Free Traffic Legal Advice

A fob off. Escalate your complaint to the NHS Trust CEO. Get back in touch with PALS and remind whichever moron sent you that response that there has been no "PENALTY" Charge Notice issued because an unregulated private parking company of ex-clamper thugs is not and could never be an "authority" that could issue a "penalty" of any kind. Also remind them that no "offence" has been committed. A "PARKING" Charge Notice is simply a speculative invoice form an alleged breach of contract by the driver of the vehicle and their use of the word "penalty" in their correspondence shows a level of ignorance that is embarrassing and will be reported.

Also point them to the Department of Health and Social Care guidance: NHS car parking guidance 2022 for NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts, specifically the bit about "Contracted out parking".

Tell them that you are escalating this to the East Lancashire Hospital Trusts CEO, Martin Hodgson.

You need to immediately send a complaint to the CEO at martin.hodgson@elht.nhs.uk

Quote

Subject: Urgent Complaint Regarding Unjust Parking Charge Notice and PALS Response at Burnley Hospital

Dear Mr. Hodgson,

I am writing to formally complain about the handling of my issue by the PALS department and the unfair Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC), which operates on behalf of Burnley General Hospital.

During a recent emergency visit to the maternity suite, while my wife was heavily pregnant, I parked quickly to get her the urgent care she needed. Upon returning to my vehicle, I found an irregular notice left on the windscreen, stating that a PCN would be sent to the registered keeper by post. That PCN has now been received, but I must highlight a serious issue.

UKPC’s issuance of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). The notice left on my windscreen, regardless of whether it was classed as a proper Notice to Driver (NtD), is effectively an NtD under PoFA. As such, UKPC should not have requested the keeper’s details from the DVLA until 28 days after the issue of the NtD. By requesting these details prematurely, UKPC has breached both the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and PoFA.

This is a serious violation, and it demonstrates that UKPC is operating outside the requirements of its own Code of Practice, effectively making them a "rogue contractor" on your hospital’s premises.

I would also like to draw your attention to the NHS Car Parking Guidance 2022, which makes it clear that:

• "NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of private contractors who run car parks on their behalf."

• "NHS organisations should act against rogue contractors in line with the relevant codes of practice."

• "Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, for example, ‘income from parking charge notices only’."

UKPC’s conduct in this case is unacceptable and in clear violation of both PoFA and the BPA Code of Practice. It is your responsibility, as the Trust, to hold them accountable and ensure that your contractors are operating within the law.

I demand that this PCN be cancelled immediately, and that UKPC’s practices on your hospital grounds be reviewed to ensure compliance with both the law and NHS guidelines. I also expect a formal response regarding how you will address the breaches I have outlined. Furthermore, the PALS department should be better equipped to provide real support rather than simply redirecting patients to appeal directly with rogue contractors like UKPC.

I look forward to your prompt response.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Information]

I have heard back from when i sent the above email today, it said:

Good morning

Please see response below from the Head of Estates to the issues you raised regarding the Parking Charge Notice, following further investigation on your behalf.

With kind regards,
Jacqui


Dear [xxxxxxxxxx],

 

Thank you for your recent correspondence with me in which you raised your concerns.

I asked for a full investigation into each of the issues you raised so that I could provide a response that would address each issue comprehensively.

 

You were not happy with how your complaint was handled by the PALS (Patient Advice and Liaison Service) department.
 

The PALS Team as part of what they do will coordinate responses for patients. In some cases, such as yours, they will contact the relevant department to investigate the concern and ensure the correct advice is given. Since your complaint was regarding a Parking Charge Notice, the PALS Team contacted the Estates and Facilities (Car Parking) service for advice. The advice the PALS Team offered you was advice they received from the Estates and Facilities (Car Parking Team). This advice to follow the appeal process with UKPC and if you were not happy with their response to contact the Trust again, was reasonable advice. The current Trust Car Parking Policy 2023, page 9, paragraph 15 is detailed below;

 

15. PARKING CHARGE NOTICES

 

15.1 If a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is issued, it is the responsibility of the recipient of the PCN to follow the procedure stated on the ticket. It should be noted, not following the procedure may result in increased parking charges being imposed. In the event of an appeal against the PCN, the first level of appeal is with the Car Park Operator as stated.

