Hi everyone,
I’ve just received my POPLA decision back regarding a UKPC ticket at Bridge Retail Park, Torquay. Unfortunately, it's been rejected by the assessor (Richard Beaden). I kept strictly to the advice on this forum, appealed as the Registered Keeper, and did not identify the driver.
Despite having what appeared to be a watertight case based on strict statutory and regulatory failures, the assessor has seemingly rewritten the rules to push the charge through.
Here is the breakdown of my case, the appeal, and the assessor's bizarre decision.
The Background:
Operator: UKPC
Alleged Breach: Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space.
The Evidence: The operator's own timestamped photos showed the vehicle was observed for a total of exactly 20 seconds (14:05:48 to 14:06:08).
The Notice to Keeper (NTK): Failed to state a period of parking, providing only a single instantaneous timestamp (14:06:14).
My POPLA Appeal:
I appealed on two solid grounds:
Failure to comply with PoFA 2012 (Keeper Liability): Paragraph 9(2)(a) mandates the NTK must specify the "period of parking." I argued that a single timestamp of a single second (14:06:14) is an instantaneous snapshot, not a "period" (which inherently requires a start and an end time). Therefore, keeper liability cannot apply.
Breach of BPA Code of Practice (Consideration Period): I argued that the operator's own 20-second photo window conclusively proves they denied the driver the mandatory 5-minute consideration period required to read the signs and decide whether to accept the contract or leave.
My Comments on the Operator's Evidence:
In their evidence pack, UKPC absurdly argued that the single timestamp was the period, and that because the driver wasn't visible in the photos standing next to the sign, they must have "left the location," instantly ending the consideration period. In my 7-day comments, I pointed out that walking away from a vehicle to go locate a sign does not equate to leaving the location, and ticketing a car within 20 seconds actively prevents a driver from reading the terms.
The POPLA Decision (Assessor: Richard Beaden):
Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor summary of operator case:
The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver was not parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space.
Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant advises that they are the keeper of the vehicle. They dispute that the operator has complied with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). They explain that the operator has not allowed the relevant consideration period. They advise that the driver has been unable to read the signs, so no contract was formed. The appellant has commented on the parking operator’s evidence. The appellant has provided four photos of the vehicle on site and a copy of the PCN.
Assessor supporting rational for decision:
The driver of the vehicle has not been identified as such the operator using Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) to hold the appellant liable as the keeper of the vehicle. I have reviewed the copy of the PCN provided by the operator. This shows that the notice contains all of the required wording and time scales specified. The notice was also sent out within the relevant time scales. The Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) requires the notice to state the period of parking the notice refers to not the duration the vehicle was parked. A period of parking could be just before or just after a specified time as such the notice is fully complaint with the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). The signs on site advise that all users must be parked within a marked bay or a parking charge of £100 will be issued. Both the operator and appellant have provided a series of photos which shows that the vehicle was parked across the hatched markings in breach of the terms and conditions. Section 5 of the Single Code of Practice explains that a driver could allow a consideration period. Annex B.1 states that this should be five minutes. It also states that this period can end earlier if there is evidence that the driver accepted the contract. The operator’s photos show that there is no one in the vehicle and the driver is not reviewing the signs as these are next to the vehicle. This means that the operator has proven that the parking contract was accepted even though it has not shown that it allowed a period of five minutes. A driver does not have to read the signs to be bound by the terms and conditions. There is only the requirement that the signs are clear like they are in this case. It’s the driver’s decision if they read them or not before accepting the parking contract. The PCN provided by the appellant matches the copy provided in the case file. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver parked across the bay markings and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.
I have no intention of paying this. The assessor's logic that a "period" can just mean "before or after" a timestamp is a complete fabrication that ignores PoFA entirely. Their conclusion that a 20-second absence from the vehicle proves the driver accepted the contract without reading the signs is equally ridiculous.
I am planning to ignore the incoming barrage of debt collector letters and wait it out.
Has anyone else had to deal with this specific assessor (Richard Beaden) inventing his own laws?
Aside from ignoring the debt collectors, is there anything else I need to proactively do before a potential Letter Before Claim arrives?
Thanks in advance for the advice!