UKCPS PoFA received - behind Leeds Railway station

kryten3000

This is the point - Double yellow lines on the public highway without kerb pips are there to inform the driver that there is no parking but there are specific exemptions in the Highway Code covering loading and unloading of goods and passengers and for Blue Badge holders (outside London).

Double yellow lines on private land usually mean no parking and no exemptions allowed, they make the rules up to suit themselves.

Since these lines look identical in most cases, this is a clear example of entrapment because an unsuspecting driver will apply the Highway Code rules in these locations.

It's all part of the outrageous scam. 

Coupon-mad

As above. Double yellows don't mean what you think they do!

Await the claim form, use a template defence for Moorside cases and they'll end up discontinuing before any hearing. That is what happens.

No cost, no CCJ, no risk. Easier than appeal.

I was stopped on double yellows - albeit my excuse was that I didn't leave the vehicle and could have moved at any time if I was causing an issue/obstruction - am I screwed because I breached the Highway Code?

No you didn't. This is what DYL are there to facilitate! It constantly astonishes me how so many drivers think they can't stop in double yellows. People actually think they mean no stopping! They don't.

Literally none of my friends (who have all been driving for decades) knew this fact:

Picking up or dropping off passengers and/or goods for a short period (and letting disabled blue badge holders park for up to 3 hours) is the very purpose of double yellows.

kryten3000

It's all here in the Highway Code:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/road-markings

You will see that the rules do prohibit "waiting" which is what the OP was doing, but the difference is that a traffic warden or council officer would usually tell the driver to move before issuing a penalty charge instead of hiding away to take photos from a distance or using CCTV to issue an instant charge.

Coupon-mad

But the Highway Code isn't the law or rules of course, and they were stopped for an exempt purpose:

" I was stopped for 10 minutes and I clearly picked someone up".

Perfectly OK for a few minutes on DYL.

Gr1pr

and Loading or Unloading is not "parking", its stopping

yet I assume that you have a Parking ( charge notice ) a PCN, from UKCPS

you asked for advice, so I would suggest that you take it onboard, even if you dont understand it

doubledotcom

Leeds City Station LS1 4DY is NOT relevant land until 26th December. Don't tell 'em your name, Pike!

As the alleged contravention was on 10 December 2025, the station land position was still the old one (i.e., not relevant land), and a PoFA NtK would not create keeper liability for that event. So the fact the notice is labelled/worded as “PoFA” is not decisive.

The Notice to Keeper is definitive for the purposes of PoFA. If an operator wishes to rely on keeper liability, the Notice must be fully compliant at the point it is given. Any failure cannot be cured or corrected later.

In this case, the NtKr specifies the location only as “Leeds City Station, LS1 4DY”. This is a large transport hub comprising multiple distinct areas, including station buildings, forecourts, service roads, drop-off zones, yellow-lined roads and areas subject to different land status and control. That description does not identify the relevant land with sufficient clarity to meet the requirements of PoFA. UKCPS cannot later refine or change the alleged location to repair that defect.

The NtK also fails to specify any period of parking. It merely states a time of issue and relies on two photographs taken ten minutes apart. PoFA does not require an NtK to include any photographs or evidential images at all. Photographs are therefore irrelevant to PoFA compliance.

If UKCPS wants to rely on keeper liability, the NtK itself must contain the mandatory statutory wording and information, including a statement of the "period of parking". That requirement is not satisfied by attaching or later referring to two timestamped images, assuming you can even read the timestamp, because images are evidence, not the prescribed PoFA content. A notice that omits the "period of parking" is simply not PoFA compliant, regardless of what the photos show, and keeper liability cannot arise.

Although the Notice is labelled as a “PoFA” notice issued on private land, wording alone does not create keeper liability. Compliance with PoFA does. This Notice does not comply.

As a result, keeper liability does not arise. The operator is limited to pursuing the driver only, who has not been identified, and the photographic evidence does not establish who the driver was.

Coupon-mad

Might be amusing to test this at IAS, pointing out that the legislation changing railway land to relevant land under POFA was not effected until 26th December.

Fumbles

Gr1pr said:

and Loading or Unloading is not "parking", its stopping

yet I assume that you have a Parking ( charge notice ) a PCN, from UKCPS

you asked for advice, so I would suggest that you take it onboard, even if you dont understand it

Thank you so much to all of you for your advice - I didn't mean to come across ungrateful, I'm just one of those annoying "but why?" people who always has to know the details! 
I understand much better now that there's been a bit more elaborating on the point, especially the DYLs! Thank you all so much.

Merry Christmas!

Fumbles

doubledotcom said:

Leeds City Station LS1 4DY is NOT relevant land until 26th December. Don't tell 'em your name, Pike!

As the alleged contravention was on 10 December 2025, the station land position was still the old one (i.e., not relevant land), and a PoFA NtK would not create keeper liability for that event. So the fact the notice is labelled/worded as “PoFA” is not decisive.

The Notice to Keeper is definitive for the purposes of PoFA. If an operator wishes to rely on keeper liability, the Notice must be fully compliant at the point it is given. Any failure cannot be cured or corrected later.

In this case, the NtKr specifies the location only as “Leeds City Station, LS1 4DY”. This is a large transport hub comprising multiple distinct areas, including station buildings, forecourts, service roads, drop-off zones, yellow-lined roads and areas subject to different land status and control. That description does not identify the relevant land with sufficient clarity to meet the requirements of PoFA. UKCPS cannot later refine or change the alleged location to repair that defect.

The NtK also fails to specify any period of parking. It merely states a time of issue and relies on two photographs taken ten minutes apart. PoFA does not require an NtK to include any photographs or evidential images at all. Photographs are therefore irrelevant to PoFA compliance.

If UKCPS wants to rely on keeper liability, the NtK itself must contain the mandatory statutory wording and information, including a statement of the "period of parking". That requirement is not satisfied by attaching or later referring to two timestamped images, assuming you can even read the timestamp, because images are evidence, not the prescribed PoFA content. A notice that omits the "period of parking" is simply not PoFA compliant, regardless of what the photos show, and keeper liability cannot arise.

Although the Notice is labelled as a “PoFA” notice issued on private land, wording alone does not create keeper liability. Compliance with PoFA does. This Notice does not comply.

As a result, keeper liability does not arise. The operator is limited to pursuing the driver only, who has not been identified, and the photographic evidence does not establish who the driver was.

Thank you, doubledotcom for this extensive explanation! I really appreciate it and feel much better about taking this course of action now

As it is in my husband's name, I would also like to get his OK to follow it so having this detail helps me to convince him. I've read through the Threads on this that all of you helpful people comment on, and I was 99% convinced. This puts me at 100% and I'm sure I can convince my husband to play the waiting game now.

Merry Christmas!

Gr1pr

The facts are,  your husband is the registered keeper,  but wasn't driving 
Ukcps have no idea who was driving ( keep it that way,  its a secret.   )

The registered keeper cannot be liable due to it being railway land,  at the moment  ( changes from Friday)
Pofa2012 did not apply on the incident date  ( but will after Friday  ) , not retrospective in this case

So your husband appeals based on no keeper liability,  go chase the driver,  a n other, because i am under no obligation to name them, so wont be naming them , tuff. !

Ukcps are then caught between a rock and a hard place, nobody to pursue 

You keep your head down, name out of it,  learn from the experience and knowledge on this forum

The but why is fine, if you are willing to fully research the topic,  like we did,  but Rome wasn't built in a day

Happy holidays