Free Traffic Legal Advice

Luckily for you, this is a UKPC PCN. You may be lucky and successfully appeal it, but in all likelyhood, this will drag on for 9-12+ months and will end when they finally discontinue a county court debt claim.

The one thing I can guarantee with greater than 99.9% certainty, is that if you follow the advice here, you will not be paying a penny to UKPC.

Whilst you can argue “reasonable adjustment”, it will not work for the appeals process. It may work in a court claim, but it would never reach a hearing stage as any claim, if not struck out first, will be discontinued before any trial fee has to be paid.

As an initial appeal is futile, I advise you to simply appeal in in order to get a POPLA code. Whilst their Notice to Keeper (NtK) is generally PoFA compliant, never give them the drivers details anyway.

Simply appeal to UKPC as the Keeper only with the following:

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. UKPC 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. UKPC have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

PoFA 9.2(a) as there is no mention of the “period of parking”. All that NtK mentions is a “vehicle duration”, whatever that may be.

They haven’t “carefully considered” anything, they have rejected your appeal because they know this means you may well pay them, which is their only desired outcome.

You need to construct a POPLA apeal, in which you need to guide the assessor through the key points, but there are many sample examples here. I suggest you have a search and then post your intended appeal here. Note that even if POPLA rejects your appeal you are under no obligation to pay.

Thanks for replies thus far. I'm not massively confident doing this, so maybe someone can help and tell me if the following works?

## POPLA Appeal

POPLA Verification Code: xxxxxxxxxx
Parking Charge Reference: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Operator: UK Parking Control Ltd
Appellant: Registered Keeper

Introduction

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I am submitting this appeal to POPLA in respect of the Parking Charge Notice issued by UK Parking Control Ltd. I deny that the charge is enforceable and set out below the grounds on which this appeal should be allowed.

1. No keeper liability – failure to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

UK Parking Control Ltd have not established keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

While the Notice to Keeper includes wording referring to potential keeper liability after 28 days, it nevertheless fails to comply fully with the mandatory requirements of PoFA and does not validly transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

In particular:

* The Notice to Keeper does not correctly or fully set out the mandatory warning required by paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 in the prescribed form.
* The Notice to Keeper fails to strictly comply with PoFA, which requires full and exact compliance; partial or paraphrased compliance is insufficient.
* UKPC’s own wording and approach demonstrates reliance on driver liability rather than a clear and unequivocal transfer of liability to the keeper under Schedule 4.

* The Notice to Keeper does not specify the required “period of parking” as mandated by paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4. Instead, it refers only to a “vehicle duration”, which is not a defined term in PoFA and does not necessarily represent a period when the vehicle was parked, as opposed to time spent entering, exiting, or waiting on site. Am unsure of this point as the duration is mentioned in the header

As strict compliance with PoFA is required in order to establish keeper liability, and as the Notice to Keeper does not meet that standard, UKPC may only pursue the driver. The appellant has not identified the driver and is under no obligation to do so.

POPLA has consistently held that where an operator fails to strictly comply with PoFA, keeper liability does not arise and the appeal must be allowed.

2. The operator has failed to identify the driver

UKPC have provided no evidence as to the identity of the driver. The appellant has not admitted to being the driver, and no presumption exists in law that the registered keeper was the driver.

As keeper liability has not been established, and the driver has not been identified, the charge is unenforceable.

3. Failure to make reasonable adjustments – breach of the Equality Act 2010

The vehicle was displaying a valid Blue Badge. The driver is disabled and therefore protected under the Equality Act 2010.

Under sections 20 and 29 of the Equality Act 2010, service providers have a positive duty to make reasonable adjustments to avoid placing disabled persons at a substantial disadvantage.

In this case:

* A security guard controlling access to the site permitted entry after being informed that the disabled driver would require longer than the standard maximum stay.
* This permission was reasonably understood to be a reasonable adjustment to accommodate disability-related needs.
* Issuing a parking charge after permission was granted is a failure to make reasonable adjustments and constitutes discriminatory treatment.

The Equality Act duty overrides any contractual terms or signage. A private parking operator cannot enforce time limits rigidly where doing so disadvantages a disabled person and no reasonable adjustment has been made.

4. Permission granted by the landowner’s agent – no contract capable of being formed

The security guard managing access to the site was acting as an agent of the landowner.

By permitting entry after being informed of the need for extended time, the landowner (via its agent) authorised the stay. Any alleged contract based on signage is overridden by explicit permission from an authorised representative.

