UKPC PCN - Friern Barnet Retail Park - Vehicle was parked in registered users only

[merweetntr]

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 "

[b789]

You are now at the POPLA stage. UKPC have rejected the appeal and issued a POPLA verification code. That means the next step, if you do not intend to pay, is to submit a POPLA appeal within 33 days of the date of their rejection email. The 33 days is 28 days plus 5 days allowed for service. Do not miss that deadline.

What is the date of the appeal rejection?

Before anything else, we need to see the original Notice to Keeper (NtK). Not a reminder, not the rejection, but the first NtK that was sent. Both sides, with personal details redacted but leaving all dates and wording visible. The entire POPLA appeal will stand or fall on whether that Notice fully complied with PoFA. If it does not, then UKPC cannot transfer liability from the unknown Driver to you as Keeper. Without seeing it, we are working blind.

You should also gather the following now:

1. Clear photographs of all signage at the site, especially the entrance signs.
   
2. A close-up of the sign that states “registered users only” and the hours 22:30 to 08:00.
   
3. Any evidence showing how prominent or otherwise that restriction is.
   
4. Any correspondence received so far, including the original appeal you sent.
   

At POPLA you will not be arguing about fairness. You will be arguing legal compliance. The main points are likely to be:

– No keeper liability under PoFA if the Notice to Keeper is non-compliant.
– No evidence that the Keeper was the Driver.
– Inadequate or unclear signage forming no contract.
– Proof of landowner authority if appropriate.

Do not identify the Driver in your POPLA appeal. You remain the Keeper.

Once you upload the original Notice to Keeper here, we can assess precisely where it fails (if it does) and draft a structured POPLA appeal that leads the assessor through the defects step by step. For now, the key point is this: you are not out of time for POPLA, but you must act within the 33-day window. Upload the original Notice to Keeper so we can proceed properly.

[merweetntr]

You are now at the POPLA stage. UKPC have rejected the appeal and issued a POPLA verification code. That means the next step, if you do not intend to pay, is to submit a POPLA appeal within 33 days of the date of their rejection email. The 33 days is 28 days plus 5 days allowed for service. Do not miss that deadline.

What is the date of the appeal rejection?

Before anything else, we need to see the original Notice to Keeper (NtK). Not a reminder, not the rejection, but the first NtK that was sent. Both sides, with personal details redacted but leaving all dates and wording visible. The entire POPLA appeal will stand or fall on whether that Notice fully complied with PoFA. If it does not, then UKPC cannot transfer liability from the unknown Driver to you as Keeper. Without seeing it, we are working blind.

You should also gather the following now:

1. Clear photographs of all signage at the site, especially the entrance signs.
   
2. A close-up of the sign that states “registered users only” and the hours 22:30 to 08:00.
   
3. Any evidence showing how prominent or otherwise that restriction is.
   
4. Any correspondence received so far, including the original appeal you sent.
   

At POPLA you will not be arguing about fairness. You will be arguing legal compliance. The main points are likely to be:

– No keeper liability under PoFA if the Notice to Keeper is non-compliant.
– No evidence that the Keeper was the Driver.
– Inadequate or unclear signage forming no contract.
– Proof of landowner authority if appropriate.

Do not identify the Driver in your POPLA appeal. You remain the Keeper.

Once you upload the original Notice to Keeper here, we can assess precisely where it fails (if it does) and draft a structured POPLA appeal that leads the assessor through the defects step by step. For now, the key point is this: you are not out of time for POPLA, but you must act within the 33-day window. Upload the original Notice to Keeper so we can proceed properly.

Hi, Im pretty sure I’ve missed the deadline as I found out about the email way too late as it went to spam and I haven’t seen it until the last minute.

Is there anything else I could do?

Im trying to find the original notice but I might have lost it, I will try looking for it once again and send it if I find it.

[b789]

@merweetntr, first, establish the exact dates. What is the date on UKPC’s rejection email? The POPLA code is valid for 28 days from the date of issue, but in practice POPLA allows 33 days (28 days plus 5 days for service). If you are within 33 days of the rejection date, you can still submit a POPLA appeal. Check that immediately before assuming it is too late.

If the POPLA code has genuinely expired, then POPLA will not accept a late appeal. “It went to spam” will not revive the code. That does not mean you must now pay.

