-
I, the registered keeper, would be grateful for advice on how to challenge the attached PCN.
The driver entered the car park area, stopped for estimated no more than 5 minutes with the engine running whilst working out if parking was / was not allowed, was advised by another person it was permit parking only, then left immediately.
Signage in area to be confirmed. The driver cannot recall clear signage on entry to car park area or within car park area.
Grounds of challenge being considered:
- car not identifiable in photos included on PCN
- no parking and very short duration of stay in area while working out if parking allowed
- no invitation to pay
- no evidence that registered keeper was the driver
- period of time “immediately preceding” referenced time of event is not sufficient
I would be grateful for advice on strength of suggested challenges above, recommended challenges and how to word response to UKPS.
Thank you
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
Don't over think this. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012 and so the only liable party is the unknown (to them) driver. No appeal or subsequent IAS appeal is going to be successful as you are dealing with ex-clamper scammers. If you follow the advice given here, you will not be paying a penny to UKPS.
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 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. UKPS 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. UKPS have no hope should you want to waste your money on trying to litigate this, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Come back when you receive the appeal rejection. -
-
The PCN does not comply with the requirements of PoFA 2012 to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper of the car.
Specifically, but not necessarily the only reason, no period of parking is given, and saying that the period in some way precedes a single time is inadequate.
A generic appeal that the PCN does not comply with PoFA 2012 is the first step, it will be rejected but don’t take it personally because they reject all appeals anyway, and it sets you down the path that you need to take to avoid payment.
@b789 has provided the appeal you need above. -
-
Thank you both. I will let you know how the appeal goes
-
-
Thank you both. I will let you know how the appeal goes
It’ll be rejected in all likelihood with some dissimulating waffle about how it does comply with PoFA, but you never know! -
-
Hello
As predicted, my appeal was very swiftly rejected, as follows:
"Having noted your comments, and checking the evidence gathered when issuing the Parking Charge, we are satisfied that the Parking Charge has been issued correctly and your appeal is rejected.
The parking charge was issued in line with POFA 2012 and as a result UKPS will continue to hold the registered keeper liable for this parking charge should the registered keeper wish to withhold the details of the driver.
All of our signage is fully compliant with the guidelines set out within The Single Code of Practice and we reject the notion that it is in any way unclear or ambiguous. The signage is printed on reflective material and is clearly illuminated in vehicle headlights within hours of darkness.
Please be advised that all photographic evidence can be viewed by typing: pay.theukps.com in to your top address browser.
We now require payment of £100 for this parking charge to be made.
If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). In order to appeal, you will need your Parking Charge number and your vehicle registration. Appeals must be submitted to the IAS within 28 days of the date of this letter/email. Please visit www.theias.org for full details.
For free advice regarding your parking charge, including advice on appealing, please visit: www.247advice.co.uk.
If you choose to do nothing, after 56 days from the incident date, the parking charge will be passed to our debt recovery agent, at which point you will be liable to pay additional charges in accordance with our terms and conditions of parking and further charges will be claimed if Court action is taken against you."
I would be grateful for advice on how best to respond and appeal.
Thank you -
-
Use the following as your IAS appeal. It will also be rejected but you have to make them go through the motions:Quote
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to provide the following:1. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font size, positioning, and the communication of key terms.
2. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
3. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace period as defined by the PPSCoP.
4. Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders keeper liability unenforceable.
5. Strict proof that the NtK was posted in time for it to have been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)
6. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers.” Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that keeper liability under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions are met.
If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.
In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles. -
-
Hello, thank you very much for your reply and suggested grounds of appeal. I used your wording and UKPS Limited withdrew their Parking Charge Notice. So a great result. Thank you so so much for all your help with this. It is hugely appreciated. Keep up the great work you do on this site helping people fight these disgraceful practices of these parking companies.
-
-
If they withdrew their PCN, do you mean they conceded the IAS appeal or did the IAS agree with your appeal?
-
-
UKPS conceded the appeal I made to the IAS.
The comms from the IAS said UKPS has confirmed they will no longer be pursuing the matter and the PCN has been cancelled.
Again, thank you very much for your help with this. -
Informative x 1
View List
Winner x 1
View List
Like x 1