Hi, I am coming from another forum of the unresolved issue about a UKPC PCN at Friern Barnet Retail Park.

The link to the original thread is here: *click*


I have appealed the PCN and used a template provided by @b789 saying I am not obliged to provide the driver's details and below is the response I have received from them.


This my last reply on the original thread: 

"Hi, I have received this email on the 8th of January and didn't notice it until now.

It went to spam for some reason, which is the reason why I missed this email. https://ibb.co/8DcpPtLV "

Hi there

I posted on another forum about this and got some great advice but the thread seems to have gone 'cold' with no replies, but there have been some developments. Here's the current situation:

PCN issued in March 2025 - I am the keeper but wasn't the driver at the time. 
I ignored all the correspondence until suddenly I received a notice of Simple Procedure from the Sherriff Court. 
I disputed their claim and attended a case management discussion call last month. 
The solicitor (Pollock Fairbridge) did not attend the call but gave notice that they were unavailable. 
The Sherriff suggested I just pay the original principal sum of £100 to get this settled, but I said I'd prefer not to as I was not the driver and therefore not liable. 
The Sherriff warned that if we didn't settle, this could go to an evidential hearing. 
Another case management discussion has been scheduled for March 'to give both parties time to come to an agreement'. 

I emailed PF to ask them to withdraw the claim as I was not the driver. I received the following response:

Thank you for your email.
If you wish to settle this claim then our client will accept the principal sum, being £160.00.
If we are unable to agree settlement then our client has instructed that we continue with the claim. At the next Case Management Discussion we will seek an Evidential Hearing.
In the meantime, we attach a List of Evidence which we are lodging with Edinburgh Sheriff Court.

...Do I just double down and let them get to evidential hearing (would that involve legal costs?) 

I genuinely was not in the car at the time, so I don't see how they can provide evidence that I was? 

The 'evidence' they attached is copies of their correspondence (demands for money) and a photo of the car - no signs in the photo. And a copy of the wording in the car park on signage. 

I'm actually fuming, as their response is so snotty and describes the £160 as the 'principal sum' when actually that's the combination of their 'fine' plus a £60 'debt recovery fee' 

Any thoughts welcome!

Continuation of thread from another forum for the  attention of B789, I extract the salient parts of our conversation and paste below. They have replied to letter you asked me to write them. Seeking next steps as not sure how to interpret their message.

I initially wrote:

The Bewl Water FAQ itself says parking is charged from 08:00:

https://www.bewlwater.co.uk/faq/

Registered keeper has now received a £100 PCN from First Parking LLP for Bewl Water.

The notice says the car entered at 06:46 and left at 09:17 (151 minutes). The allegation is that payment wasn’t made for the full duration.

The alleged driver has a Ringo receipt showing payment from 08:03–09:03. The car left at 09:17.

So it looks like 3 minutes late to start and 14 minutes over at the end. But surely there should be a grace period either side?

It’s highly confusing – the website itself shows 08:00, which is exactly why payment wasn’t made before then. Registered keeper has no idea what this clear signage is outside Bewl Water about private land that letter aludes to. Keeper is only aware that there is on grounds parking which begins at 08:00 which was largely respected.

To make things worse, the letter is dated 17/09/2025, but it was only found on the doormat this morning (27/09/2025). It says the £100 full charge must be paid by 01/10/2025 at 11:42am, which doesn’t leave much time to deal with it properly.

How does this add up to a £100 bill? It makes no sense at all.

https://ibb.co/NgxGH8K8

B789 reply:

Send the following email to First Parking by first class post and get a free certificate of posting from any post office to First Parking LLP, 27 Old Gloucester Street, London, WC1N 3AX:

Quote
Subject: Formal complaint – Breach of PPSCoP 8.1.1(d) and KADOE (Keeper liability misrepresented at Bewl Water)

Dear First Parking LLP Complaints Team,

I write as the registered keeper in relation to Parking Charge Notice [PCN ref], issued at Bewl Water on 17/09/2025.

Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) states or implies that you are able to hold me (the Keeper) liable under Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). That statement is incorrect for this location and places you in breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), section 8.1.1(d). As you know, a breach of the PPSCoP is also a breach of your DVLA KADOE contract.

Why PoFA keeper liability cannot apply at Bewl Water
PoFA Sch 4 excludes “relevant land” where parking is “subject to statutory control” (Sch 4, para 3(1)(c) and 3(3)).

Bewl Water is a statutory reservoir/undertaking created and governed by specific legislation, including:

• Medway Water (Bewl Bridge Reservoir) Act 1968 (local Act establishing the scheme; authorising works and land acquisition).
• Reservoirs Act 1975 (statutory safety regime imposing duties on the undertaker for inspection, maintenance and emergency planning).

