UKPC Parking-Parked in an area where no parking allowed w/blue Badge WF1 2DF

[rhbmcse]

 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.

---

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.
  

[b789]

Hi @rhbmcse. I did have a quick look at the thread over on FTLA and as you have noted the POPLA appeal was unsuccessful, as predicted.

Not to worry. The POPLA decision is not binding on you. POPLA is often described as “independent”, but it is not independent in the way an ordinary person would understand that word.
It is not a court. It is not a statutory tribunal. It was not created by Parliament. It exists because the British Parking Association (BPA) needs its members to provide a second-stage appeal in order to retain access to DVLA keeper data.

POPLA is owned and operated by Trust Alliance Group Limited, a private limited company. It is not a public body. It is not a judicial authority. It is a commercial entity providing an alternative dispute resolution service under contract. In corporate terms, POPLA is simply a trading arm within a private company structure. It is funded through the private parking industry and exists to service that industry’s regulatory requirements. That is why it cannot properly be described as institutionally independent. It forms part of the same commercial ecosystem as the operators whose decisions it reviews.

When POPLA rejects an appeal, nothing legally binding has happened. No judge has ruled. No debt has been created. No liability has been established in law. The motorist remains fully entitled to defend the matter in court, where a genuinely independent judge will consider the case from the beginning.

So while POPLA may present itself as independent, it is in reality a privately owned ADR service operating within, and funded by, the private parking industry. Only a court can determine liability.

For now, you can safely ignore any and all debt recovery letters that will start to come your way. Debt collectors are powerless to actually do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear. They are not a party to any contract allegedly breached by the driver. They are powerless. Ignore.

Eventually, you will likely receive a Letter of Claim (LoC). This will most likely be from a bulk litigation firm, probably DCB Legal. When you receive that LoC, then come back, show it to us and we will give you a suitable response.

[rhbmcse]

Super - and thank you.
I look forward to shredding the forthcoming junk mail.

Br,

Rob.