Thanks for the additional advice. I will make an appeal on these grounds and hope for the best.

No, that was from 2015 where the driver of vehicle parked in a disabled bay without a valid permit. In this case the driver of the vehicle left the site, so was issued with a ticket. I understand that rules have changed and UKPC have changed their NtK since then so wanted to seek advice. Thanks

Hi After following all the steps advised on the forum, UKPC have finally issued the POPLA code, so I am now at the stage of drafting my appeal to submit to POPLA. To give some background, UKPC issued a windscreen ticket as the vehicle owner/driver left the site. The NTK to keeper was issued within the correct time period. So now my appeal has reached POPLA stage and I have drafted an appeal based on the following grounds: Evidence for leaving site The notice to keeper states that the vehicle owner/driver left the site. Therefore for this reason a parking charge of £100 is due. I require evidence from UKPC, which shows the vehicle driver leaving the site. Such evidence should include photographs of the contravention and a site map and a picture of the signage that would have communicated to the driver the defined boundary of the site they are alleged to have left. No explanation has been provided as to what constitutes leaving the site and it has not been established whether the driver was on site all along. The evidence they've added online is simply a photograph of the signage and pictures of the car with the charge notice already stuck to it. If no such sign nor evidence exists then I contend that the driver could not have known where the car park site boundary began and ended and in the absence of evidence I deny that there was any contravention. I say there was no contract formed with the driver to pay a charge in 'exchange' for going off site; there was no consideration, offer nor acceptance and no site boundary defined. The burden of proof shifts to UKPC to prove otherwise and to explain why their attendant (presumably) watched a driver walk towards the edge of an undefined boundary, yet made no attempt to stop/warn the driver nor even ascertain if a passenger had already been dropped at the door of the premises. The attendant also had a legal duty under contract law, to mitigate any loss. In VCS v Ibbotson, Case No 1SE09849 16.5.2012: District Judge McIlwaine stated 'you say he left the premises...where does the premises start and where does the premises finish?...there is a duty to mitigate the loss.' In this case now under POPLA appeal, I contend that UKPC have neither demonstrated any evidence that there was a breach nor shown that their operative took any steps to mitigate any loss. Contract with landowner UKPC do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that UKPC has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract or terms & conditions of parking. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow UKPC to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers. In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid. So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between UKPC and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 Signage Due to their high position, overall small size and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read and understand. I request that POPLA check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I contend that the signs on this land, in terms of wording, position and clarity, do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011 and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2]) As such, the signs were not so prominent with their terms and conditions that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a free car park in the event that they left the site- and therefore I contend the elements of a contract were conspicuous by their absence. The signage is not a contract or offer of a contract but an invitation to treat. Please can you advise whether the above is sufficient and is a strong argument to go to POPLA? Thanks in advance

Also, just to be specific UKPC refer to a breach of terms of conditions as opposed to a breach of contract. Would the above argument still apply? Thanks

Ok. Thanks for the advice. I will reply with the following, which I think is a robust answer: UKPC do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that UKPC has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract or terms & conditions of parking. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow UKPC to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers. In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid. So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between UKPC and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 (Transcript linked): http://nebula.wsimg.com/0ce354ec6697...essKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 I refer the Adjudicator to the Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges. It was stated that, "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be." The ruling of the Court stated, "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services." In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated losses, as set out above. Is the above sufficient?

Yes, the claim is in respect of a windscreen ticket, but the driver of the vehicle at the time was not the keeper of the vehicle. The keeper of the vehicle is making the appeal. Would the above grounds for appeal not be valid? Thanks