If no POPLA appeal is made, UKPC’s next step will be to pass the matter to debt collectors. Debt collectors have no powers. They cannot add enforceable sums. They cannot affect your credit file. They send letters designed to intimidate. Those letters can be ignored.

The only correspondence that matters after this stage would be:

– A Letter of Claim (LoC) or sometimes called a Letter Before Claim/Action) from solicitors.
– A formal County Court claim form from the Civil National Business Centre.

Until one of those arrives, there is no litigation.

However, whether you are in a strong defensive position depends entirely on the original Notice to Keeper (NtK). If UKPC failed to comply with Schedule 4 of PoFA, they cannot hold the Keeper liable. In that scenario, if the Driver is not identified, they would have to prove the Keeper was the Driver. That is impossible for them unless you, the Keeper, tell them.

If you have lost the original Notice, you can:

1. Log into UKPC’s online portal (if still accessible) and download copies.
   
2. Write to UKPC requesting a copy of the original Notice to Keeper for your records.
   
3. Submit a Subject Access Request (SAR) to UKPC requesting all personal data relating to you and the vehicle, including all notices and photographs.
   

A SAR is free and must be responded to within one month.

Do not contact debt collectors. Do not admit who was driving. Do not panic about “credit rating” language — nothing affects credit unless a court judgment is entered and then left unpaid for more than one month.

Your immediate actions are:

– Confirm whether the 33-day POPLA window has in fact expired.
– Locate or obtain the original Notice to Keeper.
– Do nothing else until we can assess PoFA compliance.

Once we know whether keeper liability applies, we can determine whether this is something to defend robustly or something that carries greater risk.

[merweetntr]

So I managed to find the original notice dated 12/11/2025.

I have attached it below and also have final reminder letter if needed. 

https://ibb.co/LzBqd4pH

I also doubled checked and the email of rejection was sent on 8th of January which is outside the 33 day window.

[b789]

@merweetntr, you have redacted too much from the NtK. You only need to redact your name, address and the VRM. Everything else must remain visible. The critical information includes the dates and times of the alleged entry and exit, the location of the alleged contravention, the issue date of the notice, and the full wording on both sides of the document.

UKPC signage frequently raises issues under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA). In many UKPC cases the charge is not sufficiently prominent or transparent, and the core term (the parking charge) is buried within dense small print. If the charge is not prominently displayed and clearly legible at the point of contract formation, it is capable of challenge.

If UKPC have uploaded any purported evidence on their website, download it immediately. If possible, obtain your own photographs of the signage in situ — particularly the entrance sign and at least one terms sign — ideally in similar lighting conditions (for example, if the alleged event occurred in darkness, photograph without flash or headlights). If a Letter of Claim (LoC) is issued, the operator will be put to strict proof of the signage relied upon, but contemporaneous photographs are always preferable.

The reminder notice is irrelevant. The only document that matters at this stage is the original Notice to Keeper. Please repost the NtK with only personal identifiers redacted.

Turning to the alleged contravention:

‘The vehicle was parked in an area designated for registered users only from 05/11/2025 23:00 to 05/11/2025 23:33 for 0 hours 33 minutes 3 seconds.’

The NtK appears to rely solely on ANPR entry and exit images. The wording suggests that the site contains areas restricted to “registered users”. If that is the case, the operator must demonstrate, by evidence, that the vehicle was parked in such a restricted area. ANPR cameras merely record entry and exit; they do not establish where within a site a vehicle was stationary.

If the entire site is reserved for “registered users only”, the legal character of the signage becomes critical. Where signage is framed in purely prohibitive terms (e.g. ‘Permit holders only’ or ‘Registered users only’), the driver who does not meet that condition is not being offered parking on stated terms. Instead, the wording is capable of being construed as forbidding parking altogether. In those circumstances, no contractual offer is made to non-registered drivers, and therefore no contract can be formed with them.

If no contract is capable of being formed, the only possible cause of action would be trespass. Trespass is actionable only by a party with a sufficient proprietary interest in the land (typically the landowner), not a mere site manager or parking contractor. Furthermore, damages for trespass are compensatory in nature and are limited to the actual loss suffered. In a free car park, or where no measurable loss arises, that sum would ordinarily be zero.

So, the precise wording of the entrance and terms signage is fundamental. Without seeing that wording, it is impossible to assess whether UKPC are alleging breach of contract or attempting to enforce what is, in substance, a prohibition.

[merweetntr]

Hi, I apologise for covering too much in photo of the original notice. 