 

Hence, I can’t see how the PALs Team could have handled your PCN complaint to them any differently. For these reasons, I find it difficult to uphold this part of your complaint.

 

If the company issuing the PCN has not followed the Trust Car Parking policy or breached any code of practice, then the Trust will challenge them, directly which is the second part of your complaint detailed below. 

 

You believed that an unfair Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC), and that they were in serious violation and operating outside the requirements of its own Code of Practice,
 

These were serious allegations, hence I had to request a full response from UK PC.

 

The response below was received on Friday 25th October 2024 and I have reviewed this.

 

Good afternoon.

 

Following your email yesterday regarding the complaint from the motorist, I have consulted with our legal department. Please see the below they have prepared in response to the motorist’s claims:

 

UKPC sets out the following response to the complainant’s allegations that UKPC has failed to comply with (and is in breach of) the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (POFA) and the British Parking Association Code of Practice (the Code) as:

1. The vehicle was issued a Notice to Driver (NtD)
2. UKPC did not wait 28 days after the NtD before issuing a Notice to Keeper (NtK)
 

It appears that the complainant has misunderstood both the provisions of POFA and the Code.

 

No NtD was issued to the vehicle. Section 4 Paragraph 7(2) of POFA is clear that a NtD must have a number of things, including:

1.Specify the vehicle details, land details and period of parking to which the PCN relates
2.Provide details such as the time and date the PCN was issued
3.Inform the driver of the reasons why the PCN arose and the requirement of the PCN
4. Inform the driver of the PCN value, any discounts and period for payment
5. Inform the driver of UKPC’s details and how to raise a dispute or complaint
 

The document which the Trust have requested is placed on vehicles that will receive a PCN do not contain all of the required elements listed above which would make it an NtD under POFA. Therefore, it is disputed that any NtD was issued to the complainant; and the complainant’s assertion that any document left on the vehicle, even if it is not classed as a proper NtD under POFA is still effectively a NtD under POFA is incorrect.

 

UKPC has complied with the requirements of Section 4 of POFA to send a valid NtK to the complainant.

 

Further, the Code provides that to be an effective NtD the document left with the vehicle must meet the requirements of Section 4 of POFA, in particular Paragraph 7(2). If no effective NtD has been given, the Code requires that UKPC complies with the requirements of Section 4 of POFA to send out a NtK.

 

As stated above, UKPC has complied with the requirements of Section 4 of POFA to send a valid NtK to the complainant and as such was in compliance with the Code.

 

Sincerely

Dean Ckark

UKPC.

 

Having read the UK PC response above, it does address your issue with the irregular notice left on the windscreen. It is correct that the Trust requested the parking officers’ issue this as a way of notifying drivers that they will be receive a PCN and also to deter other drivers from parking without displaying a valid pay and display ticket.


I understand why you feel UK PC are in breach of regulations, and having checked the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, paragraph 7 (2), I can agree that this document above (Figure 1) does not fit the description of a Notice to Driver (NtD).

 

Consequently, I find it difficult to see where the law has been broken and to uphold your complaint that UKPC ‘is operating outside the requirements of its own Code of Practice, effectively making them a "rogue contractor" on your hospital’s premises’.

 

I believe my response so far has covered two distinct points you have raised, so I will now move on to address the final point

 

 3. Your statement ‘I demand that the PCN be cancelled immediately’

 

You have explained the events that led to you not displaying the pay and display ticket on 18 September. I understand the stressful conditions you described while trying to ensure your wife received the care she needed.

