UKPC - PCN - TKmaxx

greenbluegreen

hello,

my partner went shopping in our local txmaxx and in a rush parked slightly outside the markings.
Last month she received a PCN for £60, reason “not parked within the boundaries”

I called TXmaxx and the lady sympathised and said I should appeal with UKPC and if they reject it to call them again and they will step in. I did that, appeal got rejected. I then emailed CS , attached photos and explained the situation and to my frustration I received a generic email to go back to the parking operator.

I’m now at the popla stage and with the help of ChatGPT feeding it popla appeal examples, it came up with this:

POPLA Appeal – Parking Charge Notice XXXXX

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice. I am not obliged to identify the driver and will not be doing so.

1. No keeper liability – failure to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

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

In particular, the notice fails to specify a “period of parking” as required under PoFA Schedule 4. Instead, it merely provides a single timestamp. A single moment in time is not capable of describing a period of parking.

As the operator has failed to comply with PoFA, liability cannot be transferred from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.

1. The operator has not shown that the individual pursued is the driver

The operator has not demonstrated that the appellant is the driver who may have been liable for the charge.

There is no legal presumption that the registered keeper was the driver. I am exercising my legal right not to name the driver.

Former POPLA Lead Adjudicator Henry Greenslade confirmed:

“There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver.”

As PoFA has not been complied with and no evidence has been produced identifying the driver, POPLA must allow the appeal.

1. Inadequate signage – no contract formed

The signs at the site are not sufficiently prominent, clear or legible to form a binding contract.

While the operator may rely upon wording stating that vehicles must be parked within a marked bay, this term is buried within a large amount of text and is not prominently displayed in a manner that would adequately bring it to the attention of motorists.

The signage fails the standards of transparency and prominence required under:

• PoFA 2012
• the BPA/Private Parking Code requirements
• the Consumer Rights Act 2015

The £100 charge is not displayed prominently and the signage is crowded, cluttered and difficult to read before parking.

This case is clearly distinguishable from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis where the Supreme Court relied heavily on unusually prominent signage and large lettering.

In this case, the signage is comparatively unclear and insufficient to establish informed contractual consent.

I also refer POPLA to the persuasive authority of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest, where it was confirmed that a driver cannot be bound by terms they were not adequately made aware of.

1. Trivial breach – disproportionate and commercially unjustified

The allegation relates only to a minor positioning issue within a parking bay.

Any deviation was minimal and caused:

• no obstruction
• no loss
• no misuse of the car park
• no occupation of multiple bays

The operator is attempting to impose a punitive £100 charge for what amounts at most to a trivial or de minimis issue.

The circumstances are materially different from the Beavis case and there is no legitimate commercial justification for such a disproportionate charge.

1. No evidence of landowner authority

The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA/Private Parking Code requirements regarding landowner authority.

As the operator does not own the land, I require production of an unredacted contemporaneous contract with the landowner authorising:

• parking enforcement
• issuing parking charges
• pursuing charges in their own name
• legal action

A generic witness statement or redacted agreement will not be sufficient.

1. Insufficient evidence of breach

The photographic evidence supplied does not clearly establish any significant breach of terms. The images fail to demonstrate that the vehicle was parked in a manner justifying a £100 charge.

The operator is put to strict proof regarding:

• the exact positioning of the vehicle
• the visibility and positioning of signage from the driver’s perspective
• the prominence of the alleged contractual terms

For all the reasons stated above, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and direct that the Parking Charge Notice be cancelled.

Could you sense check it and advise If I should use that? I don’t have any other photos to use other than the operators provided ones, should I go take some photos (of signage for example)?

Any particular time I should be reaching my out to popla (still have 27 days or so)

many thanks for all in advance, massively appreciated.

Jame4ters

Have you read the “Newbies” thread?

Have you looked at and compared the NTK examples with yours to see if they match?

Gr1pr

My advice is to complain about it ASAP to the Retail Park management company ( not the tenant T K Maxx. ), known as plan A, and get it cancelled

Your popla numbering of each section is Incorrect

greenbluegreen

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81992640#Comment_81992640

Thank you for coming to me.

Yes, read the newbies area, will double check NTK examples, thank you.

greenbluegreen

Thank you, I think I found an email address to the landlord in question as per your advice. Hopefully the right one!

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81992682#Comment_81992682

Do that first.

Bin the ChatGPT awful POPLA appeal! We doubt a UKPC NTK is non-POFA these days so most of that is weak has no hope.

But you'll never have to pay this anyway.

foden11

Which car park, if it is capital center Preston i can tell you where the management office is.

Car1980

None of those grounds of appeal will work at Popla.

UKPC cases go to DCB Legal, who file court claims and discontinue.

Honestly, it's less work defending a DCB MoneyClaim.

But complain to the management co by all means.