking on site as stated on signage. The vehicle was parked in close proximity to UKPC signage, please see all photographic evidence to support this.UK Parking Control signage complies fully with section 3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice and we reject the suggestion that it is vague or misleading. Entrance signage advises motorists that terms of parking apply, and that notices within the car park should be checked to identify the full terms and conditions. These notices are placed throughout the car park. It is ultimately the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they identify the terms of parking, and then decide whether to park their vehicle, or leave the site if they are unable to meet those terms.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 andexplains 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.Ultimately, it is fundamentally the responsibility of the motorist to identify the termsof parking when leaving their vehicle on private land. If they feel they are unable to adhere to the terms, they may leave the site before agreeing to those terms.There are sufficient signs advising drivers that not parking within bay markings may result in a parking charge being issued. MR CHRISTOPHER's the vehiclewas not parked correctly in the bay markings; consequently, the parking charge was issued correctly.A letter was sent to MR CHRISTOPHER informing him of our decision on the 27/01/2026I've started my comments as follows:The operator UKPC seems to have buried the first ground of the appeal: 1. No contract: On page 3 of the 'case+summary' UKPC include a paragraph "A driver is permitted a consideration period by clause 5.1 Annex B of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) ..... The vehicle was parked adjacent to the signage and no one was at the signage or in the vehicle, which supports the conclusion that a parking event did take place........"Firstly, the vehicle was NOT parked adjacent to the signage. This is clearly obvious from UKPC's own photographic evidence.Secondly, The NtK actually only specifies one moment in time - that being '21/12/2025 at 11:12:14'. However, none of the photographs on the website 'https://ukpcappeals.co.uk/Appeal/Review' include a timestamp of '11:12:14'. Thirdly, The COMMENTARY ON ANNEX B states "The purpose of this Annex is to set the MANDATORY minima for the consideration and grace periods that parking operators are required to apply in accordance with 5.1 and 5.2....... The minimum consideration and grace periods listed in Table B.1 must be applied by parking operators." Table B.1 gives the minimum consideration period as 5 minutes."It is important to note that where there is evidence the consideration period has expired the minimum period of time for the consideration is not relevant however, the operator should retain evidence to show how the consideration period had ended. The significance of whether the consideration has expired is fundamental as it is the point the driver has accepted the terms and conditions attached to the controlled land in question." This section of the code is totally irrelevant as it lends itself to subjectivity unless there is clear evidence that a vehicle was parked for at least 5 minutes or unless UKPC are able to state what a reasonable time period would be for any person of average ability to exit a vehicle, find signage, read all the small print of the terms and conditions and then return to a vehicle. UKPC photographic evidence is time-stamped 11:11:54, 11:11:56 and 11:11:48. I would suggest that 8 seconds is not sufficient time for any person of average ability to exit a vehicle, find signage, read all the small print of the terms and conditions and then return to a vehicle and leave the premises.Section 5 states “As a matter of contract law, drivers need to be given an appropriate opportunity to understand and decide whether to accept the terms and conditions that apply should they choose to park a vehicle on controlled land.”Also, there is no evidence that the driver had accepted the terms and conditions i.e. there is no evidence the driver parking the vehicle and left the premises or that the car remained stationary for more than 5 minutes. UKPC also state "The appellant has stated that there isn’t a clear date that the period of parking."This is possibly an untruth as it is incoherent. The appeal refers to no evidence of the consideration period having expired - it does not dispute the date.COMMENTARY ON ANNEX B "The purpose of this Annex is to set the mandatory minima for the consideration and grace periods that parking operators are required to apply in accordance with 5.1 and 5.2. Factors to be taken into account are detailed in the relevant clauses. It is important to note that where there is evidence the consideration period has expired the minimum period of time for the consideration is not relevant however, the operator should retain evidence to show how the consideration period had ended. The significance of whether the consideration has expired is fundamental as it is the point the driver has accepted the terms and conditions attached to the controlled land in question. A consideration period is not a free period of parking. B.1 The minimum consideration and grace periods listed in Table B.1 must be applied by parking operators."3. Inadequate signage/Ambiguous SignageUKPC state "The area in which the appellant’s vehicle was parked was not an authorised parking bay, as there were no clear line markings delineating a designated parking space. The bays are clearly identifiable and distinguishable from the unmarked area used by the appellant. By parking outside ofa designated bay, the appellant’s vehicle was positioned in a manner that caused an obstruction."It is clear from both UKPC and the keepers photographic evidence that the vehicle was NOT positioned in a manner that caused an obstruction. And I would reiterate the comments in the appeal at section 3.UKPC state "it is the responsibility of the motorist to take reasonable steps to observe and comply with the instructions displayed on the entrance signage. Motorists are expected to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions of parking as clearly communicated at the point of entry." I would reiterate the comments in the appeal at section 3.Also, UKPC's own signage plan shows there is only one 'Entry' sign (number 1 on the plan). The picture dated 8 July 2025 seems to show the entry sign at that date but is photographed from a standing position in front of the sign. However, I would reiterate the comments of the appeal: 'The keeper has identified that the entrance sign is on the left of the vehicle and is not legible from the driver's seat of a vehicle entering from the road into the development except for the words “P 3 Hours Maximum Stay”.'UKPC's photographic evidence cannot be relied upon as it is out of date and not viewed from the position of a driver's seat of a vehicle entering the car park. UKPC state "The vehicle was parked in close proximity to UKPC signage, please see all photographic evidence to support this." It is clear from both UKPC's and the keepers photographic evidence that the vehicle was NOT parked in close proximity to UKPC signage. The keepers photographic evidence shows the closest signage is behind foliage and at a height that makes the font illegible from a standing position. UKPC state "UK Parking Control signage complies fully with section 3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice and we reject the suggestion that it is vague or misleading". However, they have not addressed the existence of the other signs in the keepers photographic evidence one of which indicates the property “is managed by Savills” and another which indicate “Parking time limit is 3 hours” without any conditions attached. It should be noted that Savills is party to the redacted contract provided by UKPC.