-
UKPC PCN- Not parked within the bay- Lower Precinct, Coventry
Posted by dalooah on 28 Jan, 2025 22:23 -
I have recieved this PCN for not parking wholly within the bay. I am the registered keeper. The bay in question is a parent and child bay that has a massive pillar within it that obstructs a larger car from parking properly. Had the car been exactly within the signed bay, the 3 children in the backseat would not have been able to exit the vehicle and the car on the right hand side of the vehicle would have also been significantly obstructed- all of which has not surprisingly, been ignored by the parking attendant.
The photo of the signage isn't very clear and I don't have my own photos.
Asking the shopping center management to intervenet is wholly useless as it clearly states on their website to contact UKPC directly.
Any ideas how to appeal this successfully? -
-
You will not be paying a penny to UKPC if you follow the advice. For now, hopefully, UKPC have no idea who the driver is. Do not blab the drivers identity if you are the Keeper who has received the Notice to Keeper (NtK) by saying things like "I did this or that". As the Keeper, you only refer to the driver in the third person such as "The driver did this or that".
The NtK is not PoFA compliant and there can be no Keeper liability. The only way that UKPC would know the drivers identity is if the Keeper blabs it, inadvertently or otherwise.
As the Keeper is the named person on the NtK heed the following instructions and follow them without editing anything in the appeal.QuoteEasy one to defeat... 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:QuoteI 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.
The appeal will be rejected, no matter what is in it but it puts them on notice that they are not dealing with low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and gets a POPLA code.
Come back when you receive the appeal rejection or any other correspondence from them for the next steps. -
-
Thanks for the help so far. I submitted the appeal as above and I was expecting a rejection but I have just been sent a letter asking for the drivers name and address in order for the appeal to be considered.
Am I correct in thinking that I can ignore this, or do I reiterate that I will not be confirming the details of the person driving? -
-
Yes, ignore.
Anything you would say to them in writing would likely be to your detriment. -
-
Don't tell 'em your name Pike!
-
-
Having ignored the recent correspondance, it has been 28 days since I submitted the appeal and have not had a response. Should I follow up or hope its done and dusted?
-
-
It's not "done and dusted", but why would you want to "follow it up"? Te=he ball is in their court and if they haven't responded within the required timeframe, then you can make a formal complaint later. Just wait for them to respond.
-
-
I've finally recieved a rejection to my initial appeal.
Here is the letter:
I believe I have a case at POPLA because of the awkward shape of the parking space the driver was forced to park in- it was a parent and child space and the driver had three children under 8 with them- but the pillar at the front of the parking space meant the driver had to park very slighly on the hashed marking in order to ensure they and the cars around them could get in and out of their vehicles.
This is the original NtK.
I also believe the NtK isn't POFA compliant but I'm not sure on what grounds? I'm certain they have calculated their dates incorrectly, because I recieved a "final notice" in the post on 27/01/2025 which clearly showed the 14 day early payment discount had already ended on that date- whereas, according to my calculations it shouldn't have ended till: 29/01, and thus the end of the 28 day period- which isn't stated on any of the letters should have been: 12/02.
Alledged contrvention: 10/01
NtK dated: 13/01
So first day of the 28 day period should be: 16/01
Final Reminder stating 14 days have lapsed and 14 days remaining: 27/01 which is only 12 days after the NtK?
Any help with crafting my appeal to POPLA would be appreciated. -
-
Just in case its useful, the final reminder letter I received in the post.
-
-
POPLA won’t take “mitigating circumstances” into account, which I think you’re relying on.
Basically they’ll say if you couldn’t park “correctly” then you should have parked somewhere else.
Stick to lack of PoFA compliance meaning you can not be liable, you will get help on how to spell this out I’m sure. No hurry. -
-
Nobody pays a penny to UKPC if they are receiving and following the advice received here. Even if this goes all the way to a court claim, you won't pay a penny because they the claim will either be struck out or discontinued.
Yours is a typical example of the abuse of the system by these rogue operators. In this case, a de minimus contravention that is now being pursued out of greed.
