3 Parking Fines - UKPC!!

merkede

I'm already contesting a parking fine (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6656446/ukpc-pcn-hemel-hempstead/p1?new=1). Now I have received 2 more PCNs from UKPC for the same location (KD Tower car park).

The vehicle was parked in the same allocated resident bay over consecutive days. This bay is included within a tenancy agreement (i.e. paid for as part of rent), but during this period the permit was not displayed. This was an oversight while awaiting a replacement pass as it was lost. The vehicle potentially longer. It is possible that further PCNs (beyond these two) may be issued for the same continuous period.

UKPC have issued separate PCNs for each day the vehicle remained parked. I’m trying to understand whether this is enforceable, or whether this should be treated as a single continuous contravention. The signage on site states “No unauthorised parking” and "Terms of parking apply at all times", but I cannot see any clear wording that: A charge applies per day, or each 24-hour period constitutes a separate breach?

Should I challenge each PCN individually or reference them together? I need help on strategy, how to respond, next steps please.

3 Parking fines is a joke, I pay for it through rent. Noted the NtK for the PCN appears non-compliant with PoFA (no “period of parking”).

(Images removed by Forum Team)

ChirpyChicken

Appeals must be logged individually

1505grandad

Please do not refer to these invoices from an unregulated entity as "fines" - you will not find that word in any of their correspondence.

knightstyle

What does the lease for the flat say about parking? Post that on here and you will get advice on how to fight this.

i bet there is nothing on there about showing a permit. there are plenty of similar threads on here for you to look at along with the newbies guide at the start of this forum.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6657378/3-parking-fines-ukpc

This is why PPCs must be required to affix a timely notice on windscreens at:

• all residential sites
• all accessible (disabled) bays - for a different reason to do with special category data
• all sites where there is a person on foot taking the images, whether self ticketer or not.

If that was the rule on the Code then people like you would only get one PCN and the numbers of invoices issued across the length & breadth of the country at these specific 'sensitive' bays would immediately reduce ~5 times and the MHCLG would be onto a winner.

It would also serve as a powerful visual deterrent against unwanted parking by trespassers (and against abusing disabled bays). That'll also go some way to address the 'gridlock' rubbish that the BPA have trotted out again this week.

And this would meet the laws regulated by:

• the CMA (the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requirement for timely, clear & prominent consumer notices)

and

• the ICO (DPA 2018) reducing the unjustified harvesting of 'special category data' of disabled people - if the rule also banned remote postal 'invisible' ticketing in accessible bays - and reducing the chances of obtaining old, inaccurate address data of residents who have just recently moved into residential estates.

merkede

The written tenancy agreement contract has no mention of parking. The only written reference is the rental advert which shows allocated parking (snippet below).

I've read a few posts but need you're help and clarification on the exact position I should take and the response given I'd need to respond to the NtK tomorrow (14 days).

The argument I read is from my perspective is : My right to live in the flat and to use the facilities that come with it comes from my tenancy agreement (AST) with my landlord, together with what was advertised and agreed when I took the property. So though not explicitly in the tenancy agreement, the 'allocated parking' it is part of the agreed contract.

This contract allows me to park in my allocated bay with no mention of any need to display a permit or compliance with third-party such as UKPC.

The UKPC argument I read is :

• They have a contract with the landowner and authorisation/permission to?

1 - "The contract between UK Parking Control Ltd and the landowner (or their managing agent) authorising UKPC to provide parking management, and therefore issue parking charges to vehicles breaching the terms of parking, is confidential and we are unable to provide a copy for reasons of commercial sensitivity. We have however provided a redacted copy, with sensitive information covered. The redacted contract confirms our authority in an ongoing agreement. If neither party terminates the contract, as in this case, the contract will continue on a rolling basis. Although the BPA Code of Practice outlines what authorisation must set out, we have also shown that beyond checking documentation; there is equipment, signage and on occasion personnel on site to manage the function of enforcement and this cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. I am sure that if the parking operator was not allowed to issue charges on site the landowner would not permit the parking operator to keep its signage on site nor would the landowner allow motorists to park on its land without authorisation.

• They claim the driver entered into a contract with them.

2 - "The parking charges issued by UK Parking Control Limited are based on a contractual agreement between UKPC and the driver, as detailed on the signage displayed in the car park." 

So they argue that in choosing to park where there was clear signage, the driver entered a new contract with the parking company and accepted the agreement, thus requiring a permit to be displayed (including the 'charge')?

merkede

The fines are potentially £100 each. With a total of 4 fines now, I'm looking at a minimum of £400 and that's a lot of money for me (just got another for an additional consecutive day.

Appreciate your help in drafting a response as I'd need to respond to the 1st NtK by end-of-tomorrow. and likely copy and paste each day for the next 3.

kryten3000

They're not fines and you won't be paying.

Use the template response in the Newbies thread or from the appeals page on the site linked in my signature.

Coupon-mad

"given I'd need to respond to the NtK tomorrow (14 days)."

"I'd need to respond to the 1st NtK by end-of-tomorrow"

No you don't. There's no 14 day deadline.

Why on earth are you looking at the 14 days?! Read the NEWBIES thread which tells you it's irrelevant because you'll never pay these.

merkede

Thanks for the advice. Reading the NEWBIES thread, I understand I may be in this for the long-run. I'd need your support as the process continues and happy to be as transparent as I can.

Here is the initial response to the NtK submitted for the alleged parking contravention dated 17th Feb 2026. If you believe I need to change anything please let me know.I plan to submit similar for 18th and 19th.

Response to NtK:

I am the registered keeper and I dispute these parking charges. I deny any liability and no admission is made as to the identity of the driver.

The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore cannot transfer liability to the keeper. The NtK does not specify any “period of parking”, relying instead on single timestamps. A timestamp is not a period. This omission is fatal to any attempt to transfer liability to the keeper. Keeper liability does not apply.

Multiple PCNs have been issued for the same stationary vehicle over consecutive days 3002460xxxx 30024604xxxx,3002460xxxx. There is no evidence of the vehicle leaving and returning. This constitutes a single, continuous event, and the issuing of multiple charges is an unreasonable and punitive attempt to recover multiple sums for the same alleged contravention. The signage does not state that charges apply per day or per 24-hour period.

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. Together, not a single identifier points to the same 'relevant land'.

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.

The vehicle was parked in a space associated with a residential property, advertised as including parking. This establishes a tenant pre-existing right to park, which cannot be overridden by a third-party operator’s signage.

UKPC has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only. For all the above reasons, these charges must be cancelled.