POPLA appeal against vehicle present during restricted no parking period

apn8keh

I'm still working on my POPLA appeal & just wanted to check whether it is worth including a complaint re. failure to issue a Notice to Hirer when the driver has already identified themselves? My understanding is the hire car company emailed the hire agreement etc across to the hirer alongside the PCN on 30th Apr 26. The PCN was dated 28th Apr 26. The hirer then appealed to UKPC on 30th Apr 26 and revealed his name. UKPC have emailed back a rejection addressed to him 6th May 2026, but so far no notice to hirer has been sent by UKPC. I appreciate it may be a mute point given he has identified himself, but does including a failure of UKPC to follow correct process in transferring liability to the hirer support our case at POPLA?

Is there a deadline by which they should issue a notice to hirer? I read 21 days from receiving info from the hire company. I'm assuming they received the info at the same time as the hire company submitted it to the hirer so their 21 days is almost up. The original ticket wasn't placed on the windscreen.

Thanks for your help.

Coupon-mad

But you aren't sure what you said in appeal. Maybe you said 'we'?

So try these TWO POINTS anyway:

You can win this at POPLA on two points, as long as you didn't already admit to driving:

Non-POFA compliant Notice to Hirer due to no enclosures with the notice they addressed to the hirer

No additional warning sign about the new restriction (quote the Joint Code of Practice about new restrictions).

I'd also get this in your local paper.

apn8keh

I have the text submitted for the appeal and unfortunately my partner started it with "I was at Vets4pets where this car park is located for an appointment….". and finished off giving his full name. The appeal rejection letter then came by email to him with full postal address. I'm not sure if UKPC got the address from the hire car company or whether my partner entered the address on the UKPC appeal webpage. Are they still obliged to send out a notice to hirer with relevant accompanying paperwork or does the appeal rejection letter (and name of driver) make a notice to hirer unnecessary?

Coupon-mad

Try the two points anyway.

apn8keh

Hi I'd really appreciate it if anyone has time to look at my POPLA appeal and suggest any improvements. Do you think I have the reasons in the correct order with the strongest is first? Do you think the reason for appeal I select should be "I was not improperly parked?". With the reason that customers of the vets are exempt when their car reg is entered.

Also, I was planning to include about 15 attachments. Is this the correct way to do this or should I paste the images into the document like a report?

hxxps://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/bgx5j0es7b00a52u4wjzw/POPLA_appeal_letter_REDACTED.docx?rlkey=7w7x6s2d2gntbc2tk6ct5vqtb&st=z2agxd8k&dl=0

Many thanks

Coupon-mad

Definitely embed the images into the document like a report. Never provide lots of separate links for the Assessor to get lost in!

I read your headings only as I'm out and that's a bit too long. Only use:

• no hirer liability (POFA para 13 applies) and whilst the hirer was an occupant of the car, the driver who parked was not named;
• poor hidden signs;
• no additional entrance sign to warn about the new 'VRM obligations' rule change (so new that UKPC hadn't even installed a keypad yet). The operator is put to strict proof of the extra sign and the keypad's existence on that date;
• no landowner authority (breach of clause 14 of the Code of Practice). The appellant wants to see from UKPC, when this new trap 'went live' and a boundary map and landowner signed off operational hours, showing which areas and/or times were to be 'restricted' and exactly which steps UKPC was contracted to take on site to ensure exemption for early emergency vet customers;
• UKPC were supposed to be sending terminals to the vets for customers to enter their car reg details, but they still haven't arrived.

I'd remove the title on your draft which gives credence to the breach accusation by repeating it, which has the unwanted effect of putting it front & centre of the Assessor's mind, from the start!

And mainly, your point 7 should be point 1 and you MUST change your intro which says "I did this" and should say "we did this". Don't mention using two cars but certainly say you were with your partner.

And you should state in the intro, that you were an occupant of the car but the driver was not admitted, i.e.

"We took our dog in for a 7.30 am surgical appointment and a Notice to Hirer arrived even though the vet receptionist had taken down the VRM from us. We did everything asked; we provided the VRM and didn't breach any contractual obligation because UKPC has so far failed to provide the promised keypad for emergency vet VRM exemptions. It cannot be said that we "didn't enter the VRM" on a keypad that didn't yet exist!

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/bgx5j0es7b00a52u4wjzw/POPLA_appeal_letter_REDACTED.docx?rlkey=7w7x6s2d2gntbc2tk6ct5vqtb&st=z2agxd8k&dl=0

apn8keh

Thanks for the reply Coupon-mad. The reason I'd put POFA as the last point is that the hirer named himself during the first appeal, so I'm not sure if I'm on shaky ground expecting them to have sent a notice to hirer with all the relevant paperwork. I just thought I'd add it in for good measure in case none of the other reasons stuck.

I had to go into a lot of detail about going in two cars, as part of my argument is UKPC have been inconsistent to cancel one ticket but not the other. Also, all the emails are in my name so I have to tie the two tickets together otherwise anyone reviewing it would say none of the appointment emails are in the name of the appellent!

It's looking much better already with all of the images pasted in

Coupon-mad

No, surely not? I knew the hirer said they were there, which is why I suggested the appellant now clarifies that they were the hirer and 'an occupant of the car' and were with their partner.

Saying you were there isn't the same as saying you were driving.

Make the NTH documents/enclosures failure the first point. Hopefully, in that first wasted appeal you didn't go & put "I parked" but if you did and if the PPC contests this case, POPLA will move on to consider your remaining appeal points.

apn8keh

It took a while but we finally received confirmation the appeal was successful as UKPC failed to submit evidence to POPLA within 21 days.

