UKPC - PCN

Coupon-mad

I have appealed to POPLA who have requested further information from myself.

No they haven't. You are merely at POPLA Comments stage, at which you can't add new things. See the NEWBIES thread third post about what you can do at Comments stage.

fisherjim

As C-M states above POPLA have not asked you for further information have they e.g. if you provide additional evidence now it will be ignored, at this stage you have the opportunity to debunk UKPC's evidence, e.g. they usually submit undated office copies of signage and plans which usually bear no resemblance to the current signs, if they ever did.

jrc123

for context this was my POPLA appeal

Dear POPLA Assessor,

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced above and wish to appeal the Parking Charge Notice issued by UK Parking Control Ltd. The PCN was issued on the basis that my vehicle was “parked outside of the white lines of a marked bay.” I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge cancelled for the following reasons:

---

1. Parking Outside the White Lines Was Due to Circumstances Beyond the Driver’s Control

At the time of parking, the bays were either:

• poorly marked/faded,

• tightly spaced,

• or adjacent vehicles were positioned over the lines, limiting available space.

The driver made a reasonable effort to park considerately within the available area but was forced to slightly misalign the vehicle in order to avoid blocking others or causing an obstruction. In doing so, the driver ensured no safety or access issues were created, and no other vehicle was inconvenienced.

This falls well short of conduct that would justify a £100 charge. It is widely accepted that de minimis breaches (minor or trivial) do not constitute enforceable penalties.

Please find attached an image extracted from the CCTV footage on the date the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued. My vehicle is indicated by the red arrow for ease of reference.

As the image demonstrates, the vehicle was parked within the designated bay, with one wheel positioned on the white demarcation line. At the time, we were travelling with an infant under the age of one, necessitating the removal of the child from the rear seat. This process requires additional space to ensure both the safety of the child and to avoid any potential damage to adjacent vehicles (see Image 1).

It is pertinent to note that the car park was not at capacity on the date in question, and our vehicle’s positioning did not obstruct or prevent other users from parking in the immediate vicinity.

---

2. The Alleged Breach Was Trivial and Caused No Loss or Obstruction

In similar POPLA decisions (e.g. POPLA Decision Reference: 6060344024), charges have been cancelled where only one wheel was touching or slightly over a white line. A marginal overhang of a few inches—especially where no adjacent vehicles are affected—cannot reasonably be interpreted as a breach serious enough to invoke a charge of £100.

This is a disproportionate and punitive response, contrary to the principles of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015], where the Supreme Court made clear that operators must demonstrate a legitimate interest and proportionate deterrent. Here, no such interest exists.

---

3. Signage Was Inadequate to Form a Contract

The signage at the location does not clearly state that parking even slightly outside a white line constitutes a contravention leading to a £100 penalty. Any supposed contract must be clear, unambiguous, and prominently displayed. If this term was not clearly communicated, it cannot be relied upon to penalise the driver.

If UKPC allege the signage was adequate, I request that they provide:

• A full site map showing the location of each sign;

• Photos of the actual sign at the location where the vehicle was parked;

• Evidence the signs meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, specifically Section 19 and Appendix B (signage).

---

4. No Evidence of Landowner Authority

As UKPC is not the landowner, they are required under the BPA Code of Practice to hold a valid contract with the landowner giving them the authority to issue and enforce PCNs at this site. I challenge them to produce a full, contemporaneous, and unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner.

Without this, they have no legal standing to pursue this charge.

---

5. Failure to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

If UKPC is attempting to hold the keeper liable, they must demonstrate full compliance with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, including correctly worded and timely notices. If they are not relying on POFA, they have no lawful basis to pursue me as the registered keeper.

---

Conclusion

The parking incident in question was the result of circumstances outside of the driver’s control. The alleged breach was trivial, caused no obstruction, and UKPC has failed to demonstrate any loss or legitimate interest. Signage was unclear, and the charge is not enforceable under POFA.

For the reasons stated above, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

Kind regards,

jrc123

and this was my further comments in reagrds to the evidence submitted by UKPC

To the POPLA Assessor,

I write in my capacity as the registered keeper of the above vehicle to submit a formal rebuttal in response to the evidence provided by UK Parking Control Ltd (“UKPC”) concerning the Parking Charge Notice dated 13 April 2025. I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld, and the charge cancelled for the following reasons:

1. Triviality of the Alleged Breach
The alleged contravention concerns a minor encroachment beyond a bay marking. UKPC’s own photographic evidence confirms that any deviation was minimal, caused no obstruction, and occurred in a free car park that was not at capacity. In accordance with the principle of de minimis non curat lex and BPA Code of Practice paragraph 14.2, such trivial conduct does not constitute a justifiable or enforceable breach. It would be disproportionate and unreasonable to uphold a £100 charge for a technicality of no material consequence.

