3. UKPC - parked in an area for registered users only - Horsted Retail Park Chatham
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: UKPC - parked in an area for registered users only - Horsted Retail Park Chatham  (Read 1474 times)

0 Members and 19 Guests are viewing this topic.

UKPC - parked in an area for registered users only - Horsted Retail Park Chatham
« on: »
Hello

I would very much appreciate some guidance re this parking charge notice:

Parking charge front:
Scan-20251201-edited hosted at ImgBB
Image Scan-20251201-edited in the Nettech99's images album
ImgBB · ibb.co

Parking charge back:
Scan-20251201-2 hosted at ImgBB
Image Scan-20251201-2 in the Nettech99's images album
ImgBB · ibb.co

Car park signage:
IMG-20251120-175632 hosted at ImgBB
Image IMG-20251120-175632 in the Nettech99's images album
ImgBB · ibb.co

Pictures of retail park:
Horsted Retail Park, Maidstone Road, Chatham, ME5 9SQ
Find retail property for rent in shopping centres, retail parks, and high street commercial areas with Completely Retail - Horsted Retail Park, Maidstone Road, Chatham, ME5 9SQ
Completely Retail · completelyretail.co.uk


The notice claims that the vehicle was parked in "Service Yard" (the service yard is behind Home Bargains in the aerial photo). The driver has told me this is very much NOT the case - the vehicle was parked in the retail park's regular car park in a normal parking space. The driver visited two stores - Aldi and Home Bargains.

1. does this notice confirm with PoFA 2012?
2. apart from the false claim as mentioned, the photos do not give any indication of where the vehicle was parked. Obviously UKPC will claim that they are from a camera in the service yard when in reality they are from some other camera, but I have no way of proving this one way or the other. Is there any weight in this argument?
3. should I appeal to UKPC with a genuine appeal, or should I only appeal in order to obtain a POPLA code? Or not go down that route at all and wait for the inevitable debt letters and court threats (assuming I do not get any responses to my emails below)?

So far I have sent emails to Aldi, Home Bargains and the landowners, Royal London Asset Management (using two email addresses of staff members that had previously helped others found on another forum, plus the CEO). Aldi said they could not help because they don't own the land, Home Bargains say they are very busy and will get back to me, nothing from RLAM thus far. I am not holding my breath.

Many thanks
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: UKPC - parked in an area for registered users only - Horsted Retail Park Chatham
« Reply #1 on: »
No initial appeal to UKPC will succeed so don't put much effort into it. A simple appeal that they are going to reject anyway will get you a POPLA code where you can make a more detailed appeal. Even if that is not successful, you are not bound by the POPLA decision and this would progress to a county court claim which is easily defended and will eventually (9-12+ months) either be struck out or discontinued.

For now... there is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA (no period of parking) which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

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

Quote
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.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: UKPC - parked in an area for registered users only - Horsted Retail Park Chatham
« Reply #2 on: »
Many thanks for the reply, much appreciated. Will appeal using the suggested wording.

Home Bargains eventually replied and said they could not help (after having asked to see the notice, which is odd). No reply from the landowners (RLAM) - I have emailed their agent to see if they are able to provide other names.
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: UKPC - parked in an area for registered users only - Horsted Retail Park Chatham
« Reply #3 on: »
Received a reply to my appeal:

Quote
To assist us in making a decision regarding your appeal, please confirm the full name and address of the driver to our Appeals Department within seven days of the date of this letter.
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 discusses the recovery of unpaid parking charges. It allows parking operators to hold the registered keeper liable to pay unpaid parking charges if the operator has not been provided the name and a serviceable address of the driver.

This is clearly a trap, right? No POPLA code given, so I should just reply asking for a POPLA code, correct?

Also, when emailing/contacting shops/landowner, is it safe to talk in first person (i.e. from the driver's POV) and sign-off with a name (eg. an email without a name carries less weight)?  In other words, do I still need to use wording that does not identify the driver? I haven't yet tried the 1-star trustpilot review route so am considering that.
Logged
Re: UKPC - parked in an area for registered users only - Horsted Retail Park Chatham
« Reply #4 on: »
Quote from: nettech99 on December 17, 2025, 10:27:13 am
This is clearly a trap, right? No POPLA code given, so I should just reply asking for a POPLA code, correct?
Correct - don't tell 'em, Pike.

Quote from: nettech99 on December 17, 2025, 10:27:13 am
Also, when emailing/contacting shops/landowner, is it safe to talk in first person (i.e. from the driver's POV) and sign-off with a name (eg. an email without a name carries less weight)?  In other words, do I still need to use wording that does not identify the driver? I haven't yet tried the 1-star trustpilot review route so am considering that.
If contacting landowners etc. do so as the keeper. Refer to the driver as the driver.
Logged
Away from 29th March - 5th April
Posting for the first time? READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide | House Rules

Useful Links (for private parking charges):
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 | Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice
Re: UKPC - parked in an area for registered users only - Horsted Retail Park Chatham
« Reply #5 on: »
Hello, I have received a POPLA code and would appreciate some guidance as to how best to word my appeal.

My intention is to clearly state that the vehicle was NOT parked in an area reserved for registered users, as is claimed. However my concern is that I have no proof one way or the other. I also intend to state that the NTK does not provide proof of location of parking.

About a month before receiving this NTK I received an NTK for parking in the same location (service yard). I paid this PCN because in this case the driver was an idiot and did park in the service yard (actually at the end of the access road leading to the yard) for a short time, so it was a fair cop. Also my father had recently passed and I was in no mind for any dispute and nor did I have the time whilst dealing with his estate and supporting my elderly mother. The mistake I made was paying it immediately thinking it would be the end of it. So this 2nd NTK is either an error or... something else.

On the positive side I feel this works in my favour if this ever gets to court - after all, why would I pay the first PCN immediately and then dispute the 2nd?
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. UKPC - parked in an area for registered users only - Horsted Retail Park Chatham