3. UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail Park, Wolverhampton
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail Park, Wolverhampton  (Read 1695 times)

0 Members and 34 Guests are viewing this topic.

UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail Park, Wolverhampton
« on: »
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 »
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail Park, Wolverhampton
« Reply #1 on: »
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?
Logged
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail Park, Wolverhampton
« Reply #2 on: »
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.
Logged
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail Park, Wolverhampton
« Reply #3 on: »
Quote from: parkinghelpplease on February 07, 2026, 05:09:12 pm
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?
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail Park, Wolverhampton
« Reply #4 on: »
Quote from: Jackisback123 on February 07, 2026, 05:13:33 pm
Quote from: parkinghelpplease on February 07, 2026, 05:09:12 pm
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
Logged
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail Park, Wolverhampton
« Reply #5 on: »
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.
Logged
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail Park, Wolverhampton
« Reply #6 on: »
Quote from: InterCity125 on February 08, 2026, 08:38:19 am
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 »
Logged
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail Park, Wolverhampton
« Reply #7 on: »
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: February 17, 2026, 05:02:13 pm by parkinghelpplease »
Logged
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail Park, Wolverhampton
« Reply #8 on: »
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: February 17, 2026, 05:35:49 pm by jfollows »
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail Park, Wolverhampton
« Reply #9 on: »
I would send

"I acknowledge your response; however, it does not address the substantive issue raised in my appeal.

Your reply incorrectly asserts that “liability remains” with the keeper unless I name the driver.  That is not how POFA operates.  Unless you fully comply with the wording of the Act, you cannot pursue the keeper at all.  As your Notice is non‑compliant, I have no legal obligation to identify the driver, and no keeper liability can arise.

For the avoidance of doubt:

    I am the registered keeper.

    You have failed to establish keeper liability under POFA.

Any further contact should reflect this legal position. If you choose to continue pursuing the keeper despite lacking lawful grounds, this will be raised as unreasonable conduct in any future proceedings.

I now consider this matter closed."

They'll reject it but it's worth a try.
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail Park, Wolverhampton
« Reply #10 on: »
Thank you jfollows & Brenda_R2 for your advice.

I believe I now have to appeal this now to the IAS and based on a previous case noted on this forum: https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/ukcps-ltd-pcn-driver-observed-leaving-site-bentley-bridge-leisure-park-wolverham/

I understand that I should send out the generic IAS appeal letter below - can somebody please confirm that this is the correct approach?

Ive added some photos UKCPS sent me of car park layout & vehicle: https://ibb.co/vCvKs2Fy,
https://ibb.co/mFF66wTz

Thanks in advance

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.

The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to provide the following:

1. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font size, positioning, and the communication of key terms.

2. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.

In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:

• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.

These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.

3. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace period as defined by the PPSCoP.

4. Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders keeper liability unenforceable.

5. Strict proof that the NtK was posted in time for it to have been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)

6. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers.” Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that keeper liability under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions are met.

If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.

In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2026, 04:18:17 pm by parkinghelpplease »
Logged
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail Park, Wolverhampton
« Reply #11 on: »
Ive added some photos UKCPS sent me of car park layout & vehicle: https://ibb.co/vCvKs2Fy,
https://ibb.co/mFF66wTz

The site layout image is not displayed in the car park itself.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2026, 04:25:44 pm by parkinghelpplease »
Logged
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail Park, Wolverhampton
« Reply #12 on: »
A reply from IAS has arrived today:

Dear X,

Thank you for your appeal. Due to further information UKCPS Ltd has confirmed they will no longer be pursuing the matter and the parking charge has been cancelled.

Parking Charge Number (PCN):
Vehicle Registration:
Date Issued:

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service


Thanks everyone here for the advice given
« Last Edit: March 03, 2026, 11:03:46 pm by parkinghelpplease »
Logged
Winner Winner x 2 View List
Re: UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail Park, Wolverhampton
« Reply #13 on: »
That’s good news, thanks for the update.

It’s also a good example of why following the process sometimes leads to good results.

UKCPS totally ignored your appeal points, but worked out you weren’t going to roll over and pay up, so they cut their losses.
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. UKCPS - NtK Observed leaving site -Bentley Bridge Retail Park, Wolverhampton