Free Traffic Legal Advice

Welcome. UKPC signs are always rubbish. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is PoFA compliant so the Keeper could be liable if the drivers identity is not provided.

However, should this go as far as a clam in the county court, as long as it is defended, they will eventually discontinue. Your choice is to either pay it if you feel it is a valid invoice or you can choose to fight it with our assistance and advice.

Any initial appeal is going to be rejected by UKPC. POPLA is also likely to reject but a few assessors have been known to agree that UKPCs signage is utterly rubbish and they have upheld appeals on that fact alone.

If POPLA reject the appeal, that is not the end of the process. A POPLA decision is not binding on the appellant. UKPC would try and harass the Keeper with useless debt collector letters. You must never, ever, respond to or communicate with a useless debt collector. They are not a party to the contract allegedly breached by the driver and cannot do anything, no matter how threatening they may seem. Ignore them.

In due course, you would receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) from their bulk litigator of choice, DCB Legal. After that, an N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC will arrive. This must be responded to.

As long as the claim is defended (with our assistance) they will eventually discontinue and that will be the end of the matter.

Are you up for the fight?

So, do you want to bother with the operator and the POPLA appeals process or simply wait for the inevitable claim which will eventually be discontinued?

Can you please show us the wording of your UKPC appeal?

I can guarantee that whatever was in it, it will be rejected.

So, they are going to reject any appeal and provide a POPLA code for a secondary appeal to the not so independent POPLA. You will have to convince POPLA that the signage is inadequate and that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is deficient or that their procedure was deficient.

Whilst their NtK was PoFA compliant, there is a glaring deficiency in their process which has invalidate any Keeper liability...

Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), a Keeper cannot be held liable unless the parking operator fully complies with the statutory requirements.

Key Dates:


PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(f) states that the Keeper can only be held liable if the charge remains unpaid after 28 full days have elapsed from the presumed delivery date of the NtK.

Since the NtK was deemed delivered on Thursday 12th December 2024, the 28-day period runs:


Therefore the Keeper cannot be liable under PoFA before Thursday 9th January 2025.

UKPC issued a Final Reminder on Tuesday 24th December 2024, stating:


This is completely incorrect and does not comply with PoFA which makes UKPCs actions procedurally incorrect.

UKPC have unlawfully claimed the Keeper was liable on Tuesday 24th December 2024. In reality, the Keeper could not be held liable until Thursday 9th January 2025.

The 28-day period had not even reached halfway when UKPC made this false claim. This is a procedural failure and a clear misrepresentation of PoFA.

Another issue is UKPC's false deadline for debt recovery...

Final Reminder Issue Date: Tuesday 24th December 2024. The Final Reminder states that:


14 days from 24th December 2024 is Friday 7th January 2025. However, the Keeper cannot legally become liable under PoFA until Sunday 9th January 2025.

This means that UKPC is threatening debt recovery action and additional charges before the Keeper can even be held liable for the charge. This is an undeniable procedural failure of the PPSCoP and a misrepresentation of PoFA.

Just to make is absolutely clear why this is a major procedural breach... PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) clearly states that the Keeper cannot be held liable until 28 days after the presumed delivery of the NtK. The Final Reminder deadline given by UKPC: Tuesday 7th January 2025. This means UKPC is threatening to escalate the charge and add a fake £70 fee two days before they can even hold the Keeper liable.

This is a clear case of UKPC falsely representing the Keeper’s liability in an attempt to pressure payment early. It is misleading, unfair, and non-compliant with both PoFA and fair trading practices.

What UKPC have done wrong is that they should not have issued a Final Reminder stating that the Keeper is already liable on 24th December 2024. They should not have set a 14-day deadline from 24th December 2024, as it expired before the Keeper could legally be held liable and they should not have threatened debt recovery escalation before 9th January 2025.

So, when the appeal rejection comes through, you will have to send UKPC a formal complaint about their procedural failures and you will also be able to raise these in your POPLA appeal.

Here is a suggested rebuttal of UKPCs operator evidence that you can copy and paste into the POPLA webform which is well within the 10,000 character limit:

POPLA Appeal Rebuttal – UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC) Evidence Pack

This rebuttal completely dismantles the operators evidence which is riddled with fraudulent claims, exposes their deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, and proves beyond doubt that their signage is incapable of forming a contract. UKPC are attempting to deceive the POPLA with blatant lies and fabricated compliance claims, and their own evidence proves it.

1. UKPC’s Own Evidence Proves Their Signage is Inadequate, Unreadable, and Incapable of Forming a Contract

UKPC claims their signage conforms to the BPA Code of Practice and the PPSCoP. That is an outright lie. Their own evidence pack proves their signage is non-compliant and unenforceable.

No entrance signage. Their own site plan confirms there is no sign at the actual entrance where the fact that there are terms signs. Instead, drivers are expected to notice two tiny, poorly placed signs after they have already entered the land.

