UKPC charge for "commercial vehicle" parking

Gr1pr

Appeal, as explained on the NTK PCN letter

Coupon-mad

And at POPLA stage include your email and news article evidence that proves the owners are now AMRO and that Savills have said that they did not instruct UKPC so you require a copy of the landowner authority which will be a new contract with someone, given the change of ownership.

I think UKPC will fold at POPLA stage when they see that appeal & evidence but it doesn't matter if they don't. You'll never have to pay.

Do not bother with that evidence at first stage appeal as parking firms never read appeals thoroughly, IMHO.

NotMyName51

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81899508#Comment_81899508

AMRO informed me that they do not own the site, though they will redevelop it. Savills don't manage the site, despite Lewisham planning saying that they do. I have gotten no further in finding out who does own and manage the site. So I have no evidence to include in regards to that. Hopefully they should fold at POPLA stage regardless.

Coupon-mad

And if not, as long as at POPLA stage you challenge landowner authority they'll have to prove who they are contracted by.

NotMyName51

I appealed and, as expected, they probably did not even read the information in the appeal. I have had this response letter:

"Thank you for your recent correspondence in relation to parking charge reference REDACTED.

To assist us in making a decision regarding your appeal, please confirm the full name and address of the driver to our Appeals Department within seven days of the date of this letter.

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 discusses the recovery of unpaid parking charges. It allows parking operators to hold the registered keeper liable to pay unpaid parking charges if the operator has not been provided the name and a serviceable address of the driver.

This information may be confirmed by submitting another appeal on our website at www.ukpcappeals.co.uk, or by post to the address overleaf. Please ensure that if writing to us by post that you include the parking charge reference number and vehicle registration.

Failure to provide this information will give us no alternative other than to make our final decision based on the previous information received. At this stage a POPLA verification code will be provided.

The parking charge has been placed on hold whilst under appeal and may be settled in full at the current PCN rate of £100.00."

Obviously I already informed them that I will not disclose who has been driving. Do I sit tight and wait or submit anything further to them? Thanks all!!!

Coupon-mad

It's obvious to do nothing.

Standard begging reply. Search the forum for these replies instead of posting them! Choose any sentence. Stick it in the search box.

🙂

NotMyName51

Noted. I will search the forum before posting in future. Apologies.

cooldude255220

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81917005#Comment_81917005

If you wanted to, you could reply along these lines, but it's pretty immaterial; they're undoubtedly going to reject the appeal either way.

"You have written to me as the keeper. I am appealing as the keeper. I note that the Single Sector Code of Practice states, at Annex C:

where a NTK … has been issued in accordance with POFA, the Keeper … may appeal the parking charge if the driver has not previously been given the opportunity to appeal.

You must therefore proceed to consider my appeal - as the keeper - in accordance with the CoP."

NotMyName51

Hi all.

Unsurprisingly, UKPC denied my appeal. Below is my draft POPLA appeal. Any tips gratefully received. I have until the 28th, so plenty of time.

POPLA Verification Code: REDACTED

PCN Reference: REDACTED

Vehicle Registration: REDACTED

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle. I appeal against a Parking Charge Notice issued by UK Parking Control Ltd. I deny liability for this charge.

The operator has not identified the driver, and I have not admitted to being the driver. This appeal is made strictly in my capacity as keeper. No assumptions should be drawn regarding driver identity.

1. No Keeper Liability – Non-Compliance with Schedule 4

The Notice to Keeper (NTK) fails to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

In particular:

• The NTK fails to specify any “period of parking” as required by paragraph9(2)(a)
• The operator relies on a single timestamp (from one of multiple images)
• The operator relies on images taken within approximately 27 seconds.

A short sequence of timestamps does not evidence a period of parking — it merely shows the vehicle was present momentarily. As a result, the NTK is non-compliant and keeper liability does not arise. Only the driver could be liable, and the operator has not identified the driver.

This point alone is fatal to the charge.

Evidence:

• Appendix A – NTK (highlighted to show missing period of parking)
• Appendix B – UKPC timestamps (all images within 27 seconds)

2. No Breach Occurred – Vehicle Classification

The PCN alleges “No commercial vehicle permitted on site.”

No breach occurred:

• The signage relied upon depicts a twin rear axle vehicle or trailer unit (HGV).
• The vehicle in question is not of this type.
• The keeper’s vehicle is registered with the DVLA as M1 (passenger vehicle).

