Author Topic: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail Park, Wolverhampton  (Read 653 times)

0 Members and 18 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hi,

Would appreciate your advice please.

Have see other posts regarding similar issue and wanted some advice before appealing with the standard template letters.

Parked duration: 1 hour

UKCPS has provided photographic evidence of the parked car only (no driver/passenger photos) and a photo of the signage: https://ibb.co/v63NstJm

I am the registered Keeper

I have attached the letter to this post
https://ibb.co/qM8C0NKb
https://ibb.co/SXGJX1nB



thank you
« Last Edit: February 07, 2026, 05:30:29 pm by parkinghelpplease »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


IMO the Notice does not comply with Paragraph 9(2)(e) of Schedule 4 of POFA because it does not "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver".

(Note this is different to the warning required under Paragraph 9(2)(f) which it does comply with.

Can you provide a picture of the signage please?

i've added a photo of the signage posted by UKCPS to original post, however it's not clear what it says from their image.

i've added a photo of the signage posted by UKCPS to original post, however it's not clear what it says from their image.

The photo of the signage doesn't work, please can you try again?

However you uploaded the letters worked, so maybe do the same?
Like Like x 1 View List

i've added a photo of the signage posted by UKCPS to original post, however it's not clear what it says from their image.

The photo of the signage doesn't work, please can you try again?

However you uploaded the letters worked, so maybe do the same?
signage link added in original post

The original PCN is not PoFA compliant.

As pointed out already, it is missing essential mandatory wording from Schedule 4 para. 9(2)(e).

It is also missing the required 'period of parking' - only a single time stamp is provided - this is insufficient information.

The original PCN is not PoFA compliant.

As pointed out already, it is missing essential mandatory wording from Schedule 4 para. 9(2)(e).

It is also missing the required 'period of parking' - only a single time stamp is provided - this is insufficient information.


Thank you, therefore I shall submit an appeal via email using the template letter pointing out that this PCN is not PoFA compliant.

Sorry for the delay in replying as I was unable to access this forum due to the webpage not working/loading.

Here is the statement that I will be using:

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. UKCPS has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. UKCPS have no hope should you try and litigate this, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2026, 12:18:25 am by parkinghelpplease »

Reply from UKCPS today, also added a clearer photo of signage: https://ibb.co/Xfc14mV3

Thank you for your appeal submitted on 15th February 2026. After reviewing your comments, and carefully considering the evidence collected at the time the Parking Charge was issued, we regret to inform you that your appeal has been unsuccessful. The reasons for our decision are detailed below:

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above Parking Charge Notice. We have carefully reviewed your appeal and can confirm that it has been unsuccessful.

The charge was issued because the driver was observed leaving the site, which is a breach of the clearly displayed terms and conditions of parking. Our operative recorded contemporaneous notes confirming that a female with black hair, wearing a blue jacket, black trousers, and pale pink trainers, was seen walking off the site towards the hospital accompanied by two passengers.

While you have raised points regarding keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, please note that this Parking Charge Notice has been issued based on the actions of the driver at the time of the contravention. As you have not identified the driver, liability for the charge currently remains. If you wish to transfer liability, you may do so by submitting a valid Transfer of Liability by providing the full name and serviceable postal address of the driver. Should this information not be supplied, the Parking Charge Notice remains payable.

Parking at the above location requires the driver to remain on-site throughout the entire period of parking. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions, by parking and subsequently leaving the site, will result in the driver being contractually obligated to pay a parking charge.

Attached, you will find photographic evidence showing the vehicle parked at the location mentioned above.

We have extended the opportunity for you to pay the reduced amount of, £60.00, until 05/03/2026, after this date, the full amount of £100.00 will be due.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 05:02:13 pm by parkinghelpplease »

Note that none of your substantive points about non-compliance with PoFA have been answered.
It’s what they do, they simply ignore the valid points you make and address other ones which are mainly irrelevant.
“liability for the charge currently remains” - no it doesn’t. Stating an untruth doesn’t make it true.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 05:35:49 pm by jfollows »