Great forum, followed it from FTLA. Can you please help with the PCN, details below and attached, the driver was waiting to pick up family, did not see any signs anywhere but did notice other cars (incl Taxis) waiting there as well.
-----
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by UKCPS Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Tuesday, 26 May 2026. The notice itself is dated Tuesday, 09 June 2026, 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 Leeds City Station, LS1 4DY.
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates NON_COMPLIANT: Likely outside PoFA paragraph 9 timing window. Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Thursday, 11 June 2026 (16 days after the alleged event). On this basis, keeper liability may not be established.
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
------
Welcome to the forum @samh47. The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) you have shown which was issued as a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK) and clearly states on it that it is "non-PoFA" is a "Golden Ticket", as long as the driver is not identified.
What that means is that they cannot rely on the provisions of PoFA to hold the Keeper liable if the driver is unknown. The biggest mistake most recipients of these PCNs make is to identify the driver by using language in their initial appeal such as "I did this or that" instead of responding only as the Keeper and appealing in the third person with language such as "the driver did this or that".
As this is simply a speculative invoice from an unregulated private parking firm for an alleged breach of contract by the driver, only the driver can be liable, if they know who that it. All they have for now, is the Keepers identification. There is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver to a private firm. The ONLY way UKCPS can identify the actual driver is if the Keeper tells them who was driving, inadvertently or otherwise. In other words... "don't tell 'em your name Pike"!
Whilst they will not admit it, and they will try and intimidate you into paying with false threats of escalation, debt recovery and even a county court claim, as long as you follow the advice here and understand that they have nowhere to go with this, as long as the driver is not identified, there is nothing they can do about it, especially if they try to take this all the way to a court claim. The law simply does not allow them to simply assume or infer that the Keeper must be the driver. PoFA places strict requirements on private parking firms if they want to be able to hold the Keeper liable if the driver remains unidentified. As already explained, they are not relying on PoFA and even if they wanted to, they would have had to issue the NtK so that it was deemed delivered within 14 days of the alleged contravention:
Date of alleged contravention: Tue, 26 May 2026
Date NtK was issued/posted: Tue, 09 Jun 2026
Deemed date of delivery (2 working days): Thu, 11 Jun 2026
16 days elapsed
Given (delivered) 2 days too late.
So, I suggest you submit the following initial appeal:
I am the registered keeper. UKCPS cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention where it has not used, and cannot use, the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
As a matter of fact and law, UKCPS will be well aware that it has not created keeper liability. Your own Notice to Keeper expressly states that it is a “Postal – Non POFA” notice. The alleged event was on 26/05/2026, the notice is dated 09/06/2026, and your own notice states that it is deemed given on the second working day after sending. Even if UKCPS had attempted to rely on PoFA, which it has not, the notice was not given within the statutory period required for keeper liability.
If UKCPS wanted to hold a registered keeper liable, that was within UKCPS’s gift: issue a fully compliant PoFA notice, in time. UKCPS did not do so. Instead, UKCPS has issued a self-confessed non-PoFA notice alleging a contractual charge against the driver only, then dressed it up as an invitation to the keeper to supply the one piece of evidence UKCPS does not have.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. The driver has not been identified and will not be identified.
UKCPS has no lawful route to keeper liability. You are therefore urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Come back when the scammers reject the appeal and we can then deal with the corrupt IAS kangaroo court that is the secondary appeal.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
Perfect, thank you for your prompt response and help. I've sent through the appeal, let's see what they come back with.
Out of curiosity, why did you leave FTLA? I have noticed it's much harder to get help on that site now, especially as it's difficult to add images now.
(06-12-2026, 01:41 PM)samh47 Wrote: Out of curiosity, why did you leave FTLA? I have noticed it's much harder to get help on that site now, especially as it's difficult to add images now.
There were some "ego" problems with one of their mods, so I decided to set up my own forum. I still post occasionally on MSE and very rarely on FTLA under a different pseudonym, but I much more time to deal with only a limited number of cases and till have time to do other things of interest.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
(06-12-2026, 04:06 PM)samh47 Wrote: You are certainly missed there! And yes, I did find the odd global mod starting with 'a' and ending with 'f' to be a complete a** !
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
(06-12-2026, 01:41 PM)samh47 Wrote: Out of curiosity, why did you leave FTLA? I have noticed it's much harder to get help on that site now, especially as it's difficult to add images now.
There were some "ego" problems with one of their mods, so I decided to set up my own forum. I still post occasionally on MSE and very rarely on FTLA under a different pseudonym, but I much more time to deal with only a limited number of cases and till have time to do other things of interest.
