UKPC PCN - Hemel Hempstead

merkede

“UKPC PCN – signage barely readable at night and address errors – seeking advice before appeal”

Hi all,

I’ve received a PCN from UK Parking Control (UKPC) for “Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space.”

Location: KD Tower, Hemel Hempstead

Date/time: 10/02/2026 at 22:39

I’d really appreciate some advice before I respond, as I’ve noticed a few potential issues:

1 - The address on the PCN appears incorrect: Road is listed as “Cottrells” but it should be “Cotterells”. Postcode given is HP1 1JZ, but KD Tower is HP1 1AZ. So the address is off.

2 - The signage is very difficult to read, especially at night. Their own evidence photos (attached) show the sign is barely legible from ground level at 10:39pm - the 'terms and conditions' bit is very small font. From a driver’s perspective on entry, it’s worse.

Some signage in the area is not properly illuminated (I found one of the lampposts without a working light in the same parking space). The alleged contravention happened at 10:39pm, so visibility is a key factor. I'm thinking I keep these two pictures as evidence for POPLA or now?

The PCN is dated 13/02/2026 and arrived in the post on 20/02/2026. I guess I need to respond by 27th?

I need your help as not sure on what grounds I have/can get defence. I've attached with personal details removed.

(Images removed by Forum Team)

Gr1pr

Strange bit of parking, or stopping, presumably the pictures are by MNPR. ?

How long was the vehicle on site ? ( no period of parking listed on that NTK PCN letter . )

Was the driver dropping off or picking up. ?

Apart from poor signage and poor visibility, what defence do you believe to be valid. ?

Or

Why not use the template appeal in the newbies sticky thread in announcements ?

Coupon-mad

I would just ignore it and watch it get discontinued when DCB Legal try court.

James_Poisson

UKPC using the out of marked bay reason instead of unauthorised parking.

Are you sure your weren't just reading the signage for a couple of seconds prior to not accepting the terms and conditions before leaving?

merkede

Submitted the below:

I am the registered keeper and I dispute this parking charge. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.

Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and you cannot transfer liability to the keeper.

The NtK fails to specify the required “period of parking.” It states only a single timestamp, which is not compliant with the statutory requirement. As such, keeper liability does not apply.

Further, the NtK fails to clearly specify the relevant land. The location details are inconsistent and ambiguous:

- The street is stated as “Cottrells,” which does not exist as a legitimate street name. The closest match is Cottrell St (West Bromwich).

- The postcode (HP1 1JZ) corresponds to different locations including Hemel Hempstead Town Cricket Club and Station Road.

There are too many conflicting identifiers resulting in multiple, inconsistent location references. These discrepancies fail to identify a single, clearly defined location, and the NtK is therefore non-compliant.

There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver and no assumptions can be made.

In addition, no contract was formed. The operator is a member of the British Parking Association and must ensure signage is clear and legible. The alleged contravention occurred at 22:39. If terms cannot be read from a standing position, they cannot be read from a vehicle. I am happy tom provide photographic evidence. The operator’s own photographic evidence demonstrates that the signage is not legible from close view at 22:39, particularly the terms and conditions displayed in small font.

Furthermore, some signage in the area is not illuminated. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. UKPC has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only. You are urged to cancel this charge.

Le_Kirk

In addition, no contract was formed. The operator is a member of the British Parking Association and must ensure signage is clear and legible. The alleged contravention occurred at 22:39. If terms cannot be read from a standing position, they cannot be read from a vehicle. I am happy tom provide photographic evidence, which was passed to me by the driver. The operator’s own photographic evidence demonstrates that the signage is not legible from close view at 22:39, particularly the terms and conditions displayed in small font.

Add the little bit above so as not to out yourself as driver.

merkede

UKPC have responded (see above). I read this as them :

1) Asserting that their Notice to Keeper is compliant (with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) despite my point that no “period of parking” is specified. Only a single timestamp.

2) They have not addressed my point regarding failure to clearly specify the relevant land. Perhaps they are reserving that for POPLA (?)

3) They also strongly dispute that the signage is unclear and that no contract was formed.

My strongest argument, I feel, is using their own evidence against them … the photo of the signage taken directly in front is barely readable, then how-so from a distance??

At this stage, I’d appreciate advice on next steps for a POPLA appeal. Should I largely reuse the same arguments?

Coupon-mad

Yes give it a whirl with those arguments plus 'no landowner authority' but referring to the Joint CoP clause 14 and Appendix G (not the out of date BPA CoP version still linked in post 3 of the NEWBIES thread).

If you lose, it changes nothing: just ignore it and watch it get discontinued when DCB Legal try court.