Unreadable terms. The appellant’s photos show that the terms signs are completely unreadable even when standing inches away and craning to look up at them. UKPC’s own photos fail to show a single readable sign from a normal viewing distance. The font size is microscopic, meaning the driver could not have read the terms even if they wanted to. Contract law is clear: if the terms are not clearly brought to the attention of the driver, they do not form a contract.

Simply providing stock images of their signs in their evidence pack does not mean that the actual signs are as readable in situ, high up on a pole. This is simply an attempt to mislead and deceive POPLA that just because their signs contain some terms therefore makes them valid. This is completely disingenuous.

Obstructed signage. UKPC’s own CCTV images prove that trolleys and crates were created an obstruction where their supposed "entrance sign" is actually located at the time of the visit. The driver could not have seen it because they would have had to negotiate the obstruction rather than try and crane their neck and look up a random sign beyond the entrance to the car park, meaning no contract could have been accepted.

UKPC’s Evidence Proves They Do Not Comply With the BPA Code of Practice or the PPSCoP – Their Own Site Plan Exposes Their Lies

UKPC makes the outrageous claim that their signage conforms to the BPA Code of Practice and the PPSCoP. That is blatantly false, and their own evidence proves it.

Both the BPA Code of Practice and the PPSCoP explicitly state that at least one sign containing the full terms and conditions must be visible from within a vehicle, so that disabled motorists can make an informed decision about whether to park.

BPA Code of Practice Section 9 states:

“So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there must be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally, this sign must be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists.”

PPSCoP Section 4.1 states:

“The parking operator must ensure that at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking can be viewed without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, in order for drivers with a disability to be able to make an informed decision on whether to park at the premises.”

Now let’s look at UKPC’s own site plan...

The site plan clearly shows there are four disabled bays near the entrance, but not a single sign is positioned where it can be read from within a vehicle. There is no large-print signage, no high-visibility sign, and nothing that meets the accessibility requirement.

UKPC’s own evidence proves they do not comply with either the BPA Code of Practice or the PPSCoP. Their claim of compliance is a blatant and demonstrable lie.

2. UKPC’s Procedural Failures Have Invalidated Keeper Liability Under PoFA

UKPC issued a Notice to Keeper that was technically PoFA compliant. But then they proceeded to completely undermine PoFA by issuing a Final Reminder that falsely claimed Keeper liability weeks before they could legally enforce it.

Key PoFA Deadlines:

- NtK Issue Date: Tuesday 10th December 2024
- Deemed Delivery Date: Thursday 12th December 2024 (two working days later)
- 28-day PoFA Keeper Liability Window Ends: Thursday 9th January 2025

Despite this, UKPC falsely claimed the Keeper was already liable in their Final Reminder on 24th December 2024, stating:

"As 14 days have lapsed, you, the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, can be made liable for the Parking Charge."

That is blatantly mendacious.

- The Keeper could not legally be held liable until 9th January 2025.
- UKPC falsely claimed liability started on 24th December 2024.
- Keeper liability had not even reached halfway when UKPC lied and said it had already been established.

This is a serious PoFA breach, meaning the charge is unenforceable against the Keeper.

3. UKPC’s Fraudulent Threat of a Fake £70 Debt Recovery Fee

UKPC’s Final Reminder also includes a fraudulent debt recovery threat, stating:

"If full payment is not made within 14 days, or if we are not provided with the driver’s details, the charge will be passed to debt recovery and a debt recovery fee of £70 will be added."

- Final Reminder issued: 24th December 2024
- 14-day deadline expires: 7th January 2025

However, UKPC could not legally hold the Keeper liable until 9th January 2025.

This means:

- UKPC threatened debt recovery before they had any legal right to do so.
- They falsely implied that a £70 fee would be added if the Keeper did not pay by 7th January 2025.

This is a deliberate attempt to intimidate the Keeper into early payment using fake deadlines and misleading legal claims. UKPC has deliberately attempted to deceive the Keeper into paying early by falsely representing PoFA timelines. This is procedurally and ethically unacceptable and a clear breach of fair trading laws.

Conclusion

UKPC’s case completely collapses under the weight of their own evidence.

- Their signage is inadequate, unreadable, obstructed, and incapable of forming a contract.
- Their own site plan proves they do not comply with the BPA Code of Practice or the PPSCoP.
- Their Final Reminder falsely claimed Keeper liability weeks before it could legally apply.
- They fraudulently threatened debt recovery and a fake £70 charge before they had any legal right to do so.

UKPC’s evidence pack contains clear misrepresentations, and their claims are demonstrably false. If POPLA chooses to disregard these facts, it would raise serious concerns about the impartiality of the appeals process and suggest complicity in these deceptive practices.

This appeal should be upheld, and the Parking Charge Notice should be cancelled.