 

However, I must also re-instate that the first level of appeal for a PCN is with the Car Park Operator and this process is detailed on the PCN document. Following this, an appeal with the reasons and evidence can be escalated to the Trust.

 

At this point, I find it hard to justify an instruction to UKPC to cancel your PCN on the grounds that UK PC have issued you with a PCN unfairly or operated outside code of practice.

 

I would be more comfortable to ask for such a cancellation with the evidence of your mitigations around how the urgent care of your wife on 18th September led to your car being parked without the pay and display ticket.

 

After considering my response if you remain dissatisfied and wish to discuss the matter further or require further information regarding the next stage of complaints resolution, please do not hesitate to contact Customer Relations, Tel 01254 733700, as the Trust is committed to resolving complaints locally.

 

Yours sincerely


Kind regards,



Andrew Appiah MSc(Eng) ICIOB

 

Head of Estates & Facilities (Interim)

I suggest you respond to Mr Appiah at the Trust with the following:

Subject: Formal Response to PCN Complaint – Joint and Several Liability for UKPC’s Actions

Dear Mr. Appiah,

I am writing in response to your letter dated [insert date], regarding my complaint about the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC) at Burnley General Hospital. I appreciate the time taken to review my concerns, but I must address several key points where I believe your response has overlooked both legal and procedural obligations under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. I also hold East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust jointly and severally liable for any future legal action that may arise should UKPC pursue this matter further.

1. Misclassification of the "Parking Charge Notice" as Not an NtD

While the notice left on my vehicle does not meet all the specific requirements under Schedule 4, PoFA 2012 for an official Notice to Driver (NtD) – lacking details such as vehicle information, location, and time of issue – it is explicitly labelled a "Parking Charge Notice" (PCN). This classification and the use of such terminology imply an enforceable charge under PoFA, thereby reasonably inducing me to regard it as an NtD.

The labelling of this notice as a PCN aligns with the function and purpose of an NtD as intended by PoFA: to inform the driver of an alleged breach and the imposition of a charge. Consequently, the notice should be considered an NtD in substance, if not in full form, thus requiring UKPC to observe the 28-day delay before accessing registered keeper details.

2. Substance Over Form – Legal Doctrine and Reasonable Interpretation

In legal interpretation, courts frequently apply the doctrine of “substance over form”, which prioritises the intent and practical effect of a document over its technical format. By labelling this document as a “Parking Charge Notice”, UKPC created the reasonable impression that it serves as a formal notice initiating the enforcement process, effectively functioning as an NtD.

The lack of certain minor details does not negate its role as an NtD, and I would expect the Trust, in holding UKPC accountable to PoFA and BPA Code of Practice, to consider this document in substance as an NtD. Failure to do so could allow UKPC to bypass statutory protections through technical evasions, which is neither in line with PoFA’s intent nor with fair consumer practice.

3. Expectation of the Reasonable Person and Transparency

The notice’s prominent labelling as a “Parking Charge Notice” would lead any reasonable person to interpret it as a formal notice of a charge in line with PoFA procedures. UKPC’s denial that this is an NtD contradicts the reasonable expectation created by their choice of language. By failing to treat this notice as an NtD and by accessing my details prematurely, UKPC has violated both PoFA and BPA Code of Practice guidelines, which your Trust is obligated to enforce through your contract with them.

4. NHS Trust Liability – Obligations Under NHS Car Parking Guidance 2022

The NHS Car Parking Guidance 2022 clearly states that NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of contractors managing parking on their behalf. It further emphasises that contracts with parking operators should be managed to prevent rogue practices and to ensure compliance with relevant codes of practice.

UKPC’s actions in this instance are not only non-compliant with PoFA and the BPA Code of Practice but could also be viewed as contrary to NHS guidance, particularly in failing to respect the rights of vehicle keepers. East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust has an obligation to ensure that UKPC adheres to both legal requirements and ethical standards, particularly when dealing with vulnerable patients attending medical facilities.