2. No Admission of Driver Identity
I do not admit to being the driver at the time of the alleged incident. Any references in my initial appeal to the presence of an infant were contextual and do not imply knowledge or control of the vehicle’s operation at the material time. UKPC has not identified the driver and must therefore rely on the statutory requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) to pursue keeper liability. As outlined below, UKPC has failed to comply with the statutory conditions necessary for such liability to apply.

3. Inadequate and Ambiguous Signage
The signage relied upon by UKPC fails to satisfy the standards required by the BPA Code of Practice (Sections 18 and 19; Appendix . No sign cited by UKPC adequately communicates that a vehicle may incur a £100 charge for a slight encroachment over a bay line. No evidence has been provided to show that any such sign was prominently positioned near the vehicle. The signage is generic, unclear, and incapable of forming a legally binding contract under ordinary principles of offer and acceptance.

4. Lack of Legitimate Interest
UKPC relies upon ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, but that case is clearly distinguishable. In Beavis, the Supreme Court upheld a charge only because it protected a legitimate interest—specifically, the need for space turnover in a busy, paid car park. This case involves a free, low-occupancy car park with no evidence of commercial necessity, loss, or deterrent need. As such, UKPC cannot satisfy the Beavis test of proportionality or legitimate interest, and the charge is therefore unenforceable.

5. Failure to Establish Landowner Authority
The redacted contract submitted by UKPC fails to demonstrate that it has the authority required under the BPA Code of Practice Section 7. No unredacted contract has been provided, nor has any evidence been submitted that links the contractual terms specifically to Gallions Reach Shopping Park Zones A–D. The absence of this evidence renders the contract legally insufficient, and UKPC cannot demonstrate the requisite standing to issue or pursue this charge.

6. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
UKPC claims to rely on Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 but has not demonstrated compliance. A full copy of the Notice to Keeper has not been provided, and UKPC has failed to prove that all requirements under Paragraph 9(2) have been met, including mandatory wording regarding keeper liability. Additionally, there is no evidence that the Notice to Keeper was served within the statutory period under Paragraph 9(5). If a Notice to Driver was not issued, strict adherence to these timeframes is essential. UKPC has therefore failed to establish keeper liability.

7. Reasonable Conduct by the Driver
Whoever the driver may have been, their actions were entirely reasonable in the circumstances. The vehicle was positioned to allow for safe access to the rear of the vehicle. There was no obstruction, no risk, and no impact on the operation of the car park. To penalise such behaviour would be inconsistent with principles of fairness and common sense, particularly where no term was breached in substance and no harm occurred.

8. Incomplete and Deficient Evidence
UKPC’s evidence is incomplete, generic, and in several instances misleading. Signage photographs are undated, lack contextual placement in relation to the vehicle, and fail to demonstrate relevance to the alleged location. The redacted contract is incapable of legal scrutiny. UKPC repeatedly asserts that the driver accepted terms, yet it has neither identified the driver nor evidenced the communication of any specific terms regarding bay markings at the location in question.

9. Supporting Precedents
POPLA has previously cancelled parking charges under similar circumstances. For example:
– POPLA Ref: 6060344024: PCN cancelled for trivial bay line infringement.
– POPLA Ref: 6060495786: PCN cancelled due to insufficient signage regarding bay markings.
– POPLA Ref: 2211565247: PCN cancelled where adjacent vehicle prevented accurate parking.
– ParkingEye v Cargius (2014): Charge dismissed where parking lines were unclear and no obstruction occurred.
Each of these decisions reinforces the principle that technical or minimal breaches, especially in free car parks, do not justify disproportionate penalties.

10. Conclusion
UKPC has failed to prove that a binding contract existed, that the breach was material, that signage was adequate, that landowner authority exists, or that the conditions for keeper liability under POFA 2012 have been satisfied. The charge is disproportionate, legally unsound, and unsupported by credible evidence. For the reasons stated above, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and direct that the Parking Charge Notice be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

jrc123

I used Chat GPT to find me all similar cases to mine where POPLA threw the case out.

I also when back to the landowner and again my complaint got a generic response from a so called director there, just a corporate puppet or muppet should i say.

The freeholder must be really desperate to earn commission for each parking fine UKPC dish out successfully.

All in all i complained to:

The GM of the retail park - no help
The senior manager of landowner or managing agent - no help

Considering they are reliant on customers coming to their retail park which offers a free car park they are going the right way around it to keeping the customers coming back.

Will update on the POPLA decision....

Coupon-mad

Download the evidence pack now and keep it because it will disappear once you (almost inevitably) lose at POPLA.

Show us the images of the car.

jrc123

Got it saved :-) will come back here when i hear back from POPLA

jrc123

Have people been successful when it comes to parking outside a white line?

Coupon-mad

Show us the images of the car.

jrc123

Hi @Coupon-mad See here the link which has 2 images - https://imgur.com/a/NygGQ7K

When i turned up there was a car parked slightly over and i had to get my baby out of the car.

I have got further CCTV footage via an SAR request which shows the carpark was half empty - too note the carpark holds 2000+ car spaces and this is free parking.