Hi I wondered whether I could seek some advice for my appeal with POPLA against UKPC please? To summarise, UKPC issued a Parking charge ticket on a vehicle on 9/8/2015 for parking in a disabled persons space without displaying a badge. The vehicle owner was not the driver at the time. A NTK was then issued by UKPC to the vehicle owner on 8/9/15 and the following appeal was sent to UKPC by the keeper: As UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC) have failed to contact the keeper of the above vehicle within the time stipulated in the provisions of the PoFA, then on this basis UKPC Ltd are timed out and therefore the Notice to Keeper issued is deemed to be invalid. Please note that the Notice to Keeper was issued on 8 September 2015. According to PoFA a Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered NOT later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked (alleged date the vehicle was parked is 09/08/2015). Therefore, as UKPC Ltd are timed out to pursue the above parking charge and have breached the PoFA guidelines, this shows that UKPC Ltd have failed to comply with the PoFA rules and as a result any further contact about this matter will result in a complaint of harassment. Also, due to UKPC Ltd’s failure to comply with the above rules BPA, POPLA and Trading standards have been notified of UKPC Ltd’s illegal practices as a company. The above appeal was rejected by UKPC and a Popla code was issued. An appeal was then made by the Keeper to Popla with the following: The parking incident was on 09/08/2015 and the Notice to Keeper was received on 08/09/2015. According to PoFA, paragraph 9(5), a Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered NOT later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked and therefore keeper liability does not apply. The parking company can therefore only pursue the driver. As the parking company have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were, I submit I am not liable to any charge. Further to this PoFA, paragraph 8(e) requires the creditor to state that they do not know the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver. T his is not mentioned on the Notice to Keeper, although it is one of the criteria’s that is required to be met, as stipulated by the law. In addition, no Creditor has been identified on the Notice to Keeper. Failing to include specific identification as to who 'the Creditor' may be is misleading and not compliant, in accordance to paragraph 8(2)(h) and 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the POFA. The Notice to Keeper simply mentions UKPC as the company the payment is to be made payable to. However, in the Notice to Keeper UKPC makes reference to ‘your vehicle was recorded on our client’s private property’ but does not refer to or specify the details of the actual creditor making this £100 parking charge demand. Also, the total charge due in the Notice to Keeper is £100. I strongly believe that this charge is punitive. According to the Unfair Terms Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the charge of £100 exceeds the potential cost or consequential loss to the landowner and therefore, the burden of proof is on UKPC to prove that it is not. UKPC replied to the popla appeal with the following defence: On 09.08.15 our warden issued a parking charge to vehicle registration ? at ?. The parking charge was issued because the vehicle was parked in a disabled person’s space without clearly displaying a valid disabled person’s badge. The Parking Charge amount was £100, reduced to £60 if payment was received within 14 days. An appeal was received from ? on 30.09.15, to which the appeals department investigated and decided to reject. ?? states in appeal to both UKPC and POPLA that the notice to owner she received is invalid as it cannot be sent later than 14 days after a charge has been issued, a notice to owner is only sent after 14 days if it has been issued by an ANPR camera. As ?? charge has been issued by a warden, the NTO was sent out after 28 days therefore not breaching the BPA code of practice. We note your reference to Schedule 4, Section 7(2)(e) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. We have now corresponded with you on more than a single occasion and in doing so, we have clearly identified that we are the creditor and that we seek the outstanding charge. A s you have correctly pointed out, identifying ourselves as the creditor is not the same as naming ourselves as the creditor. We have sent correspondence to you in our own name, we also have our registered address, contact details and a means to pay on our documentation, all of which fully complies with the requirements in the Protection of Freedoms Act and all of which indicates clearly that we are the creditor. The highest court in the UK, the Supreme Court, has unambiguously confirmed that parking charges issued on private land are fully enforceable. In the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 their Lordships stated that private parking charges were enforceable because they served a legitimate interest and were in the interests of the public generally. The case confirmed that the amount of the charge does not have to reflect any loss that might have been caused by breach of the terms and conditions of parking. The Supreme Court decision is binding law on all other courts throughout the UK. UKPC asked ?? for a disabled badge as she was clearly parked in a disabled bay, as this was not provided the charge was correctly issued. We have a duty to ensure these bays are kept free for disabled people under the 2010 Equality Act a nd there is sufficient signage in view of ?? vehicle stating the terms and conditions on site. There are sufficient signs warning drivers that should they choose to park in a disabled person’s space without clearly displaying a valid disabled badge they may become liable to receive a Parking Charge. ?? vehicle was parked without clearly displaying a valid disabled badge and consequently the Parking Charge was issued correctly. Please note for anonymity name has been replaced with ??. Based on the above I would be grateful if anybody could offer advice as to whether there is anything further I need to submit to win the appeal? I have 7 days from today to reply to Popla. Also, is the appeal submitted strong enough to win the appeal? Thanks in advance.

The DCA say that they will be submitting a claim on behalf of ANPR Ltd. As ANPR have an interest in the matter, they will surely be able to file the claim with the court?

Hi I didn't send copies of the letter to BPA and POPLA, I sent them only to ANPR. Do you think I should write to the BPA and POPLA explaining what has happened so far? Also, the letter I have received from the DCA says that ANPR Ltd has instructed the firm to file the case to Northampton County Court. They have drafted court papers using the small claims form and have attached them with the letter, which in their words have been 'designed not to intimidate' but to give me the 'opportunity to check the content and ensure all details are correct'. Then they go on to say that they will submit the case to court in 14 days time. I'm getting quite nervous now. I know that they haven't complied with any of BPA's rules, so how can I get them to stop correspondence?

Hi Thanks for your response. To outline the action I have taken so far - I sent a letter of complaint for why the penalty determination was not valid and in response to this they failed to provide a POPLA code and instead sent me the letter as attached in my previous post. In response to that letter I asked for the POPLA code, but again they have failed to provide a POPLA code and have now sent a letter from a debt collection agency to say that they are going to file a claim in the small claims court. Please can you advise what I should now do as a next step as a POPLA code has never been provided?

Hopefully attachment should be ok now. Please can anybody advise what my response should be bearing in mind the notice to keeper was issued well over 14 days after the alleged incident occurred. Shall I request the POPLA code and go from there? Thanks

Hi How do I send the PDF file? The only option I get is insert image. Thanks

3rd attempt

Re-attached

Hi Just wanted to let you know that further to my letter to ANPR telling them that they are timed out on the first one and any further contact about this matter will result in a complaint of harassment, they have now replied back to the letter with the following response (attached below). Please can you let me know what the next steps are? Shall I request the POPLA code?