5. Joint and Several Liability for Future Legal Action

In light of the above points, I hold East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust jointly and severally liable for any future legal action that may arise should UKPC pursue this PCN. The Trust’s contractual relationship with UKPC places it in a position of accountability, particularly where contractors are found to be operating outside of legal guidelines and established codes of practice.

Should UKPC pursue further action, I will not hesitate to include the Trust as a co-defendant, based on its duty of care to enforce compliance with PoFA and the BPA Code. By allowing UKPC to operate in such a manner, the Trust is effectively endorsing practices that could result in unfair legal claims against innocent motorists, which is entirely unacceptable for an organisation committed to patient welfare.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I expect East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust to hold UKPC accountable for adhering to all statutory requirements, including PoFA’s 28-day delay requirement following a Notice to Driver. I further expect that this PCN will be cancelled immediately, given the numerous procedural errors outlined above, and that steps will be taken to ensure UKPC’s compliance with PoFA and NHS guidelines on your premises.

Please confirm in writing within 14 days how the Trust intends to address these issues and whether UKPC will be instructed to cancel this PCN. Should the Trust choose not to act on this matter, I will take appropriate steps to protect my legal rights, including holding the Trust accountable as a joint party in any further action.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Contact Information]

Hi,

Thank you so much for this, i have sent this off. I will update when i get a reply.

I suggest you respond to Mr Appiah at the Trust with the following:

Quote

Subject: Formal Response to PCN Complaint – Joint and Several Liability for UKPC’s Actions

Dear Mr. Appiah,

I am writing in response to your letter dated [insert date], regarding my complaint about the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC) at Burnley General Hospital. I appreciate the time taken to review my concerns, but I must address several key points where I believe your response has overlooked both legal and procedural obligations under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. I also hold East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust jointly and severally liable for any future legal action that may arise should UKPC pursue this matter further.

1. Misclassification of the "Parking Charge Notice" as Not an NtD

While the notice left on my vehicle does not meet all the specific requirements under Schedule 4, PoFA 2012 for an official Notice to Driver (NtD) – lacking details such as vehicle information, location, and time of issue – it is explicitly labelled a "Parking Charge Notice" (PCN). This classification and the use of such terminology imply an enforceable charge under PoFA, thereby reasonably inducing me to regard it as an NtD.

The labelling of this notice as a PCN aligns with the function and purpose of an NtD as intended by PoFA: to inform the driver of an alleged breach and the imposition of a charge. Consequently, the notice should be considered an NtD in substance, if not in full form, thus requiring UKPC to observe the 28-day delay before accessing registered keeper details.

2. Substance Over Form – Legal Doctrine and Reasonable Interpretation

In legal interpretation, courts frequently apply the doctrine of “substance over form”, which prioritises the intent and practical effect of a document over its technical format. By labelling this document as a “Parking Charge Notice”, UKPC created the reasonable impression that it serves as a formal notice initiating the enforcement process, effectively functioning as an NtD.

The lack of certain minor details does not negate its role as an NtD, and I would expect the Trust, in holding UKPC accountable to PoFA and BPA Code of Practice, to consider this document in substance as an NtD. Failure to do so could allow UKPC to bypass statutory protections through technical evasions, which is neither in line with PoFA’s intent nor with fair consumer practice.

3. Expectation of the Reasonable Person and Transparency

The notice’s prominent labelling as a “Parking Charge Notice” would lead any reasonable person to interpret it as a formal notice of a charge in line with PoFA procedures. UKPC’s denial that this is an NtD contradicts the reasonable expectation created by their choice of language. By failing to treat this notice as an NtD and by accessing my details prematurely, UKPC has violated both PoFA and BPA Code of Practice guidelines, which your Trust is obligated to enforce through your contract with them.

4. NHS Trust Liability – Obligations Under NHS Car Parking Guidance 2022

The NHS Car Parking Guidance 2022 clearly states that NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of contractors managing parking on their behalf. It further emphasises that contracts with parking operators should be managed to prevent rogue practices and to ensure compliance with relevant codes of practice.

