Free Traffic Legal Advice

Keeper received PCN from UKPS for "contravention of terms: Permit Required" at Eaton House near Coventry Railway Station

Looking at date/time stamps on images the driver was on site for 56 seconds total.  In this time it appears they drove onto site, possibly dropped passengers and then left site.


Keeper has not responded to PCN.

Also in images is sign from car park, and a view from the street entrance.

I, as the registered keeper was not driving at the time.

I have drafted an appeal letter (which will probably be rejected). 

Subject: Appeal Against Parking Fine – PCN [Reference Number]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally appeal the parking fine issued to my vehicle ([Vehicle Registration]) on [Date] at [Location]. The penalty was issued despite the fact that the driver never left the vehicle unattended, which does not align with the definition of "parking."
According to the dictionary definition, "parking" is "the action of leaving a vehicle in a particular place for a period of time." As the driver remained in the vehicle throughout the duration of the stop, this does not constitute parking. The drivers presence in the vehicle demonstrates that the driver was not in contravention of parking regulations.
Furthermore, the signage at the location was wholly inadequate. Nowhere did it mention restrictions on brief drop-offs or waiting in the vehicle. Given that the drivers total duration at the location was a mere 56 seconds, it would have been impossible to safely read, process, and adhere to any signage, even if it had contained relevant information.
In light of these circumstances, I respectfully request that this penalty charge be cancelled. I trust that common sense will prevail, as penalizing a driver for briefly pausing in a vehicle contradicts the principles of fair enforcement.
I look forward to your response. Please confirm the cancellation of this fine at your earliest convenience.

Do you think there is anything else that I can add, before I send this off?

Thank you.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Oh dear... I hope you haven't appealed yet? That is a terrible appeal.

Before we advise you on the correct appeal wording and why, please clarify whether your vehicle is leased/hired? The reason I ask is because it states in the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) you have received:

In accordance to PoFA, paragraph 14, unpaid charges may be recovered by the creditor, from the hirer, if they remain unpaid after 28 days of this notice.

The PCN is not a "fine" or a "penalty" and referring to it as such in your suggested appeal is music to the ears of these scammers. I would personally give you £100 for every occurrence of either of those words you can show us.

It is simply a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the unknown (to UKPS) driver from an unregulated private parking company. To infer that they are an authority of any kind that has statutory powers to issue "fines" or "penalties" just goes to show how wrong you are about them.

The PCN does not state whether it is a Notice to Keeper (NtK) or a Notice to Hirer (NtH). So please clarify your status in relation to the vehicle whether you are Registered Keeper or the Hirer? Is the PCN you've shown us addressed to you or is it a copy of an NtK that was sent to the Hire/Lease company?

Answer these questions before you do anything otherwise you may be proverbially blowing both feet off with a single shot!

So you’re not the registered keeper, you are the hirer.

Did the 4 other documents listed on the Notice to Hirer get sent along with the notice?

Phew! Good... Please confirm whether the copies of the following documents were included with the Notice to Hirer that was received:


I doubt they were but assuming they weren't, this is an easy one to deal with… as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known Hirer (the recipient of the Notice to Hirer (NtH)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtH is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known Hirer.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

I am the Hirer 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 Hirer (NtH) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, most notably paragraph 14(2), you are unable to hold the Hirer 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. UKPS has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The Hirer cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtH can only hold the driver liable. UKPS stand no chance of success should you be so unwise as to pursue litigation in this matter, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Hi and thank you.

No documents enclosed. Just the PCN notice letter.

Thank you for your appeal.

Having noted your comments, and checking the evidence gathered when issuing the Parking Charge, we are satisfied that the Parking Charge has been issued correctly and your appeal is rejected.

The car park in which the vehicle had been parked operates as a permit holder only car park. There are clear signs informing all drivers they must have a valid permit registered to the vehicle to park on this site. It is the drivers sole responsibility to ensure they are familairising themselves with the signs and adhering to the terms and conditions stated within them.

As you can see from the photographic evidence, the vehicle parked up, passengers exited the vehicle and walked offsite.

As the driver did not adhere to the terms and conditions stated within the abundance of signs and parked in a permit holder only car park, without having a valid permit registered to the vehicle, this parking charge has been issued correctly. Please be advised that all photographic evidence can be viewed by typing: pay.theukps.com in to your top address browser.

We now require payment of the parking charge to be made within 28 days of this letter.

Current balance owed: £60

* This outstanding balance will increase to £100 in 14 days from the date of this letter.

If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). In order to appeal, you will need your Parking Charge number and your vehicle registration. Appeals must be submitted to the IAS within 28 days of the date of this letter/email. Please visit www.theias.org for full details.

For free advice regarding your parking charge, including advice on appealing, please visit: www.247advice.co.uk

If you choose to do nothing, after 56 days from the incident date, the parking charge will be passed to our debt recovery agent, at which point you will be liable to pay additional charges in accordance with our terms and conditions of parking and further charges will be claimed if Court action is taken against you.

Please do not ignore this communication.

If this is still ongoing, I’d recommend sending a letter of complaint to Coventry City Council, who are the controlling landowner of Eaton House (via controlling interest in Friargate JV Project Ltd). It may not stop proceedings in your case, but if they continue to allow their agents to undertake this kind of predatory behaviour against residents, workers and visitors to the City of Coventry, they are not acting fairly and in the public interest. It might help the many others who have fallen into this smelly trap.