Under established principles of agency and estoppel, a party cannot penalise a motorist for acting in reliance on permission granted by the landowner’s agent.

Accordingly, no breach of contract occurred.

5. Inconsistent and discriminatory enforcement

A second vehicle, also displaying a valid Blue Badge and permitted entry by security under similar circumstances, did not receive a Parking Charge Notice.

This inconsistent enforcement demonstrates that extended stays for disabled motorists were permitted at the site and that UKPC’s enforcement was selective and unreasonable.

Targeting one disabled motorist while allowing another to park without penalty amounts to unfair and discriminatory treatment.

Conclusion

UK Parking Control Ltd have failed to establish keeper liability, have not identified the driver, and have acted in breach of the Equality Act 2010 by failing to make reasonable adjustments and by enforcing the charge inconsistently despite permission being granted by the landowner’s agent.

For all of the above reasons, the appeal must be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.

If you’re relying on PoFA wording failures, state what the Notice to Keeper says (or fails to say) and why that does not meet the mandatory requirements.

Also add two core POPLA points that you’ve currently missed:

A) No evidence of landowner authority (standing)

UKPC are put to strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation to operate and to issue PCNs at Harbour Exchange Square, and to pursue payment and/or appeals in their own name.

A generic “site agreement”, witness statement, or a contract with a managing agent is not sufficient unless it is shown to be contemporaneous and to flow from the landowner and to confer the necessary rights. The operator must produce an unredacted (save for financials) contemporaneous contract or chain of authority in force on the material date which expressly grants them:

1. authority to manage parking at this location,
2. authority to issue PCNs,
3. authority to pursue payment and enforce in their own name (including litigation, if relied upon).

If UKPC cannot produce this, they have no standing and the charge must fail.

B) Inadequate proof of signage and terms (strict proof required)

UKPC must prove, with contemporaneous photographs from the material date (or at least from the same period) that clear, readable signs were in place and visible to a driver upon entry and throughout the area where the vehicle was parked.

This is a barrier-controlled site where access is managed by security. The operator is therefore put to strict proof of:

1. the exact signs relied upon, their locations, and whether they were visible before parking,
2. that the key terms (including any maximum stay and the £100 charge) were prominent, legible, and capable of being read without leaving the vehicle and searching for signage,
3. that any signs were not obscured, unlit, high-mounted, or positioned such that a driver would not reasonably see and read them.

Stock photos, close-up photos of a sign without context, or photos taken months/years later are not adequate proof of the signage in place at the material time.

Put “No keeper liability (PoFA)” first. Then add “No standing/landowner authority” and “Signage/terms not proven” immediately after. Keep the Equality Act/security-permission point, but drop any “another Blue Badge didn’t get a PCN” point entirely.

Don't worry too much about POPLA. If it isn't successful, then it doesn't matter as their decision is not binding on you. It would then go to a county court claim which I can guarantee with greater then 99.9% certainty it would either be struck out or discontinued.

Quote from: mickR on December 20, 2025, 01:54:54 pm

Quote from: b789 on November 23, 2025, 02:22:30 am

PoFA 9.2(a) as there is no mention of the “period of parking”. All that NtK mentions is a “vehicle duration”, whatever that may be.

unless im mistaken there's no "invitation to pay" either

It's in the second paragraph

so it is 

Yes, include it, but tweak the wording so it is clearly about PoFA 9(2)(a) and cannot be brushed off by “the allowed time is in the header”.

PoFA 9(2)(a) requires the Notice to Keeper to specify the period of parking to which the notice relates. A statement of a maximum allowed stay, or the tariff/allowance in the header, is not the same thing. It does not tell you the actual period of parking being alleged.

Likewise, “vehicle duration” is UKPC’s label and is used to describe time on site calculated from ANPR entry/exit images. That can include time spent entering, queuing at a barrier, circulating, waiting, or exiting, which is precisely why “vehicle duration” is not automatically a “period of parking”. The point you are making is therefore valid: UKPC have not specified a period of parking as PoFA requires, and they cannot cure that by pointing to an allowed time limit printed elsewhere on the notice.

On the “carefully considered” wording, there is little value in making it a separate POPLA point. POPLA only decide on evidence and compliance, not on whether the rejection letter is a template. If you mention it at all, keep it to one sentence in passing (for example, that the rejection is generic and does not address the specific PoFA/compliance issues raised) and then move straight back to the substantive points.