Parking Charge Notice Not Eligible To Appeal

Impala1623

Hi all, Thank you in advance for your help. Please see details below

Keeper has a lease car, UKPC sent PCN which was dated 29th March 2025 for overstaying in McDonald's -Wigan Morris Street while charging electric car. The PCN went to the lease company several times until it was eventually sent to the keeper's address dated 21 May 2025. The charge amount was £100 with the normal discount of half (£50) if paid in 14 days.

Keeper tried to appeal PCN online but message came up on UKPC portal saying appeal was not eligible due to the charge being currently on hold and under appeal investigation.. No further information given except  ' should you have additional information, please send it to our postal address High Wycombe PO Box –PO Box 1608, High Wycombe, HP12 9FN.'

Keeper not sure why this is as this was the first contact since receiving the PCN.

Any help would be appreciated,

Thank you in advance

Coupon-mad

Put the usual Hirer appeal by Edna Basher in via their complaints email or portal instead.

Impala1623

Thank you very much @Coupon-mad
I will do so and feedback

Impala1623

Hi all,

After eventually submitting an appeal to UKPC they sent me the letter below requesting for the driver details. I used the letter from Edna Basher as advised.

The letter does address what they are asking for as far as I remember.
Please can you advise on next steps?

Kind regards

Gr1pr

Ignore and wait for the popla code they promised 

Impala1623

Hi all,
Many thanks in advance for your help.

UKPC responded with a POPLA appeal code, please see the drafted response below.

Is this adequate or is more required?


This vehicle is also a lease vehicle

Re PCN number: XXXXX

POPLA Verification Number: XXXX

This is my appeal based on the following grounds 

 

1. The operator has not provided proof of Landowner Authority, a necessary compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. 
   
   2. The car park's signs are neither sufficiently prominent nor clear, lacking proper indication of the parking charge sum. 
   
   3. Appellant not being the individual liable 

 

 

1. As UKPC does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what UKPC is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). 

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. 

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement). 

The Transport Act byelaws may authorise APCOA to issue a parking penalty but they do not provide the mechanism for recovery of those charges, as such they offer a resolution to dispose of the allegation which I am free to accept or decline. As I have declined the offer the only way forward for UKPC is to take this to magistrates court which I invite them to do should this appeal be rejected. 

2. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.  

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only: 

LINK HERE

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise, and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.  

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case: 

Link HERE 

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed. 

Here, the signs are sporadically and sparsely placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered.  It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read before the action of parking and leaving the car.  

The alleged contravention, according to UKPC’s letter, is in 'breach of the terms and conditions of parking has occurred.  Not all signage showed terms & conditions and this was wholly inaccessible because it stood at a lofty height, making it impossible for anybody to review and understand the terms & conditions.  

On that basis, due to the inaccessibility of the signage, it can only be concluded that there are no mention or explanation of how ANPR is used or captured that would hold the keeper accountable for a breach of “terms and conditions”. This contravenes BPA’s Code of Practice, Appendix X, para 22.1, where it stated signs must explain that this technology is being used and what the data captured will be used for. Therefore, UKPC have failed to provide a clear signage that is accessible in order to ensure users has the relevant information to make an informed decision. 

From reviewing the signage, the PCN amount does not stand out on the signs, it is in small text and blends in with the rest of the sign. The PCN amount should be in a larger text, so it stands out and informs motorists clearly what the PCN amount is. Based on the evidence provided, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly and due to this, I believe that POPLA must allow the appeal.   

3. UKPC has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103). In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. Any person(s), with the consent of the registered keeper, may drive a vehicle as long as the driver is insured. 

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be and as the Registered Keeper), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced. 

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if UKPC is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party. 

The burden of proof rests with UKPC, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. 

 
Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015: 

Understanding keeper liability. 

 
There is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. If POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass. 

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. 

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found: 

"I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal." 

The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point 6 above. 

The onus is on UKPC to identify who the driver is.  

Coupon-mad

Your first point should be the usual stuff for NTH cases, saying that the operator failed to comply with paras 13/14 of Schedule 4.

Search the forum for a NTH POPLA appeal.

Impala1623

@Coupon-mad, thank you I will do so

Impala1623

Do you mean to add the following below:

1) Notice to Hirer non-compliant with POFA 2012- The Operator (ECP) failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

In order to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s hirer an operator must deliver a Notice to Hirer in full compliance with POFA’s strict requirements. In this instance, the operator’s Notice to Hirer did not comply.

The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA with the conditions that the Creditor must meet to be able to hold the hirer liable for the charge being set out in Paragraph 14.

Paragraph 14 (2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the Hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 13(2) (i.e. (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper.

The Operator did not provide me with copies of any of these documents, (a), (b) or (c).

Gr1pr

Correct,  except your case is NOT ECP !

James_Poisson

Sorry but why have you included this irrelevant information about Byelaws and another parking firm, you are obviously using copy and paste instead of forming your own points:

The Transport Act byelaws may authorise APCOA to issue a parking penalty but they do not provide the mechanism for recovery of those charges, as such they offer a resolution to dispose of the allegation which I am free to accept or decline. As I have declined the offer the only way forward for UKPC is to take this to magistrates court which I invite them to do should this appeal be rejected.