UKPC’s actions in this instance are not only non-compliant with PoFA and the BPA Code of Practice but could also be viewed as contrary to NHS guidance, particularly in failing to respect the rights of vehicle keepers. East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust has an obligation to ensure that UKPC adheres to both legal requirements and ethical standards, particularly when dealing with vulnerable patients attending medical facilities.

5. Joint and Several Liability for Future Legal Action

In light of the above points, I hold East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust jointly and severally liable for any future legal action that may arise should UKPC pursue this PCN. The Trust’s contractual relationship with UKPC places it in a position of accountability, particularly where contractors are found to be operating outside of legal guidelines and established codes of practice.

Should UKPC pursue further action, I will not hesitate to include the Trust as a co-defendant, based on its duty of care to enforce compliance with PoFA and the BPA Code. By allowing UKPC to operate in such a manner, the Trust is effectively endorsing practices that could result in unfair legal claims against innocent motorists, which is entirely unacceptable for an organisation committed to patient welfare.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I expect East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust to hold UKPC accountable for adhering to all statutory requirements, including PoFA’s 28-day delay requirement following a Notice to Driver. I further expect that this PCN will be cancelled immediately, given the numerous procedural errors outlined above, and that steps will be taken to ensure UKPC’s compliance with PoFA and NHS guidelines on your premises.

Please confirm in writing within 14 days how the Trust intends to address these issues and whether UKPC will be instructed to cancel this PCN. Should the Trust choose not to act on this matter, I will take appropriate steps to protect my legal rights, including holding the Trust accountable as a joint party in any further action.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Contact Information]

Have you sent this letter?

Do you have a copy of the Trust's Car Parking Policy?

As expected. UKPC will always reject an appeal. There's no money it for them if they don't.

So, you now have a POPLA code and you need to prepare an appeal to them based on the points I have already given you earlier. You have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection to submit the POPLA appeal so, no rush.

Show us what you think is suitable for the POPLA appeal and we will provide corrections and suggestions to make sure it is suitable for submission.

No one pays UKPC PCNs if they are getting advice here. Even if it went all the way to a court claim, it would eventually be discontinued.

Good evening,

I hope you can provide some feedback on my POPLA appeal below, thanks in advance!

POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC)

PCN Number:

Vehicle Registration:

Grounds for Appeal:

    Failure to Adhere to the Requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
    The Operator Has Not Shown That the Individual Being Pursued Is the Driver.
    Inadequate Signage Leading to a Breach of the BPA Code of Practice.
    No Evidence of Landholder Authority.
    Misleading and Predatory Tactics.

1. Failure to Adhere to the Requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

To hold a registered keeper liable for a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), UKPC must fully comply with all procedural and substantive requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). This includes:

    Premature Issuance of the Notice to Keeper (NtK):
        Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(4) of PoFA mandates that when a Notice to Driver (NtD) has been issued, the operator must wait a minimum of 28 days before serving a Notice to Keeper (NtK).
        In this case, an NtD was affixed to the vehicle, yet the NtK was sent before the 28-day period had elapsed, violating the statutory timeline. This procedural failure invalidates the ability of UKPC to transfer liability to the registered keeper.

    Omission of Required Information in the NtK:

        Paragraph 8(2) of PoFA outlines specific information that must be included in the NtK. UKPC's NtK does not meet these requirements in full. For example, it fails to:
            Clearly state the period of parking to which the charge relates.
            Specify the steps taken to identify the driver before pursuing the registered keeper.

        The absence of this information renders the NtK non-compliant with PoFA, meaning the registered keeper cannot be held liable.

2. The Operator Has Not Shown That the Individual Being Pursued Is the Driver

UKPC has relied solely on the assumption that the registered keeper was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. Under Paragraph 4(1) of PoFA, only the driver can be held liable unless strict compliance with PoFA enables the operator to transfer liability to the registered keeper.

