Free Traffic Legal Advice

Received today from UKPC. The photo on the letter does not really clearly show if it is. It says go to www.paycharge.co.uk for additional images

When i go to that site just seems to give me options to pay the fine and not view additional images. Not sure if anyone else has used site do you have to select pay option to view additional images ?

My wife is the registered owner of the car and i think if it is over the bay line it will be marginal but without seeing the other images can't tell

What should I do ? I have attached image of letter

Thanks for any help or advice

You need to be more careful when posting images of documents that contain personalised info such as the PCN number and your car reg. Someone with less scrupulous intentions could easily get in and mess your chance of appeal.

You need to go to https://ukpcappeals.co.uk in order to appeal.

However, have you tried plan A yet? Go to the store or find out who is the landowner or manager and ask them to get the PCN cancelled. It really is a de minimis issue and just goes to prove how much these scammers will try to extort money.

If you've had no luck with Plan A by day 27 of the issue date of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) then you should do the Plan B appeal to UKPC. Just in case you are not aware, you are dealing with cowboys and scammers (Hansard) who really do not care about any mitigating circumstances. If/when they reject your Plan B appeal, you then move on to your Plan C POPLA appeal.

If/when they reject that you go through the "limbo" stage where you just have to weather all the useless debt collector letters which you can safely ignore. If/when either UKPC themselves or through their solicitors, DCB Legal, you are issued with a Letter of Claim you come back for advice. This is the Plan D kicks in and is a guarantee that they will eventually discontinue.

A robustly defended claim from UKPC directly or through their DCB Legal pals, will result in a discontinuation before any hearing. They are hoping that you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will capitulate at the first sign of any threats and pay up. Hold your nerve and they will will be the ones that capitulate in the end.

As it is your wife who is the registered keeper, all correspondence has to be in her name although you can do it all for her. The NtK is basically PoFA compliant (except for a technical failure which they are likely to ignore) so the keeper can be liable for the charge if the driver is not identified. In all cases it is the driver who is liable and transferring liability to the driver if your wife was not the person who parked does not really matter.

Any appeal for Plan B and Plan C must show that it was impossible to park within the bay and have space for a passenger to enter/exit the vehicle due to the poor management of the parking spaces by the operator as is evidenced by their own photos. In fact, the vehicle is not parked outside of the bay as the cars wheels are on the line itself. Therefore no breach of terms has taken place and there was no reasonable cause for the operator to request the keepers details from the DVLA in breach of the KADOE rules and the keepers GDPR.

Additionally, the UKPC signs breach their own ATA, the BPA, Code of Practice in that they are illegible unless you are within 6 inches and your head is at least 7 feet above ground level.

For now, concentrate on Plan A.

Follow the advice you get here and you will not be paying a penny to into the UKPC scam.

Thank you very much I will proceed with plan A. Apologies I thought i had scrubbed out my address, pcn and wifes name but maybe i uploaded the unedited image by mistake.

Should Plan A not work any advice what I should put in the appeal for plan B or should I worry about that later ?

The fact it's an end bay works in your favour here. If there was another bay to the driver's side, there would be a fair argument to be made that they were obstructing the other bay, justifying a charge.

Here though there's no other bay being blocked, nor does the parking obstruct road access etc., seems very much de minimis.

You’re overthinking this. The photos are good for your appeal to POPLA once UKPC reject the initial appeal. UKPC signs are terrible and have been a reason for successful POPLA appeals. The terms are illegible unless you are right up close and the charge of £100 is lost in the mass of wording thereby failing to bring it to the attention of the driver.

Even if the POPLA appeal was unsuccessful, you won’t be paying a penny to UKPC. POPLA decisions are not binding on the appellant and have absolutely no bearing on any court claim.

They will either issue a claim themselves or use DCB Legal to do so. They rely on their victims being low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and capitulating and paying up once the pressure is on. If you follow the advice and hold your nerve, they will, eventually, discontinue and that will be the end of it.

They never continue with a well defended claim, especially for a single PCN. They know that they are likely to lose if a judge becomes involved.

As the NtK has been removed, you need to repost it so I can recheck it. Just make sure you redact the PCN number as well as your personal details.

I already noted that it failed to fully comply with the strict requirements of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) so I would not reveal the drivers identity. Also, it is not, as you have written a "penalty charge". Only the police or an authority can issue a "penalty" or a "fine". What was received was simply an invoice from an unregulated private parking company.

Do not select any option that admits to being the driver. You are appealing as the "Registered keeper" only. If nothing fits, select "other".

Based on what you already showed us, I would suggest you change a few things and add a bit about how you cannot be liable as the keeper.

"I appeal as keeper. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so.

After reviewing the photos provided, I disagree with your operatives assessment that the driver parked outside of the bay. The photos clearly show that the vehicle was positioned on the line, not beyond it. Additionally, as demonstrated in the photos, the neighbouring car was parked in a similar manner which obviously necessitated that the driver park as far to the right as possible to maintain a safe distance between the vehicles.

Furthermore, it is clear that the bays provided are not sufficiently wide for safe parking, as illustrated in the photos. The inadequate width of the bays makes it challenging for any driver to park without encroaching on the lines. Additionally, the bay lines are worn and faded due to poor maintenance. The lack of clear demarcation contributes significantly to the difficulty the driver would have had parking in a precise manner.

The signage in the car park is inadequate and fails to comply with the strict requirements as required under PoFA 2012 9(2)(c) to adequately bring to the attention of the driver the charge and the other facts that made them payable. This is also a breach of the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) 19.4.

The signs also breach the BPA CoP 19.3. Specific parking-terms signs are supposed to inform drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. Signs containing the specific parking terms are supposed to be positioned throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. None of the signs comply with those requirements.

While you have provided a photo of a sign, it is not of one anywhere near the location the vehicle was parked. It does not show the nearest sign in the section where the vehicle was parked. I have evidence, including a photo, showing that the nearest sign was surrounded by goods from the B&M store, which restricted access and visibility.

So, in conclusion, based on the inadequate space for safe parking, the poor maintenance of the car park, the inadequate signage and, as the registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver because your NtK does not fully comply with the strict requirements of PoFA 2012, I suggest you cancel the PCN or issue me with a POPLA code where we both know it be cancelled."

You are not dealing with a firm that has any customer service ethos so don't think that being polite with them is going to garner any favour. UKPC are a firm of ex-clamper thugs operating at the edge of legality in an unregulated environment where they know that they can scare most of their gullible victims into paying into their extremely lucrative scam.

I can say with complete confidence that win or lose the initial appeal or at POPLA, you will not pay a penny to UKPC if you follow all the advice.

Oh OK sorry I will try to find out who the landowner is from B&M. If they re-direct me to UKPC as they have been so far should I bother ?


Attached is the second invoice they have sent me requested in the previous post

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Attached is the first NtK sent