1. Please upload everything.
2. You need to rebut anything they claim with which you do not agree, or else it could be argued that you agree with what they say.

OK, I'll upload everything.
Thank you

I assume the debt collectors letter does not relate to the PCN(s) for which you are still awaiting a POPLA response?

Debt collectors can be ignored. You await a letter from solicitors in the form of a Letter of Claim.

Hi there DWMB2,
yes you're right, the debt collectors letter does not relate to the PCN which is pending POPLA response.

So, for all the remaining PCN, the idea is to let them go through till the form of a letter of claim is issued, and then come back here to go through next steps ?

Quote from: littlebee on July 02, 2026, 08:08:50 am

Is there a particular template letter to follow when raising to POPLA ? And should a response be sent to the PCN issuer at the same time ?

If you have a POPLA code, just appeal to them, no need to contact the parking company again. I'd do a search on here, there should be some previous examples of hirers that have gone to POPLA.

Hello all,

Still waiting for a POPLA decision, its moved to stage 2 (with the operator). I guess it can take a while before they have fully reviewed and come to a decision.

With regards to the other PCNs, is it best to wait for POPLA to make a decision on the 1st one ?

Hi all,

here are some more pictures inside the carpark - any support to respond to the 4 PCN's would be very much appreciated.


Exiting Car Park
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pOT-3cDmorcsZMnHfh6D7K5YmHbVx8l5/view?usp=drive_link

Some of the signage inside the car park

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OfF9jalV08qWFop_uh-qsZSf7iQ78wOw/view?usp=drive_link

Some of the signage inside the car park (2)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kSWJcpeB_lyGL3PAYTNEOzKKQIU7VuTM/view?usp=drive_link

Pay Here

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iLhnS_zPUj_dZ5swvfzFNg22JKsUYGR4/view?usp=drive_link

also received a 2nd letter from bwlegal....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Pet8BDD8hefwEYs7tkiayvtYBDuhzUk8/view?usp=drive_link

They are all over a month ago, so you are too late to appeal now.  You can either pay, or wait for them to issue a court claim and defend it from there - there will be a blizzard of debt collector letters before that, and eventually a letter of claim.  This should be responded to so come back and post it when you receive it.  You have redacted too much of the info on the PCNs, but it looks like there are failings on them which will prevent transfer of liability to the keeper - but you will probably need to go nearly all the way to a hearing to explain this.

Hi Richard,
Thanks for your message.

Is there no point in send a response to the PCN issuer - and would the drafted letter above be suffice ?

Also, received a debt from bwlegal, I posted this earlier on this thread, but have included the details below as well as the letter - how best to respond to this ? Any advice would be much appreciated.



Hello,

Someone called ''bwlegal'' has now issued a recovery letter, link included below.

How best to deal with this and the earlier PCNs issued by UKPA ?

Any advice would be much appreciated - there are a number of PCNs they have issued (listed above) and your help could really help me.
Thank you

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-cwh2rdRNSv97tsN2fU94_bh3tdTWvrH/view?usp=sharing

Hi all,

Below is a draft and asking for your help whether this is suffcient to sent to the PCN issuer, is there anything to be added or removed:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write as the registered keeper of the above vehicle.

The Parking Charge Notice is disputed in its entirety.

For the avoidance of doubt, this appeal is submitted solely by the registered keeper. No admission is made as to the identity of the driver and the registered keeper is under no legal obligation to identify the driver. Nothing contained within this correspondence should be taken as such an admission.

The operator bears the burden of proving that a legally enforceable parking contract was formed with the driver and that all contractual terms were adequately brought to the driver's attention.

The registered keeper disputes that this burden can be discharged for the following reasons.

1. Failure to establish a clear contractual agreement

The operator alleges that payment was required. However, it must demonstrate that the contractual terms relied upon were clearly displayed, prominent, unambiguous and capable of being accepted before any contract was formed.

A mere assertion that payment was not made does not establish that a legally enforceable contract existed.

2. Confusing operation of the site

This location has historically operated differently from the system now described by the operator.

Historically, motorists who were required to pay would ordinarily do so before leaving the site, with the exit barrier remaining closed until payment had been made or assistance had been provided.

Following the change in parking management, the operation of the site appeared materially different. On numerous occasions the exit barriers were observed to be permanently open, to lift automatically without any apparent payment verification, or to be visibly damaged and undergoing repair or maintenance. Engineers were frequently observed attending the barrier equipment.

Against that background, the operation of the site became inconsistent and capable of causing genuine uncertainty as to the parking arrangements in force.

If the operator contends that the site had changed to a "pay on entry" system, it is put to strict proof that this significant change was clearly, prominently and unambiguously communicated to motorists.

3. Strict proof of system reliability

The operator is put to strict proof that:

the payment terminals were fully operational;

the ANPR system was functioning correctly;

the barrier equipment was operating correctly;

no maintenance, faults or outages affected the site on the dates in question;

all timestamps and payment records are accurate.


In light of the repeated observations of barrier maintenance and inconsistent barrier operation, a generic assertion that no payment was recorded is insufficient.

4. Strict proof of landowner authority

The operator is put to strict proof that it holds a contemporaneous written agreement with the landowner authorising it to:

enter into contracts with motorists;

issue Parking Charge Notices in its own name; and

pursue unpaid parking charges through civil proceedings.


A mere site agreement or witness statement will not be sufficient.

5. Keeper liability

Should the operator seek to pursue the registered keeper, it is put to strict proof that every statutory requirement necessary to establish keeper liability has been complied with.

6. Failure to properly consider representations

Should this appeal be rejected, the operator is requested to address each substantive point raised rather than issuing a generic response asserting only that payment was not identified.

If the operator rejects this appeal, please provide:

a POPLA verification code;

copies of all photographs relied upon;

payment machine audit logs;

maintenance and fault records relating to the payment and barrier systems;

ANPR audit records;

copies of the signage relied upon;

and a copy of the contemporaneous landowner agreement.


The registered keeper reserves all rights and will rely upon any additional legal and evidential grounds in any subsequent appeal or proceedings.

Yours faithfully,

[Registered Keeper]

So you can kill the lease car PCN by appealing to POPLA as hirer stating that the required documents were not served with the NtH.

Then we can examine the others.

So far as I can see, the NtKs are not totally PoFA complaint.

Hi InterCity125

The Appeal to POPLA for the lease vehicles has been submitted.

How best to tackle the issued PCN for the other personal vehicles ?