Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all,
The driver of the vehicle illustrated in the links below received a Notice to keeper from UKPC in regards to an alleged offence of 'not being parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space'at Great Western Industrial Park, Armstrong Way , Southall. I have attached links to images of the notice received and would like to ask for advice on whether this is an enforceable notice?

https://ibb.co/DVYd7F4
https://ibb.co/c6gwqgK

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks for the response b789, appreciate the advice.

Ok, will send this over to them via their appeals portal and record all submissions.

Thanks again and will update on the response.

SO show us the rejection letter. You have 33 days from the date of the rejection letter to submit an appeal to POPLA.

So you have until 22nd March to submit a POPLA appeal. The evidential photo on the NtK does not appear to show the alleged contravention. There are likely to be other photos on their website. Check them and if you can, show them to us.

What was the drivers reasoning for not parking within the markings of a bay or space? Can you get some photos of the terms and condition signs at the location? One close up and several of the general layout.

There is no "period of parking" on the NtK which means that it is not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the Keeper liable. Any POPLA appeal will rely on this point and the usual rubbish signs at any UKPC car park not being able to form a contract with the driver.

Just wait for their appeal rejection and then we will deal with a POPLA appeal and a formal complaint to UKPC.

Apologies. Yes you did receive your POPLA code and you have until 22nd March to submit your POPLA appeal.

Here is a suggested draft POPLA appeal:

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

APPELLANT: Registered Keeper
PARKING OPERATOR: UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC)
PCN REFERENCE: [Insert PCN Number]
VEHICLE REGISTRATION: [Insert Vehicle Registration]
DATE OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION: 13/01/2025
DATE OF NTK ISSUE: 15/01/2025

The appeal is based on the following grounds:

1. UKPC’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

2. No Presumption That the Keeper Was the Driver

3. Faded Bay Markings – No Clear Contravention

4. Insufficient Evidence – UKPC’s Photos Do Not Prove a Breach

5. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed

6. Lack of Landowner Authority – No Proof of UKPC’s Right to Operate

1. UKPC’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

• UKPC has not met the statutory requirements under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

• The NtK issued only states that the vehicle was observed at 16:32, which is a single moment in time, not a period of parking.

• Case law in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H] confirms that PoFA requires a defined period of parking, and a mere timestamp does not satisfy this requirement.

• Since UKPC has failed to comply with PoFA, Keeper liability does not apply, and they can only pursue the driver, whom they have not identified.

Accordingly, POPLA must rule that the PCN is unenforceable against the Keeper.

2. No Presumption That the Keeper Was the Driver

• UKPC has made no attempt to identify the driver and is attempting to hold the Registered Keeper liable without meeting PoFA compliance.

• In VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9CC], the court reaffirmed that there is no presumption in law that the Keeper was the driver.

• The Registered Keeper has exercised their right not to name the driver, and no adverse inference can be drawn.

As UKPC has not identified the driver, and the Keeper is not liable under PoFA, the PCN must be cancelled.

3. Faded Bay Markings – No Clear Contravention

• The alleged contravention is “Not parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space”, but UKPC has failed to provide clear evidence that a breach occurred.

• The parking bay lines at the location are faded and indistinct, making it impossible for a driver to determine exact bay boundaries.

• The alleged contravention is therefore ambiguous, and the burden of proof lies with UKPC to demonstrate a clear breach.

Given the state of the markings, there is no reasonable expectation that a driver could fully comply, and no enforceable contract could be formed.

4. Insufficient Evidence – UKPC’s Photos Do Not Prove a Breach

• The evidential photos provided in the NtK and on UKPC’s website are all taken from a single front-facing position.

• These images do not clearly show the vehicle outside of the bay markings.

• The key line on the right of the vehicle is faded and not visible in the provided photos.

• No images have been provided from the rear of the vehicle to verify the alleged contravention.

Since UKPC has failed to provide sufficient evidence, this PCN must be dismissed due to lack of proof.

5. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed

• The signage at this location is high up, dirty, and contains very small text, making it difficult to read unless the driver actively seeks it out to review the terms and conditions of parking. Even if the driver attempts to read the sign, the charge for breaching any terms is not “adequately” brought to the attention of the driver or anyone attempting to read it.

• The parking charge of £100 is buried in a block of small print, which does not meet the PoFA requirement for “adequate notice”.



• The most prominent text on the sign states “NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING”, which is prohibitive rather than contractual.

• In ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, the Supreme Court held that a parking charge must be clearly and prominently displayed.

Since the terms were not adequately communicated, no contractual agreement was formed, and therefore no breach occurred.

6. Lack of Landowner Authority – No Proof of UKPC’s Right to Operate

• Under Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, UKPC must provide strict proof that it has the landowner’s authority to issue PCNs at this location.

• UKPC has not provided any evidence that it holds a valid contract with the landowner.

• Any contract must include specific clauses permitting the issuing and enforcement of PCNs.

• The proof must be a contractual right flowing from the landowner. A signed statement from an agent of the landowner is not evidence that the agent has the right to make a contractual arrangement with the operator.

UKPC is put to strict proof that it has a legally binding agreement to operate on this land. If no valid contract is provided, this PCN must be cancelled.

CONCLUSION

The PCN issued by UKPC is fundamentally flawed on multiple legal and evidential grounds:

• The NtK fails to comply with PoFA due to the absence of a “period of parking,” making Keeper liability impossible.

• There is no presumption that the Keeper was the driver, and UKPC has not identified the driver.

• The bay markings were faded, making compliance unreasonable.

• UKPC’s evidential photos do not clearly show a breach.

• The signage is inadequate, meaning no contract was formed.

• UKPC has not provided proof of landowner authority.

Given these significant deficiencies, I request that POPLA allow this appeal and cancel the PCN in its entirety.

Signed,

[Registered Keeper's Name]

I wouldn't include the images of the location where the vehicle was parked. The operators images are the evidence they are relying on and all three of those images are from the same standpoint and inconclusive about the actual markings on the ground. They cannot produce more images and the appellants own images are not contemporaneous.

Hi all, just as an update, UKPC have cancelled the PCN based on the appeal.

Thanks to all that contributed, especially b789, much appreciated 👍.