Free Traffic Legal Advice

Not to worry. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant as it fails to comply with paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA because it does not state the "period of parking".

For now, follow this advice... as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. 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 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:

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.

I have had the following response

Thank you for your recent communication concerning parking charge reference .
We have carefully considered your appeal based on the information provided and the evidence supporting the parking charge. In this instance having
completed our assessment, we consider the parking charge to have been correctly issued, as the vehicle was not parked within bay markings.
Our appeals process is now concluded, you may now choose one of the following options:
1) Pay the parking charge detailed above at the reduced rate of £60.00 to UK Parking Control Ltd. PLEASE REFER OVERLEAF FOR PAYMENT OPTIONS
AND ADDRESS DETAILS.
2) Make an appeal to the independent adjudicator POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) using the verification code provided above. Please note that if
you wish to appeal to POPLA, you will lose the right to pay the discounted rate of £60.00, and should POPLA reject your appeal you will be required to pay
the full amount of £100.00. If you opt to pay the parking charge you will be unable to appeal with POPLA. Appeals to POPLA must be made within
twenty-eight days from the date of this letter. To appeal with POPLA, please visit www.popla.co.uk. If you are unable to access the internet, you may
appeal by post – this must be done using a POPLA postal form which may be obtained by contacting POPLA by phone (0330 159 6126) or post (PO Box
1270, Warrington, WA4 9RL).
By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service
that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such
should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.
3) If you choose to do nothing the parking charge will automatically increase after thirty-five days from the date of this letter to £100.00 and the matter
will be passed to our debt recovery agent, at which point you will be liable to pay an additional charge of £70, in accordance with the terms and conditions
of parking, and further charges will be claimed if court action is taken against you. Any unpaid court judgement may adversely affect your credit rating.

Thank you

Draft as follows

POPLA Verification Code: [Verification Code]
UKPC PCN Number: [PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Vehicle Registration]
Response to UKPC Evidence Submission and Reaffirmation of Appeal Points

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and have reviewed the evidence submitted by UKPC. I submitted an appeal to UKPC without any basis. my appeal is as follows: -

Keeper Liability – Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012

Original Appeal Argument:

UKPC has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, meaning they cannot transfer liability for the alleged parking charge from the driver to the registered keeper.

Under Schedule 4 of PoFA, strict conditions must be met before the keeper can be held liable for a parking charge incurred by the driver. UKPC's failure to comply with several key requirements renders the Notice to Keeper (NtK) non-compliant, meaning they cannot hold the registered keeper liable for the charge.

UKPC’s NtK fails PoFA on the following points:

(i) Paragraph 9(2)(e): PoFA requires that the NtK must include an “invitation” for the keeper to pay the charge. Specifically, it must “invite” the keeper to pay the charge or provide the name and address of the driver. The wording on UKPC’s NtK does not contain this necessary invitation, which is a critical requirement under PoFA.

(ii) Paragraph 9(2)(f): PoFA mandates that the NtK must include a warning to the keeper that if, after 28 days, neither payment nor driver details are provided, the keeper will become liable. UKPC’s NtK fails to provide this warning clearly and in the correct format.

(iii) Paragraph 9(2)(a): The NtK must specify the relevant land on which the vehicle was parked. UKPC’s vague description of the location is insufficient under PoFA, as it does not clearly identify where the vehicle was allegedly parked, nor does it specify a defined area.

(iv) Paragraph 9(2)(b): PoFA requires that the NtK must inform the keeper of the reason for issuing the charge. In this case, UKPC fails to make the alleged breach of contract clear in their NtK. The NtK must inform the keeper why the parking terms were allegedly breached, but this is not sufficiently communicated.

Given these failures, UKPC has not complied with the requirements of PoFA, meaning they cannot transfer liability to the keeper.

Unanswered:

UKPC has not provided a any rebuttal showing how they have complied with the specific points of PoFA listed above.  PoFA compliance requires meeting every one of the detailed conditions in Schedule 4, and they have demonstrably failed to do so.

Without strict compliance with PoFA, UKPC cannot hold the keeper liable, and this charge is therefore unenforceable.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, UKPC has failed to address or rebut the key points of my original appeal. Their evidence submission does not provide sufficient proof of the following:

Non-compliance with PoFA 2012, meaning they cannot hold the registered keeper liable.

No evidence that the registered keeper was the driver.

Based on this points, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

Correct.

UKPC have responded to my POPLA appeal

On the 22/01/2025, our parking operative issued a parking charge virtually to
vehicle registration [] at Beckton Triangle Retail Park. The parking charge
was issued because the vehicle was not parked within bay markings
Following the parking event on 22/01/2025, UKPC had reasonable cause to obtain
the details of the registered keeper from the DVLA for the purposes of issuing a
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by post- a copy of this PCN is included in this pack.
The PCN was issued on 24/01/2025
The parking charge rate was £100.00, reduced to £60.00 if payment was received
within fourteen days.
An appeal was received from the vehicle keeper Mr A on the
07/02/2025, which the appeals department investigated and decided to reject.
The basis of the appeal was a basic online template stating that he denies liability,
but also refuses to name the driver. He also states how he would be making a
complaint about 'predatory conduct' and that the Notice to Keeper did not comply
with PoFA 2012 along with other statements.
As can be seen from the parking operative's photos, the vehicle is parked over the
bay markings and into a secondary bay, thus obstructing the use of that bay by any
patron of the retail park. It would not be presumed 'predatory' to issue a PCN to
those whom have cause hindrance to other members of the public, and contravened
the terms and conditions of parking on site.
We do note the comments made in regards to our NTF being non-PoFA compliant,
however as you can see from the further evidence provided this is fallacy. The
charge was issued correctly, as the vehicle is not parked correctly within the
markings of the bay. Seeing as Mr A refused to name the driver of the vehicle,
and the decision was made to continue the charge after the 28 day period, the
charge is compliant with PoFA in that regard and we have continued to hold Mr
A liable for the charge.
UKPC must maintain a consistent approach when issuing and upholding a charge. In
this instance, this vehicle had been parked on site in direct breach of the terms and
conditions of parking on site as stated on signage.
UK Parking Control signage complies fully with section 18 of the British Parking
Association Code of Practice and we reject the suggestion that it is vague or
misleading. Entrance signage advises motorists that terms of parking apply, and that
notices within the car park should be checked to identify the full terms and conditions.
These notices are placed throughout the car park. It is ultimately the
responsibility of the motorist to ensure they identify the terms of parking, and then
decide whether to park their vehicle, or leave the site if they are unable to meet
those terms.
The parking charges issued by UK Parking Control Limited are based on a
contractual agreement between UKPC and the driver, as detailed on the signage
displayed in the car park. The signage states the terms and conditions of parking and
explains that a parking charge will be payable if the terms are not met by the driver.
We ensure that signage is ample, clear and visible, wholly in line with the British
Parking Association Code of Practice. It is settled law that a driver is deemed to
have accepted the terms and conditions of parking by the act of parking and leaving
a vehicle.
There are sufficient signs advising drivers that parking outside of bay markings may
result in a parking charge being issued. Mr A's vehicle was not
parked within the bay markings; consequently, the parking charge was issued
correctly.

They have also kindly shared their 'evidence'

Unsurprising - POPLA are a bit rubbish at interpreting PoFA sometimes. No great problem, the decision is not binding on you.

Yes. They will pass it on to debt collectors, who you should ignore. Eventually, they will pass it to a legal firm (usually DCB Legal, not to be confused with debt collectors DCBL). When you receive a Letter of Claim you should return here for advice.