Regarding the dates, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant because there is no period of parking stated which s a breach of paragraph 9(2)(a). Apart from that, the NtK is more or less PoFA compliant. However, even a single failure to fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA renders it non-compliant and so the Keeper cannot be liable. Only the driver can be liable and unless the Keeper identifies the driver, which they are under no legal obligation to do so to an unregulated private parking company, then UKPC have nowhere to go with this.
The BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) is somewhat ambiguous on dates but for the discount period, they start the 14 days clock running from the sate of issue of the NtK. In this case, the NtK issue date was 13th January and the final reminder was issued on 27th January, exactly 24 days later. Where most operators fail with their dates and wording is with the deadline for appeals and payment. The PPSCoP states that appeals must be made and accepted within 28 days of receipt but most operators use date of issue, which is incorrect. You will note that on the back of UKPC NtKs, they actually state that an appeal must be made within 28 days of the date the notice is given (received).
So, the only real failure in the NtK is the fact that they haven to specified a period of parking and that is easily countered should it ever go to court with the persuasive appeal case of Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H]. However, that is enough to invalidate Keeper liability, which was the basis for the initial appeal, which we knew was going to be rejected anyway.
You now have 33 days from the appeal rejection date to submit a POPLA appeal. You should have a search of the forum for other POPLA appeals to see how they should be formatted and how to put the points across. POPLA will not consider any mitigation, only points of law and the PPSCoP.
In your case, there can be no Keeper liability and UKPC have not shown that the person they are pursuing is the liable party. The burden of proof is on UKPC to prove your liability, not for you to prove otherwise. They are not allowed to infer that the Keeper must also be the driver as that has also been thrown out of court in several persuasive appellate cases, including most notably, VCS v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C].
UKPC signage is incapable of forming a contact as it is always in minuscule font and the charge is never adequately brought to the attention of the driver. Always use that in a UKPC POPLA appeal. Also mess with their heads by requiring the operator to provide strict proof that they even have a valid contract flowing from the landowner permitting them to issue PCNs at the location.
Before you submit anything, show us what you think is suitable and we will advise on any corrections and provide suggestions for anything that may be missing. -
-
De minimis (non curat lex).
Yours is a typical example of the abuse of the system by these rogue operators. In this case, a de minimus contravention that is now being pursued out of greed.
To be pedantic (ablative plural).
Latin O level 1977.
PS It doesn’t matter, I was just amused because you recently and correctly picked me up on a mistake in a recent post I made when I should have known better!
Oh, I found : https://www.surfacelanguages.com/blog/2020/08/27/de-minimus-non-curat-lex/QuoteThere was a young lawyer called lex,
who had very small organs of sex.
When done for exposure,
he said with composure,
De minimis non curat lex. -
-
Thanks for all the help so far- I've drafted the following appeal after finding some samples on the forums- any advice- particularly on sections 3-5 would be appreciated.
POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC)
APPELLANT: Registered Keeper
PARKING OPERATOR: UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC)
PCN REFERENCE: [Insert PCN Number]
VEHICLE REGISTRATION: [Insert Vehicle Registration]
DATE OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION: 10/01/2025
DATE OF NTK ISSUE: 13/01/2025
The appeal is based on the following grounds:
1. UKPC’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
2. No Presumption That the Keeper Was the Driver
3. The parking bay is a parent and child bay
4. Parking bay has obstruction within it
5. No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
6. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed
7. Lack of Landowner Authority – No Proof of UKPC’s Right to Operate
1. UKPC’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
• UKPC has not met the statutory requirements under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
• The NtK issued only states that the vehicle was observed at 16:46, which is a single moment in time, not a period of parking.
• Case law in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H] confirms that PoFA requires a defined period of parking, and a mere timestamp does not satisfy this requirement.
• Since UKPC has failed to comply with PoFA, Keeper liability does not apply, and they can only pursue the driver, whom they have not identified.
Accordingly, POPLA must rule that the PCN is unenforceable against the Keeper.
2. No Presumption That the Keeper Was the Driver
• UKPC has made no attempt to identify the driver and is attempting to hold the Registered Keeper liable without meeting PoFA compliance.