The presence of this statutory framework means the land is under statutory control for PoFA purposes, irrespective of present operational or ownership arrangements.

References (official sources)

• PoFA 2012]Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Sch 4, para 3(1)(c), 3(3):
• Medway Water (Bewl Bridge Reservoir) Act 1968 (1968 c. xxxiii) (official PDF available)
• Reservoirs Act 1975: legislation.gov.uk

Breach of PPSCoP and KADOE
PPSCoP 8.1.1(d) requires that operators must not state or imply that keeper liability applies where Schedule 4 does not. By asserting PoFA keeper liability at Bewl Water, your NtK misrepresents the legal position. This is a Code breach and, consequently, a breach of the DVLA’s KADOE terms, which require adherence to the applicable Code as a condition of data access.

Required remedies
As this is a formal complaint, please confirm within 14 days how you will rectify this compliance failure. At minimum, I expect you to:

1. Cancel PCN [PCN ref] and confirm in writing that no keeper liability is pursued at Bewl Water.
2. Cease and correct all NtK templates and website wording for sites under statutory control to remove any assertion (or implication) of PoFA keeper liability.
3. Conduct an immediate audit of outstanding NtKs issued for Bewl Water (and any other sites under statutory control) and notify affected keepers accordingly.
4. Provide details of staff guidance/training updates to prevent recurrence.

If you do not provide a satisfactory response, I will escalate this complaint to the British Parking Association and to the DVLA for investigation of a PPSCoP/KADOE breach.

Your published complaints policy states complaints must be submitted by post. For the avoidance of doubt, I will only accept your response by post or by email (your choice). Do not require telephone contact, web portals or third-party platforms for complaint handling or evidence review. Please treat this email as a formal complaint and provide your written response by [date – 14 days from today].

Yours faithfully,

[Full name]

[Postal address]
[Email]
Registered Keeper of vehicle [VRM]
PCN: [reference]

---

I sent the above. The following response was received on 05/02/2026 via email.  3 attachments of CCTV of car and one attachment called Parking Charge Notice (the usual stuff they send through the door)

Good Afternoon,



Thank you for your letter received 04/02/2026



Parking Charge refs: FP481691

Complaint ref: A39065



Your complaint has been referred to myself for review, please see my findings below:



Parking Charge FP481691 issued on 11/09/2025 at Bewl Water
Contravention – Not paid for the full duration of stay or not registering your vehicle
The vehicle with registration X15RAK was observed via the ANPR cameras entering site on 11/09/2025 at 06:46 and leaving on 11/09/2025 at 09:17. Total time on site 2 hours, 31 minutes, and 39 seconds. (Photographic evidence attached)
First Parking applied to the DVLA to request registered keeper details on 15/09/2025
DVLA keeper details received on 17/09/2025 and Notice to Keeper printed and posted on 17/09/2025. (please see attached)
As no payment, appeal or transfer of liability was received within 28 days of our initial correspondence, the case was referred to our appointed debt collectors on 23/10/2025.
DCBL are now administering the debt on behalf of First Parking


I have reviewed the photographic evidence, and I am satisfied that the Parking Charge was issued correctly and in accordance with the Code of Practice.



There is clear and sufficient signage on site advising motorists of the terms and conditions.

First Parking has processed the parking charge correctly and in line with the Code of Practice.



Due to non-payment, it was referred to debt collection on the 23/10/2025 and DCBL are now administering the debt on our behalf.



To answer the points in your letter:



The land on which your car was observed via ANPR camera’s is private land. Only the water/reservoir is governed by Medway Water/Southern Water.



Bewl Water is primarily managed and operated as a private leisure facility by the Elite Leisure Collection(part of the Markerstudy Group) since 2015, although the reservoir itself remains owned by the utility company Southern Water. The recreational grounds are privately managed.

•          Leisure & Operations: The leisure facilities, including fishing, water sports, and the aqua park, are managed by Elite Leisure Collection.

•          Water Authority: The reservoir and its water resources are controlled by Southern Water, serving as a vital public water source for Kent and East Sussex.



The parking charge has been issued under PoFA and is compliant.



In summary, I am satisfied the parking charge had been issued correctly at the time and in accordance with the signage in situ.



We have reached the end of our complaint process, and my response now concludes our complaints procedure. I trust you will appreciate that there will be no further review of your complaint.



Yours Sincerely,



Kelly Arnold

Account Manager

 UKPC Parking-Parked in an area where no parking is allowed with Disabled Badge–Snowhill Retail Park,Wakefield,WF1 2DF

Hi all,

I’ve finally received the decision from POPLA and, as predicted by @b789 , it was unsuccessful. The assessor seems to have brushed aside the legal arguments quite dismissively.

