How does the sound ?
POPLA Appeal – UK Parking Control Ltd
Appellant: [Your full name]
POPLA Verification Code: [insert code]
Operator: UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC)
PCN Reference: [insert PCN number]
Vehicle Registration: [insert reg]
---
1. Introduction
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced above. I am appealing against this parking charge notice (PCN) issued by UK Parking Control Ltd. I deny any liability for the alleged parking charge and submit that I am not liable as the keeper.
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4. As such, UKPC cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to me, the keeper.
---
2. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012
2.1 Failure to specify a “period of parking”
Under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA 2012, a Notice to Keeper must:
“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
UKPC’s NtK fails to specify any period of parking. It merely includes a single timestamp (arrival or departure time). A single timestamp cannot constitute a “period” and does not satisfy the statutory requirement.
POPLA and previous court decisions have recognised that arrival or exit times from ANPR data do not necessarily represent the actual period parked. Vehicles require time to enter, locate a space, read signage, and exit.
Accordingly, the NtK does not comply with Paragraph 9(2)(a), and UKPC cannot hold the keeper liable.
2.2 Failure to comply with other PoFA requirements
In addition, the NtK fails to comply with other PoFA requirements including, but not limited to:
- Paragraph 9(2)(f) – It must include a specific warning that the creditor will have the right to recover the charge from the keeper if payment is not made and the driver is not identified, if and only if the NtK fully complies with the Act.
- Paragraph 9(2)(b) – The NtK must “inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay the parking charge in full” and “state that it has not been paid in full.”
- Paragraph 9(2)(e) – The NtK must state that the creditor does not know both the name and current address for service of the driver.
UKPC’s NtK fails to meet the statutory wording and clarity required by PoFA in these respects.
As a result, UKPC cannot rely on keeper liability. Their only recourse would be to pursue the driver — whose identity has not been and will not be disclosed.
---
3. No evidence of a contract with the driver
UKPC have provided no evidence that any contract was formed with the driver. Without a period of parking, there is no evidence that the vehicle remained on site beyond any reasonable grace or consideration period.
The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, paragraph 13.1, requires that operators allow a minimum 5-minute consideration period for drivers to read signage and decide whether to stay or leave. UKPC have not demonstrated that the driver exceeded that period.
Therefore, there is no evidence that any contractual breach occurred.
---
4. The operator has not demonstrated landowner authority
As per the BPA Code of Practice (paragraph 7.2), UKPC must have written authorisation from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charges. The burden of proof lies with UKPC to demonstrate this authority.
Unless UKPC provides an unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner (not merely a witness statement), POPLA cannot be satisfied that UKPC has the necessary standing to issue and pursue charges.
---
5. No admission as to driver identity
There is no legal obligation for the registered keeper to name the driver, and no presumption or inference can be drawn. The burden rests with UKPC to identify the driver if they wish to pursue liability under contract law. They have failed to do so.
---
6. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and direct UK Parking Control Ltd to cancel this Parking Charge Notice.
---
Signed:
[Your name]
[Date]