(06-12-2026, 04:06 PM)samh47 Wrote: You are certainly missed there! And yes, I did find the odd global mod starting with 'a' and ending with 'f' to be a complete a** !
If it's the same guy I'm thinking of (both on FTLA and formerly Pepipoo), he’s a protected forum jester‑tyrant who hides behind his moderator badge, fires off stale pop‑culture zingers, and coasts on unearned immunity because the site owners value his financial donations or his ego more than the community in general.
I don't post there anymore solely due to his presence.
If it is that person rhyming with Dandy Roster, then yes he's an absolute t*sser! If he spoke like that to someone's face he'd be searching for some missing teeth!
I got the following response from UKCPS, can you please advise how to proceed?
Quote:10th July 2026
Current Balance:
£60.00
Parking Charge Reference:
Vehicle Registration:
Location: Leeds City Station, LS1 4DY
Issued: 26/05/2026 at 23:07:49
Dear
Thank you for your appeal submitted on 12th June 2026. After reviewing your comments, and carefully considering
the evidence collected at the time the Parking Charge was issued, we regret to inform you that your appeal has
been unsuccessful. The reasons for our decision are detailed below:
The Parking Charge was issued because the vehicle was stopped within an area where No Stopping is permitted.
The Terms and Conditions displayed at the location clearly state that vehicles must not stop within the restricted
area. This restriction applies regardless of the duration of the stop, whether the vehicle was occupied, or whether
the driver remained with the vehicle.
You have raised concerns regarding keeper liability and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This Parking
Charge was issued as a Non-PoFA matter, and liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
is not being relied upon. The appeal has therefore been considered on the basis of the available evidence and the
circumstances of the incident.
As the registered keeper has not provided any evidence identifying another driver, and the appeal has been
submitted on behalf of the vehicle, the matter has been considered on the assumption that the keeper was the
driver at the time of the incident.
You state that the vehicle was not parked and that the registered keeper cannot be held liable. However, the
restriction at this location is a No Stopping restriction and does not require a vehicle to be parked in a bay, left
unattended, or remain stationary for a prolonged period. The evidence confirms that the vehicle was stopped
within the restricted area. The IPC Code of Practice requires motorists to comply with the Terms and Conditions displayed on private land.
The signage at this location clearly communicates the No Stopping restriction and is positioned to provide
motorists with reasonable notice of the applicable terms. It is not feasible or required for signage to be placed at
every possible stopping point, provided that the terms are clearly displayed throughout the controlled area.
The reason for stopping does not provide an exemption from the restriction. Whether the vehicle stopped briefly,
remained occupied, or the driver intended to leave shortly afterwards does not alter the fact that stopping occurred
in an area where stopping is prohibited.
Having reviewed all points raised, together with the available evidence, we are satisfied that the Parking Charge
was issued correctly and in accordance with the IPC Code of Practice. The Parking Charge will therefore remain
payable.
The area where the vehicle stopped is designated as private land where parking, stopping, or waiting is strictly
prohibited at all times.
At the time of the event, the vehicle was parked, stopped or waiting in this area, and as a result, the driver
contractually agrees to pay a parking charge.
Attached, you will find photographic evidence showing the vehicle parked at the location mentioned above.
We have extended the opportunity for you to pay the reduced amount of, £60.00, until 26/07/2026, after this date,
the full amount of £100.00 will be due.
Regards,
Appeals Team
Payment options are available as follows:
Online: Visit ukcps.ec6pay.com
By Phone: Make payments using Debit/Credit card by calling 0333 023 0121
By Mail: Send a Cheque/Postal order payable to UKCPS Ltd to the address provided at the top of this
correspondence
Alternatively, you can make payment by scanning the QR code provided
Payments received which are not accompanied by this information will be cashed but the creditor will be unable to
allocate the payment to the correct Parking Charge. The Parking Charge will therefore remain unpaid and enforcement action may be taken. This will result in additional cost being incurred.
Independent Appeals Service
If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (''IAS''). In
order to appeal, you will need your Parking Charge Reference and your vehicle registration. Appeals must be
submitted to the IAS within 28 days of the date of this response. Please note if you make an appeal with the IAS
then the discounted rate is no longer available.
If you wish to complain, you MUST complain to us directly in the first instance by writing to us at the address at the
top of this letter. If you are not satisfied with our response, then you may refer your complaint to the IPC. Further
details can be found at www.theIPC.info