    No evidence, such as photographic identification of the driver, has been provided by UKPC.
    As per the legal principle established in CPS Ltd v AJH Films Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1453, liability cannot simply be inferred based on keeper information without substantiating evidence.

Since UKPC has not identified the driver and has failed to meet the conditions for keeper liability, the PCN cannot be enforced.

3. Inadequate Signage Leading to a Breach of the BPA Code of Practice

The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires that parking terms and conditions be clearly and prominently displayed. In this case:

    Signs at the location were either obscured, too small, or positioned in a way that made them unreadable.
    The signage failed to comply with BPA Code of Practice Section 19, which requires that terms be clear, unambiguous, and visible to all motorists.
    At the time of the alleged contravention, the signage did not adequately communicate the parking terms, leading to confusion.

This failure undermines any alleged contractual agreement and invalidates the claim.

4. No Evidence of Landholder Authority

UKPC has failed to demonstrate its authority to issue parking charges on this land. According to Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, parking operators must have written authorization from the landholder confirming their authority to manage parking at the site.

    UKPC has not provided a copy of their contract with the landowner or evidence of their legal authority to issue PCNs.
    Without such proof, UKPC cannot demonstrate that they have the right to enforce parking terms or pursue charges.

5. Misleading and Predatory Tactics

UKPC’s conduct in this matter was misleading and predatory:

    The NtK was issued prematurely, and their response to my initial appeal was dismissive, failing to address key legal points raised regarding PoFA compliance.
    The aggressive issuance of this PCN during a maternity-related hospital visit reflects poorly on UKPC’s adherence to BPA’s principles of fairness and proportionality.

The NHS Car Parking Guidance 2022 emphasizes the importance of parking policies that accommodate patients and their families, particularly in urgent medical situations. UKPC’s actions in this case contravene these principles and bring disrepute to their parking management practices.
Conclusion

In light of the above points, this PCN is invalid and unenforceable. UKPC has failed to:

    Comply with the procedural requirements of PoFA.
    Establish who was driving the vehicle at the time.
    Provide evidence of clear and adequate signage.
    Demonstrate landholder authority.
    Conduct themselves in a manner consistent with BPA’s Code of Practice and NHS Car Parking Guidance.

I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the PCN.

Yours sincerely,

Have you had a response from Mr Appiah yet?

Here is a more detailed POPLA appeal based on your circumstances:

POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC)

PCN Number: [Insert PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert Vehicle Registration]

POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC)

Grounds for Appeal

1. The Windscreen Note Constitutes a Notice to Driver (NtD) Under PoFA, and the Notice to Keeper (NtK) Was Premature.

2. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the Requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

3. UKPC Has Not Proven That the Individual Being Pursued Was the Driver.

4. Inadequate Signage Breaching the BPA Code of Practice.

5. No Evidence of Landholder Authority.

1. The Windscreen Note Constitutes a Notice to Driver (NtD) Under PoFA, and the NtK Was Premature. The Windscreen Note Was Presented as a Notice to Driver (NtD)

The document left on the vehicle windscreen was enclosed in a yellow plastic envelope marked “Parking Charge Notice”, giving the appearance of a formal NtD. The design, language, and presentation of this document were clearly intended to mimic an official NtD, fulfilling the role of an NtD for all practical purposes.



By leaving this document on the vehicle, UKPC initiated the procedural process described in Schedule 4, Paragraph 8 of PoFA, which requires operators to wait a minimum of 28 days before serving a Notice to Keeper (NtK).

UKPC Cannot Circumvent PoFA by Issuing an Improper NtD. If UKPC claims the windscreen note was not a valid NtD, they are effectively admitting to issuing a non-compliant notice.

This non-compliance cannot exempt them from PoFA requirements. UKPC cannot rely on the windscreen note as evidence of a contravention while simultaneously denying its status as an NtD to circumvent the 28-day timeline mandated by Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(4).