Key points from the Assessor’s summary:

PoFA/Late Service: He claimed that because I provided no "evidence" of the late delivery (other than my statement), the 14-day rule was met based on the "date of issue."

Jopson v Homeguard: He dismissed this entirely, stating it is "not a Supreme Court case and does not set the precedent." He also claimed no evidence of loading was provided.

Equality Act: He stated that UKPC wouldn't have been aware of the disability at the time and that POPLA cannot determine if discrimination occurred as only a court can do that.

Consideration Period: He ruled that because the vehicle was not in a marked bay, no consideration period applies at all.

I have now received a demand from UKPC for £100, threatening debt recovery and an extra £70 charge if not paid within 28 days and counting (rec'd 29/1/26) - so the clock is ticking.

I am still standing my ground as per the advice here. What are my next steps? Do I simply ignore the inevitable "Debt Recovery Plus" letters and wait for a Letter Before Claim, or is there a specific "Rejection of POPLA Decision" letter I should send to UKPC?

Many thanks,

Rob.

(02-11-2026, 02:02 PM)rhbmcse Wrote: UKPC Parking-Parked in an area where no parking is allowed with Disabled Badge–Snowhill Retail Park,Wakefield,WF1 2DF

Hi all,
I’ve finally received the decision from POPLA and, as predicted by @b789 , it was unsuccessful. The assessor seems to have brushed aside the legal arguments quite dismissively.

Key points from the Assessor’s summary:
PoFA/Late Service: He claimed that because I provided no "evidence" of the late delivery (other than my statement), the 14-day rule was met based on the "date of issue."
Jopson v Homeguard: He dismissed this entirely, stating it is "not a Supreme Court case and does not set the precedent." He also claimed no evidence of loading was provided.
Equality Act: He stated that UKPC wouldn't have been aware of the disability at the time and that POPLA cannot determine if discrimination occurred as only a court can do that.
Consideration Period: He ruled that because the vehicle was not in a marked bay, no consideration period applies at all.
I have now received a demand from UKPC for £100, threatening debt recovery and an extra £70 charge if not paid within 28 days and counting (rec'd 29/1/26) - so the clock is ticking.
I am still standing my ground as per the advice here. What are my next steps? Do I simply ignore the inevitable "Debt Recovery Plus" letters and wait for a Letter Before Claim, or is there a specific "Rejection of POPLA Decision" letter I should send to UKPC?

Many thanks,
Rob.

****
Previous history summary for information:

---

Case Summary: UKPC v. myself 
Location: Snowhill Retail Park, Wakefield (WF1 2DF) 
Vehicle Registration: redacted
Contravention Date: 17/10/2025 
Alleged Breach: "No roadway parking" (Not parked within a marked bay)

1. The Incident

• Duration: 1 minute, 5 seconds (recorded by ANPR).
  
• Context: The driver (a Blue Badge holder) stopped briefly on the roadway to load heavy pre-ordered goods.
  
• Mitigation: All disabled bays were full (some occupied by non-badge holders). The Blue Badge was clearly displayed and is visible in UKPC’s own evidence.
  

2. Procedural History & Initial Appeal

• Notice to Keeper (NtK): Dated 25/10/2025 but not received until 07/11/2025 (21 days after the event).
  
• Initial Appeal: Submitted to UKPC as Keeper. Challenged based on PoFA 14-day non-compliance and the display of the Blue Badge.
  
• Rejection: UKPC rejected the appeal and issued a "Final Reminder" before the POPLA stage.
  

3. POPLA Appeal (Assessor: redacted) An appeal was submitted citing:

• PoFA 2012: Failure to deliver the NtK within the 14-day relevant period.
  
• Jopson v Homeguard [2016]: Argument that "loading is not parking."
  
• Equality Act 2010: Failure to provide reasonable adjustments for a disabled driver.
  
• De Minimis: The 65-second duration is too trivial to constitute a contract breach.
  

4. POPLA Decision (Unsuccessful - 29/01/2026) The assessor dismissed the appeal on the following grounds:

• PoFA: Ruled that the PCN was "issued" within 14 days and deemed served. Stated the appellant provided no evidence of late receipt.
  
• Jopson v Homeguard: Dismissed the case as not being a "Supreme Court" case and claimed no evidence was provided that loading actually occurred.
  
• Equality Act: Claimed the operator could not have known about the disability at the time of issuance and that POPLA cannot adjudicate on discrimination.
  
• Consideration Period: Ruled that because the car was not in a bay, a consideration period does not apply.
  

5. Current Status

• Demand: UKPC has issued a demand for £100 (dated 29/01/2026).
  
• Threats: They have threatened to pass the matter to debt recovery with an additional £70 charge if not paid within 28 days.
  
