02-24-2026, 09:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-24-2026, 09:13 PM by Torenaga.
Edit Reason: spelling mistake
)
Hi Everyone.
I'm carrying this thread over from FTLA
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tick...k-croydon/
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by UK Parking Control Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Friday, 01 May 1925. The notice itself is dated an unspecified date, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as valley Leisure park, London, CR0 4YA.
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates PENDING: Enter the notice issue date to calculate deemed delivery and timing. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Not available.
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: Yes
- Letter of Claim: Yes
- County Court claim: Yes
- Letter of Claim responded to: No
- Letter of Claim source: Unsure
Response/appeal already sent (verbatim where possible):
Assessor summary of your case.
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as it does not state the period of parking. • No evidence of contract formation due to absence of a consideration period. The operator has provided no evidence that a contract was formed with the driver. • Signage incapable of forming a contract. • No evidence of landowner authority. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The parking operator has provided photographs of the signs at the car park which state failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 parking charge…All vehicles must be parked only within marked bays. The appellant explains the Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA 2012 as it does not state the period of parking. The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. For an operator to transfer liability of unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. Having viewed the notice to keeper issued to the appellant I am satisfied that the operator has complied with Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of PoFA 2012, and that liability of the parking charge was successfully transferred to the keeper at the time of the event. The appellant advises there is no evidence of contract formation due to absence of a consideration period. The operator has provided no evidence that a contract was formed with the driver. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. The Code also stipulates the consideration period may end earlier than the times prescribed in Annex B where there is evidence that the driver has, accepted the terms and conditions applying (whether or not they have chosen to read them) which may for example be evidenced by the driver parking the vehicle and leaving the premises. In this case, the vehicle was captured on site parked not parked correctly within the markings of a bay. A consideration period is to allow drivers to decide whether or not to park. The images show the driver not at the vehicle nor at any signage. As such, I am satisfied the consideration period ended, and the driver did not park in accordance with the terms and conditions. The appellant states the signage is incapable of forming a contract. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. Within the parking operator’s evidence pack, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site, along with a site map demonstrating the distribution of the signs throughout. Having reviewed this, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the site’s terms and conditions to the attention of motorists and consider that the appellant was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review them before deciding whether to park. The appellant explains there is no evidence of landowner authority. Within the motorist’s comments, the appellant advises the contract is heavily redacted and does not Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. The parking operator has provided a signed contract which shows the operator has landowner authority for the site from the landowner. Although the Single Code outlines what authorisation must set out my observations extend beyond checking documentation; it includes consideration of the fact that there is equipment, signage and on occasion personnel on site to manage the function of enforcement and this cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. I am sure that if the parking operator was not allowed to issue charges on site the landowner would not permit the parking operator to keep its signage on site nor would the landowner allow motorists to park on its land without authorisation. Based on the information supplied by the parking operator I am satisfied that it meets with the minimum standards set out by the Code of Practice and is compliant. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver parked outside the markings of the bay and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.
County Court claim deadlines: issue date Tuesday, 10 February 2026, deemed service Sunday, 15 February 2026, AoS deadline 4pm Sunday, 01 March 2026, defence deadline without AoS 4pm Sunday, 01 March 2026, and defence deadline with AoS 4pm Sunday, 15 March 2026.
Additional notes provided:
The years in the above forms were not working properly. I could only type 26 for the year instead of 2026.
I have edited these manually now.
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
I hope this form was filed out ok.
Kind Regards
I'm carrying this thread over from FTLA
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tick...k-croydon/
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by UK Parking Control Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Friday, 01 May 1925. The notice itself is dated an unspecified date, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as valley Leisure park, London, CR0 4YA.
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates PENDING: Enter the notice issue date to calculate deemed delivery and timing. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Not available.
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: Yes
- Letter of Claim: Yes
- County Court claim: Yes
- Letter of Claim responded to: No
- Letter of Claim source: Unsure
Response/appeal already sent (verbatim where possible):
Assessor summary of your case.
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as it does not state the period of parking. • No evidence of contract formation due to absence of a consideration period. The operator has provided no evidence that a contract was formed with the driver. • Signage incapable of forming a contract. • No evidence of landowner authority. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The parking operator has provided photographs of the signs at the car park which state failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 parking charge…All vehicles must be parked only within marked bays. The appellant explains the Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA 2012 as it does not state the period of parking. The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. For an operator to transfer liability of unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. Having viewed the notice to keeper issued to the appellant I am satisfied that the operator has complied with Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of PoFA 2012, and that liability of the parking charge was successfully transferred to the keeper at the time of the event. The appellant advises there is no evidence of contract formation due to absence of a consideration period. The operator has provided no evidence that a contract was formed with the driver. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. The Code also stipulates the consideration period may end earlier than the times prescribed in Annex B where there is evidence that the driver has, accepted the terms and conditions applying (whether or not they have chosen to read them) which may for example be evidenced by the driver parking the vehicle and leaving the premises. In this case, the vehicle was captured on site parked not parked correctly within the markings of a bay. A consideration period is to allow drivers to decide whether or not to park. The images show the driver not at the vehicle nor at any signage. As such, I am satisfied the consideration period ended, and the driver did not park in accordance with the terms and conditions. The appellant states the signage is incapable of forming a contract. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. Within the parking operator’s evidence pack, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site, along with a site map demonstrating the distribution of the signs throughout. Having reviewed this, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the site’s terms and conditions to the attention of motorists and consider that the appellant was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review them before deciding whether to park. The appellant explains there is no evidence of landowner authority. Within the motorist’s comments, the appellant advises the contract is heavily redacted and does not Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. The parking operator has provided a signed contract which shows the operator has landowner authority for the site from the landowner. Although the Single Code outlines what authorisation must set out my observations extend beyond checking documentation; it includes consideration of the fact that there is equipment, signage and on occasion personnel on site to manage the function of enforcement and this cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. I am sure that if the parking operator was not allowed to issue charges on site the landowner would not permit the parking operator to keep its signage on site nor would the landowner allow motorists to park on its land without authorisation. Based on the information supplied by the parking operator I am satisfied that it meets with the minimum standards set out by the Code of Practice and is compliant. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver parked outside the markings of the bay and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.
County Court claim deadlines: issue date Tuesday, 10 February 2026, deemed service Sunday, 15 February 2026, AoS deadline 4pm Sunday, 01 March 2026, defence deadline without AoS 4pm Sunday, 01 March 2026, and defence deadline with AoS 4pm Sunday, 15 March 2026.
Additional notes provided:
The years in the above forms were not working properly. I could only type 26 for the year instead of 2026.
I have edited these manually now.
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
I hope this form was filed out ok.
Kind Regards