• In VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9CC], the court reaffirmed that there is no presumption in law that the Keeper was the driver.
• The Registered Keeper has exercised their right not to name the driver, and no adverse inference can be drawn.
As UKPC has not identified the driver, and the Keeper is not liable under PoFA, the PCN must be cancelled.
3. The parking bay was a parent and child bay
• The alleged contravention is “Not parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space”, but UKPC has failed to account for the fact that the bay the driver parked in was a parent and child bay and the hatched area forms part of the bay for use of the driver and the occupants of the vehicle.
• It is not made clear in any signage that the hatched area do not form part of the parent and child bay- as the space to the left of the bay being used during this alleged contravention is also a parent and child bay it is assumed that half the hatched area is for the use of either vehicle.
• The alleged contravention is therefore ambiguous, and the burden of proof lies with UKPC to demonstrate a clear breach.
4. The bay has an obstruction within it
• As is clearly visible in photos provided by UKPC, there is a pillar that protrudes into the parking bay and thus, UKPC have not upheld their duty to provide suitable parking spaces.
• Had UKPC provided bays which are of a suitable size and without obstructions parking within the hatched area or walking path, would not have been necessary.
Since UKPC has failed to provide a suitable parking space, this PCN must be dismissed.
5. No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
• UKPC has not demonstrated that being parked in the hatched area has caused any loss or inconvenience.
• In ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, the Supreme Court held that a parking charge must serve a legitimate interest beyond mere deterrence.
Given that, had the driver parked in a way that would ensure all spaces around it were accessible, the charge doesn’t meet the necessary criteria of serving a legitimate interest.
6. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed
• The signage at this location is high up and contains very small text, making it difficult to read unless the driver actively seeks it out to review the terms and conditions of parking. Even if the driver attempts to read the sign, the charge for breaching any terms is not “adequately” brought to the attention of the driver or anyone attempting to read it.
• The parking charge of £100 is buried in a block of small print, which does not meet the PoFA requirement for “adequate notice”.
• The most prominent text on the sign states “PAY ON EXIT”, which is instructive rather than contractual.
• In ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, the Supreme Court held that a parking information must be clearly and prominently displayed.
Since the terms were not adequately communicated, no contractual agreement was formed, and therefore no breach occurred.
7. Lack of Landowner Authority – No Proof of UKPC’s Right to Operate
• Under Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, UKPC must provide strict proof that it has the landowner’s authority to issue PCNs at this location.
• UKPC has not provided any evidence that it holds a valid contract with the landowner.
• Any contract must include specific clauses permitting the issuing and enforcement of PCNs.
• The proof must be a contractual right flowing from the landowner. A signed statement from an agent of the landowner is not evidence that the agent has the right to make a contractual arrangement with the operator.
UKPC is put to strict proof that it has a legally binding agreement to operate on this land. If no valid contract is provided, this PCN must be cancelled.
CONCLUSION
The PCN issued by UKPC is fundamentally flawed on multiple legal and evidential grounds:
• The NtK fails to comply with PoFA due to the absence of a “period of parking,” making Keeper liability impossible.
• There is no presumption that the Keeper was the driver, and UKPC has not identified the driver.
•The hatched area forms part of the parking space to ensure children are abel to enter and exit the vehicle safely.
• The bay has a permanent obstruction within it necessitating parking over the walking path.
• The signage is inadequate, meaning no contract was formed.
• UKPC has not provided proof of landowner authority.
Given these significant deficiencies, I request that POPLA allow this appeal and cancel the PCN in its entirety.
Signed,
[Registered Keeper's Name]
-
-
Looks good to me unless anyone else has an opinion. You will have an opportunity to respond to the operators evidence pack when they send that, so you will see if they fail to rebut or answer any of your point.
-
-
Just trying to submit the POPLA appeal now and you have to pick a reason for appealing the charge; and the options thats most suitable is "I was not improperly parked" and surely this identifies the driver (or it's not an accurate statement) and the next best option would be "other". Or does it not matter which option you pick?
-
Funny x 2
View List