• Position: I am maintaining the "registered keeper" position and have not identified the driver. I intend to continue defending this based on the original expert advice that this would likely be struck out or discontinued if it reaches the County Court stage.
  

I am currently developing the Resources and Advice section of the Gullible Tree website. This section is designed to provide structured explanations of the legal framework and processes involved in dealing with parking charges issued by private parking operators.

Although still under development, the section is being updated regularly with new articles and reference material. A number of practical tools are already available, including deadline calculators to assist with assessing whether a notice was served in time under PoFA and a calculator for determining defence deadlines where a County Court claim has been issued.

If you would like to explore the material, please visit gullibletree.com and select “Resources/Articles” from the main menu.

@b789 got this from previous post, sorry didn't know about the forum

If you could please advise

https://ibb.co/KpRVFDK9
https://ibb.co/TDYN3PFY
https://ibb.co/WNjnC3gC
https://ibb.co/r2wP7wKx
https://ibb.co/bj7pFKDC
https://ibb.co/8DCv8bjb
https://ibb.co/pm541BB
https://ibb.co/vGLVGzD
https://ibb.co/8Sb31qH

(02-10-2026, 07:36 PM)badrav Wrote: @b789 got this from previous post, sorry didn't know about the forum

If you could please advise

https://ibb.co/KpRVFDK9
https://ibb.co/TDYN3PFY
https://ibb.co/WNjnC3gC
https://ibb.co/r2wP7wKx
https://ibb.co/bj7pFKDC
https://ibb.co/8DCv8bjb
https://ibb.co/pm541BB
https://ibb.co/vGLVGzD
https://ibb.co/8Sb31qH

Type of parking ticket: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) or Charge Notice (CN)

Hello all!

My daughter's Mum received a parking invoice for an overstay at McDonalds, 873 St Albans Road, Garston, Watford.

She received it on the 31st Jan, it was issued dated 15th Jan, but the alleged contravention date is 13th Jan.

I have offered to deal with it for her as she is under a fair bit of stress at the moment. 

Anyway, I noticed that time was running short to appeal it so just sent in a quick appeal on the MET website just to halt time running out and potential escalation. I did the appeal on the basis of poor signage, the appeal was rejected on 5th Feb as expected. 

We are now at the POPLA appeal stage, which is what I would be ever so grateful for help with. 

Initially the we noticed the poor signage, and the misleading fact that there is a soft play in the venue, suggesting long stays. The parking charge itself also arrived way out of the 14 day window. After buying more time with the initial appeal, the keeper looked into it a bit deeper and realised she had never stayed in the venue as long as the charge suggested, in her life. More importantly, on that day she had not in fact stayed at all, but the driver used the drive thru on two occasions. Once to buy dinner for her daughter after school before visiting a friend, then once again on the way home to buy something for herself. She appears to have been the victim of double-dipping ANPR cameras. The friend she visited can confirm in writing that she was with them between the times she is alleged to have been parked at McDonalds.

Please could someone help me word the POPLA appeal? There is still several weeks left til it needs to be in. This is link to the pictures of the illegible terms on the signage which I could not read even standing in front of. There is also a tiny sign at the entrance but a zebra crossing right there, and coming off a busy road it is extremely easy not to notice it. It has none of the terms on anyway and the only legible bit on it is where it says "90 minute stay", but even then as I said, you could easily miss it as your eyes are immediately drawn to the zebra crossing. 

Here is a link to the signs, and the NTK, but the main points are the fact that the letter arrived late and she wasn't even parked there during the alleged times. 

Many thanks! 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...sp=sharing

Hi,

This is a continuation thread from my original post on FTLA: https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tick...rk-london/

Just to recap: my initial appeal and POPLA failed. I then received a LoC letter from DCBLegal and replied with:

Quote:Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

As a firm of supposed solicitors, one would expect you to be capable of crafting a letter that aligns with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions do not exist for decoration—they exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You might wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), stipulate that prior to proceedings, parties should have exchanged sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 helpfully clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.

Your template letter mentions a “contract”, yet fails to provide one. This would appear to undermine the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It’s difficult to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue when your side declines to furnish the very document it purports to enforce.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that confirms any PoFA 2012 liability
2. A copy of the contract (or contracts) you allege exists between your client and the driver, in the form of an actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date, not a generic stock image
3. The exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract(s) which is (are) relied upon that you allege to have been breached
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner, establishing authority to enforce
5. A breakdown of the charges claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” fee includes VAT
6. The full name and role of the person with conduct of this matter and their regulatory status/authorisation to conduct litigation

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Yours faithfully,

Quote:1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4.

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);

(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.

5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:

Draft Order:

Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.

AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.

AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.

AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent case management).

ORDER:

1. The claim is struck out.

2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.

Type of parking ticket: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) or Charge Notice (CN)