End Bay Parking Charge - Not the driver and poor signage

BTCCfootybiker

Hello,
My wife as the registered keeper of the vehicle has received a parking charge for "not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space" on 7th September from the UKPC.
She was not driving the vehicle.
This is the drafted response that she plans to appeal the case with. Any/all feedback is welcome.

"To Whom It May Concern,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle [REGISTRATION NUMBER] and am writing to formally challenge the issuance of Parking Charge Notice [PCN NUMBER], issued on [DATE] at [LOCATION] and deny any liability or contractual agreement. I will also be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

Please consider this a formal appeal for the following reasons:

1. I was not the driver at the time of the alleged contravention

I wish to make it clear that I was not the driver on the date in question. I do acknowledge that I am the registered keeper, however I am under no legal obligation to name the driver, and I will not be doing so.

UKPC has not met the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), which sets out the strict conditions for holding a registered keeper liable. If you are attempting to transfer liability to me as keeper, I request that you provide evidence of full compliance with the requirements of PoFA 2012, including clear proof that the notice was delivered within the prescribed time limits and contains all mandatory wording. For example, the parking charge fails to “state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action” and thus, the defendant is unable on the basis of the notice, to understand with any level of certainty what case, head costs and/or allegations are being pursued, making it difficult to respond in any event.

Furthermore, I understand that in order for the DVLA to release my details as the registered keeper, you must have supplied them with a letter with written landowner authority – please send me a copy of this letter.

If you cannot demonstrate full compliance with PoFA, then no liability can be transferred to the keeper, and this notice must be cancelled.

2. Inadequate and unclear signage – breach of BPA Code of Practice

The signage at the entrance and within the car park is insufficient and not prominently displayed. The only visible signage as pictured in the photos was affixed to a fixed structure belonging to the Halfords service centre car repair garage, located in such a way that it is not clearly visible from the point of entry. Accessing the sign requires crossing a pedestrian walkway (also clearly shown in the photos) and passing an active motor garage with multiple garages that of course has various motor vehicles moving in and out, which is neither safe nor reasonable to expect from motorists upon arrival on any day.

How is a motorist, in good faith, expected to realise this sign was pertinent to parking and accept those terms and conditions were being accepted when it’s next to the ‘Goods in’ section (next to an iso-container) which is the complete opposite end to the entrance to the retail park. Signs should be prominently placed to on the walkway to the shop entrances. Thus, the sign is too far away to be legible as a parking sign, let alone to read terms and conditions, and given the only sign on the entrance to the car park only refers to a maximum stay of 3 hours, and is a complete different sign, it is not reasonable to expect a motorist to check all other covert signs.

This falls short of the BPA Code of Practice (paragraph 19.2), which requires that signs be "prominent, clear and legible" from all entry points. The driver could not have been reasonably expected to locate and read the terms and conditions, let alone agree to them, particularly with no visible signage at the actual bay in question.

3. No evidence of obstruction or legitimate reason for issuing a PCN

The vehicle was parked in an end bay, causing no obstruction to other vehicles or pedestrians. UKPC has provided no evidence that the parking caused any issue or safety concern. Parking in an end bay does not constitute a deliberate contravention of reasonable parking rules, especially when no loss has been caused. It’s visible from the pictures that due to the walkway and railing that no obstruction or loss would have been incurred as a result, which is of course the fundamental reason for requiring vehicles to park in marked bays.

Furthermore, this is a ‘free’ to use car park, which does not require users to purchase or hold a ticket. This adds to the fact that no loss whatsoever could ever, or was caused, by the drivers parking.

4. Discriminatory practice under the Equality Act 2010

The car park in question, despite a very recent resurfacing and relaying of the parking spaces, offers no parent-and-child bays or accommodations for those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. The vehicle was carrying a three-month-old child and a 5 year old at the time, and the lack of suitable facilities constitutes a failure to make reasonable adjustments. Given there is a toy shop and pet shop on the retail park, this seems like a poor practice and an attempt to trap motorists and unscrupulously fine them.

Companies managing land open to the public are under a duty to ensure that their provisions do not disadvantage persons with protected characteristics, including those with infants. The lack of accommodation could be seen as indirect discrimination and could form the basis for a complaint to the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) and, if necessary, the EHRC.

In ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court clarified that parking charges must be proportionate and fair. The decision in that case was based on the fact that the terms were clearly displayed, and the charge was not punitive but aimed at ensuring the efficient use of parking spaces. However, it was emphasised that fairness and clarity are paramount.

In this case, the lack of appropriate parking provisions for parents, combined with the unclear and inadequate signage, results in an environment that is not fair, equitable, or reasonable. The car park is effectively discriminatory in that it places parents with young children at a disadvantage by forcing them to either park in spaces that are not suitable or pay unjustified fines.

The absence of suitable facilities, coupled with unclear signage, creates an unreasonable burden, violating the principle of equality enshrined in the Act. I trust that you will take this into account when reviewing my appeal.

5. Genuine Customer and Purchase

Despite not being the driver of the vehicle at the time, the driver did make a genuine purchase at Smyths Toy Store to the value of £65.97. Please find the charge on the bank statement to prove that.

6. UKPC has no proprietary interest in the land

You are merely an agent managing parking and have no legal standing to offer contracts or pursue claims in your own name. I request that you provide a full unredacted copy of your contract with the landowner, showing your authority to issue parking charges and take legal action in the landowner’s name. A witness statement or redacted contract will not suffice.

As per BPA Code of Practice (Section 7), you must have written authorisation from the landowner, and this must be available upon request.

7. All liability and alleged contract terms are denied

I do not acknowledge any charge or debt to UKPC. There is no evidence of a contract being formed, no consideration offered, and no acceptance. If you intend to reject this appeal, then I request the following:

• A unique POPLA code for escalation
• A copy of all photographs taken
• A full copy of the contract with the landowner
• A copy of the signage terms at the site
• Evidence of your compliance with PoFA 2012

Please also confirm whether you are relying on the keeper liability provisions of PoFA 2012 or pursuing this as a contractual claim against the driver.

Summary

Given the above points, I request that you cancel this parking charge immediately. If you decide to reject this appeal, I will not enter into further correspondence with UKPC and will escalate the matter to POPLA where I am confident of success based on the clear lack of signage, authority, and compliance with PoFA 2012.

I trust this appeal will be upheld, and the charge cancelled.

Sincerely,
[YOUR NAME]
Registered Keeper of Vehicle [REGISTRATION]

Thanks in advance!

Coupon-mad

Welcome!

Far too long, not needed and it won't fit in any portal or webpage appeals box! It's good as a basis for POPLA but not at first stage appeal.

And don't start communications with 'To Whom It May Concern'.

ONLY ONCE YOU HAVE EXHAUSTED 'PLAN A' FIRST: Just use the Template appeal. Either the one in post 1 of the NEWBIES thread or the shorter one in the MSE Guide linked above.

BTCCfootybiker

Thank you for the quick reply, I'll need your advice and shorten to the pertinent points! Thanks again

Coupon-mad

But plan A first. Read the NEWBIES thread.

  

James_Poisson

The first stage appeal is written for you in the newbies thread, whatever you appeal to scammers won't be read in detail or make any difference, they are too busy counting money!

UKPC don't have to send any letters to the DVLA they make thousands of requests electronically.

In addition, your reference to parent and child bays won't wash, these are a supermarket gimmick only they are not a requirement under any law, you won't find them in authority owned car parks.

Having children in your car isn't covered by the "Equality Act" forget it.

prowla

Should you state that you were not the driver, or merely that you are responding as the keeper?