My appeal was based on the following grounds, but as they didn't respond I'm unsure why they weren't confident to contest it:

Ground 1: Signage deficiencies, omission of core contractual terms and breach of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (No Contract Formed). The signage is wholly inadequate. It fails to prominently display the restricted "no parking" period or the requirement to validate vehicle registration details. Furthermore, UKPC failed to provide the necessary terminal infrastructure for customers to input their own data, creating an impossible contract term.

Ground 2: Lack of Legal Standing and Explicit Cancellation by the Landowners Tenant. The motorist was a genuine customer of the on-site vet on 24th April 2026. The retailer (the landowner’s tenant) has formally requested UKPC to cancel this charge. As UKPC operates purely as an agent, they have no legal standing to pursue a charge against the express wishes of the principal/landowner.

Ground 3: Complete Failure to Invoke Hirer Liability under POFA 2012. The vehicle is a hire vehicle. UKPC failed to issue a Notice to Hirer or supply the mandatory accompanying documents required under Paragraph 13 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As a result, UKPC has no lawful right to transfer liability to the hirer, and this charge must be cancelled.

Ground 4: Procedural Impropriety and Inconsistent Enforcement. UKPC has acted arbitrarily by cancelling one PCN for this exact visit while refusing the other. This inconsistent enforcement violates the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice regarding fair dealing.

Thanks for all the help. I'll submit the POPLA response to the POPLA thread

Coupon-mad

yay, great news!

@apn8keh as you have evidence that UKPC did not put in the VRM exempting/time extending terminals for a few months but were issuing shedloads of PCNs in that time, this set up was not operating in 'good faith' and as such, it goes against consumer law, which the CMA regulates.

Massive fightback opportunity. Any chance you can do one more thing?

Pleeeease take some minutes to send your dossier of evidence to the CMA and tell them what UKPC have done to people and they didn't cancel PCNs even when the landowner told them to.

Lots of PCNs are still being pursued unfairly at that site because UKPC did not put in the necessary 'whitelist' (VRM exempting/time extending terminals) for a few months but were issuing shedloads of PCNs anyway!

The CMA are currently investigating the private parking industry. They want evidence. UKPC could end up fined. Please send your evidence to the CMA.

CMA Contact emails (use both, the first one goes directly to their parking investigation):

parking@cma.gov.uk

general.enquiries@cma.gov.uk 

To help push for real change, you could also add these wider concerns at the end, under a heading:

WIDER CONCERNS ABOUT POSTAL PCNs, EXCESSIVE CAMERA SURVEILLANCE AND SHORT TIME 'DISCOUNT' PRESSURE:

There is a serious concern about operators choosing remote camera surveillance and screens because it's cheap and requires no human intervention before the first letter hits the keeper's doormat.

According to the ICO guidance, cost and a leaner business model isn't a valid justification to use ANPR or CCTV. It also shifts the burden unfairly to motorists to notice and correctly use a hidden (or in this case, non existent) screen or face £100 'fine' and risk of being sued.

This is not a reason to impose 24/7 surveillance at retail sites or elsewhere on private land and just like wheelclamping - which was made a criminal offence in 2012 - what ANPR/CCTV parking firms are now doing is only the norm because it has become so by stealth because it's offered 'free'.

But the MO of these firms is predatory, only making money if they penalise xxx number of ordinary people per week, per site, and this threat is catastrophically affecting confidence in high streets.

The MHCLG will likely be able to confirm exact figures (from parking firm 'census' figures and recent fact-gathering from trade bodies in readiness for the statutory Code of Practice) but it has been estimated that some 95% of AOS firm 'managed' private land sites in the UK are run 'free of charge' by operators.

This is not a fair model. It should not operate at all in the UK. This protection racket-style MO is the biggest consumer protection concern of all: should this not be illegal: what other consumer-facing sector works like it? This sector (mainly) only make any money, or make the vast majority of income from a site, when they penalise lots of motorists.

Due to this inherent incentive to issue as many PCNs as possible and not be open to cancelling many/any on first appeal, the suspicion is that systems are set up in a way that will deliberately catch out some 1% of motorists. This is calculated when they first run the data and landowners are taken in by the spiel about new technology and are blindly going along with it, everywhere in the UK.

Make no mistake: parking operators exert too much anti-consumer control over private land and in the main they arrive 'calling the shots' - selling the service and system as free data/footfall reports - and most operators are not paid and are not merely implementing rules set by their client.

Parking firms wouldn't run the site otherwise because they aren't paid by the landowner client. Penalising 1% of visitors to a busy hospital or retail park is a lot of PCNs, per week.

Finally, across the board with this industry, the paltry '14 days discount' on their (second class pisted) is an inadequate. Like the false 'debt recovery fee' - which is in fact double recovery of the same letter-chain heads of cost already covered by the PCN - the 14 day timeline was invented by the sector and it only exists in their self-serving Code of Practice because they say it does. Given the MHCLG has figures confirming that over 90% of private PCNs are now issued by post, the industry should not be using the short discount period that only applies to windscreen PCNs served on the day.

14 days is a 'blink-and-you-miss it' unfair timeline which cannot be described as a fair or timely consumer notice.

This is why not:

A mere 14 days at the discount doesn't mirror the Local authority rules for camera PCNs issued by post. The British Parking Association is well aware that comparable local authority rules relating to camera-issued PCNs must offer discounts for 21 days from service delivery). It is bad enough that the private parking industry invented a 40% discount to make more money (councils offer 50% which is easier to calculate and inherently more likely to encourage early settlement).

But even if the 40% remains in place for now, to avoid another Judicial Review, the first iteration of the Code cannot start with an insufficient discount period, made up by this sector a decade or more ago. 14 days goes against the mirroring of the local authority model and is only suitable for windscreen PCNs, not postal notices received by a third party weeks later.

😀