The operator has defined the restriction through its signage. The keeper’s vehicle does not meet that definition.

The signage is therefore:

• Ambiguous, and
• Misleading, as it visually conveys a restriction relating to HGV-type vehicles.

Any purported term must be interpreted contra proferentem (against the drafter). The operator cannot extend the meaning of signage beyond what is clearly conveyed.

Accordingly, no contractual breach occurred.

Evidence:

• Appendix F – Daylight photo of full signage (showing HGV symbol and illegible parking charge details)

3. Inadequate Entrance Signage & Unfair Consumer Term

There is no visible signage at the entrance warning that “commercial vehicles” are prohibited. Drivers are invited onto site with signage stating “2 hours maximum stay” and “no paid parking”, implying free parking without any indication of restriction. Any such term is therefore only discoverable after entry.

This constitutes:

• A failure to bring material contract terms to the driver’s attention before entry
• An unfair consumer term under the principles of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

No reasonable driver could understand or accept the alleged contractual terms under these circumstances.

Evidence:

• Appendix E – Entrance photo showing absence of commercial vehicle restriction

4. No Consideration Period – BPA Code Breach

The operator’s own evidence shows that images were taken within approximately 27 seconds.

This is wholly insufficient for a driver to:

• Locate the relevant signage
• Read and understand the terms
• Decide whether to accept or leave

The British Parking Association Code of Practice requires that drivers are afforded a reasonable consideration period before a contract can be formed.

No such period was provided.

Further:

• There is no evidence that the vehicle remained parked.
• The evidence is consistent with a vehicle entering, attempting to read signage, and leaving.

Issuing a PCN under these circumstances is contrary to the BPA Code and fundamentally unfair.

Evidence:

• Appendix B – UKPC timestamps (highlighting 27-second interval)

5. Inadequate and Non-Compliant Signage (Visibility & Legibility)

The operator’s own evidence demonstrates that the signage at the site is not clearly visible or legible under normal conditions.

• The photographs provided by the operator appear to rely on camera flash to illuminate the sign.
• There is no evidence that the signage is adequately lit or visible to a driver in real-world conditions.
• The terms are barely legible
• The parking charge is not prominently displayed and illegible in the operator’s own evidence.

This falls below the standard required by the British Parking Association Code of Practice, which requires that signage must be clear, conspicuous, and legible at all times.

Further, the principles established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis confirm that parking charges can only be enforceable where terms are prominently displayed and clearly brought to the attention of the motorist.

Appendix F, which is my own pohotograph, was taken in broad daylight and therefore in optimal conditions, unlike the time of the alleged contravention. Even in optimal conditions:

• Even in optimal light conditions, the parking charge is remains barely legible due to being very small and partially obscured by a screw.
• The HGV depiction is clear
• A driver would still struggle to see and understand the terms

The principles established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis confirm that parking charges can only be enforceable where terms are prominently displayed and clearly brought to the attention of the motorist.

Evidence:

• Appendix F – Daylight photo of full signage (showing HGV symbol and illegible parking charge details)
• Appendix C - UKPC signage close-up (showing poor lighting, illegibility)

6. No Evidence of Landowner Authority

The operator must provide proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice regarding land owner authority to issue the PCN and to enforce these restrictions.

The operator must provide:

• A contemporaneous, unredacted contract with the landowner,
• Showing that it has authority to issue and enforce parking charges at this site,
• Including the specific restrictions relied upon (e.g. “commercial vehicles”).

This is particularly relevant given that:

• The site is subject to redevelopment,
• There appears to be uncertainty as to site management and control.

A generic or redacted contract will not suffice. The operator must demonstrate clear authority at the material time.

7. Unlawful Data Processing

As no breach occurred and no keeper liability can arise:

• There was no reasonable cause to obtain keeper data from the DVLA.
• The operator’s processing of personal data lacks a lawful basis.

This is contrary to:

• UK GDPR, and
• The Data Protection Act 2018.

The operator has no lawful basis to retain or process my data in connection with this PCN.

Conclusion and Request

The operator has failed to demonstrate:

• Keeper liability
• A breach of site restrictions
• Compliance with BPA Codes of Practice
• Clear and legible signage
• Authority from the landowner

I respectfully request that POPLA:

• Allow this appeal
• Cancel the PCN

Yours faithfully,

REDACTED

Registered Keeper

Coupon-mad

That's good.

Love a POPLA appeal that isn't a template.

🙂