Premature NtK

UKPC issued the NtK only two days after leaving the windscreen note. This premature issuance violates PoFA, rendering the NtK invalid.

2. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with PoFA

To transfer liability to the registered keeper, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). UKPC’s NtK fails to meet the mandatory requirements, rendering it invalid.

Omission of Mandatory Information

Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(2) of PoFA specifies the information that must be included in the NtK. UKPC’s NtK omits a key detail, the period of parking to which the charge relates. Without this information, the NtK is non-compliant with PoFA, and the operator cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper.

PoFA specifically states, irrespective of whether under paragraph 8 or 9 that the notice MUST: "specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates." An NtK, whether issued under paragraph 8 or 9 of Schedule 4 of PoFA is required to fully comply with ALL the requirements of the Act. Partial or even substantial compliance is insufficient.


3. UKPC Has Not Proven That the Individual Being Pursued Was the Driver

UKPC has not identified the driver at the time of the alleged contravention and instead relies on assumptions that the registered keeper was the driver.

Legal Requirements

Schedule 4 of PoFA allows liability to be transferred to the registered keeper only if the operator fully complies with ALL its requirements. UKPC has provided no evidence, to establish the identity of the driver. The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. The NtK can only hold the driver liable.

Relevant Legal Precedent

In VCS v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C], the court considered the issue of driver identification. From paragraph 31 onwards, it was emphasised that:

• A parking operator must present substantive evidence to demonstrate who the driver was at the time of the alleged contravention.
• Liability cannot simply be presumed based on the registered keeper’s details or their correspondence.

This case reinforces that unless the operator identifies the driver, they cannot hold anyone liable as the driver unless PoFA's strict conditions for transferring liability to the registered keeper are met. In this case, UKPC has failed to provide any such evidence, relying solely on the registered keeper’s details to pursue this charge.

4. Inadequate Signage Breaching the BPA Code of Practice

UKPC’s signage at the site fails to meet the standards set by the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, Section 19.

Poor Visibility and Clarity

The signs were either obscured, too small, or positioned in a way that made them unreadable. Key parking terms were not clearly communicated, leading to confusion.

Failure to Form a Contract

The lack of clear, prominent, and legible signage means no contract was formed between the driver and UKPC. This invalidates the parking charge.

5. No Evidence of Landholder Authority

UKPC is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.

The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules.

A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, consideration periods, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.

Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and, of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement). Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

(a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
(b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
(c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
(d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
(e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

Conclusion

In light of the above points, this Parking Charge Notice is invalid and unenforceable. UKPC has failed to:

• Adhere to the procedural requirements of PoFA regarding Notices to Driver and Keeper.
• Issue a Notice to Keeper that complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
• Establish who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention.
• Provide clear and adequate signage in line with BPA guidelines.
• Demonstrate their authority to operate on the land in question.

I request that POPLA allow this appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

OP, maybe a bit late but IMO we could be missing a trick.

The scope of POPLA includes whether the operator has complied with the applicable Code of Practice, not just PoFA.

So, what does the CoP say about a Notice to Driver NOT what does PoFA state but what does the operator's own code state.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2021/3254.html

Page 13, para. 21.4

'..the document you give to drivers or attach to their windscreens to tell them they have broken your terms and conditions...'.

The Code IS NOT applicable only to claims pursued under PoFA because the code anticipates that not all claims would be made using the 'keeper liability' provisions of PoFA.

So IMO your approach to POPLA should be:

Could this document reasonably be considered a Notice to Driver for the purposes of the code, and
Could this document reasonably be considered a Notice to Driver for the purposes of PoFA, and

If neither applies, then prima facie this is a breach of the operator's duty under the code to make a driver aware that the operator intends to hold them or the keeper liable and this appeal should be allowed, or

If either applies then the appeal should be allowed by virtue of the prematurity of the Notice to Keeper and failure to provide the specifics in the notice specified under the code.