I have added links for updated original notice and I have also received a letter today from the debt collectors.

Original notice and the debt collector letter: https://postimg.cc/gallery/3R1BhTx

I was unable to get clear signage on site as I live far away from this retail park, however I managed to get an entrance sign dated 2022 on google maps which was the best I could get.

Entrance sign: https://postimg.cc/PP1CKz9K

[b789]

@merweetntr, you can safely ignore all debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything. They are not a party to any contract allegedly breached by the driver. All they can do is try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.

We really don’t need to know about any debt recovery letters and you can just file them or shred them into hamster bedding for alll anyone cares. If/when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC), then you can respond, but that will not be from a powerless debt collector.

In the meantime, to assist me in keeping track of your case, could you complete the PCN details form here:

https://gullibletree.com/tools/pcnform_main.html

It will produce a summary that you can just copy and paste into the thread as a post. I’ll get back to you when I have the summary to hand.

[merweetntr]

@merweetntr, you can safely ignore all debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything. They are not a party to any contract allegedly breached by the driver. All they can do is try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.

We really don’t need to know about any debt recovery letters and you can just file them or shred them into hamster bedding for alll anyone cares. If/when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC), then you can respond, but that will not be from a powerless debt collector.

In the meantime, to assist me in keeping track of your case, could you complete the PCN details form here:

https://gullibletree.com/tools/pcnform_main.html

It will produce a summary that you can just copy and paste into the thread as a post. I’ll get back to you when I have the summary to hand.

Hi there is the summary:

This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by UK Parking Control Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Wednesday, 05 November 2025. The notice itself is dated Tuesday, 11 November 2025, 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 Friern Barnet Retail Park N11 3PW.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates COMPLIANT: Likely PoFA timing compliant for paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Thursday, 13 November 2025 (8 days after the alleged event).

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: Yes
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No

Response/appeal already sent (verbatim where possible):

I followed the advice on the forum and appealed the ticket stating that the driver wasn’t identified therefore the registered keeper cannot be held reliable which shortly after they asked to identify the driver which I have refused and my appeal was rejected.

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

[b789]

Thanks for that @merweetntr. Having now reviewed the Notice to Keeper and the entrance signage, I will be direct.

First, the Notice to Keeper appears, on its face, to be compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It was issued within the 14-day window. It specifies the vehicle, the location, the period of parking (via ANPR entry/exit), identifies the creditor, and contains the statutory warning wording regarding keeper liability after 28 days.

In practical terms, that means keeper liability applies if the driver is not identified. There is no obvious technical PoFA defect to rely on. A “no keeper liability” defence would not be credible here.

That shifts the focus away from PoFA and onto contract formation and signage.

The entrance sign clearly states that between 22:30 and 06:30 the car park is for “Registered Users Only”. Your alleged parking period falls squarely within that restricted time band.

However, the legal character of that wording is still important. Signage framed as “Registered Users Only” can be interpreted as prohibitive rather than contractual. If the effect of the signage is to say that non-registered users are not permitted to park at all during those hours, then no contractual offer is being made to them. In that scenario, no contract can be formed with a non-registered driver. The only possible cause of action would be trespass, which can only be pursued by a party with sufficient proprietary interest in the land, and any damages would be strictly compensatory and limited to actual loss; in the context of a free retail car park where no measurable loss arises, that would realistically amount to nothing.

Without seeing the actual terms signs within the car park that UKPC rely upon, it is not possible to finalise that argument. If their internal signs clearly state that a £100 charge applies for breach of the “registered users only” condition, a court may treat it as a contractual regime. If the wording is purely prohibitive, the contract argument becomes stronger.

At this stage, there is nothing further for you to do.

Debt collector letters are irrelevant and can be safely ignored. They carry no legal weight. The only power a debt collector has is to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.

The only correspondence that matters now would be a formal Letter of Claim (LoC), most likely issued by DCB Legal, who routinely act for UKPC. If and when an LoC arrives, that is the point to respond formally. We would then require them to provide all evidence they intend to rely upon, including:

• Copies of the signage they say formed the contract
  
• Site maps showing the restricted area
  
• The landowner authority contract
  
• The ANPR evidence
  
• Any other documents forming the alleged contractual terms
  

Only once that evidence is disclosed can the defence position be fully structured.

For context, I am very confident that if this proceeds to a claim through DCB Legal and it is properly defended with the defence I provide, it is almost certainly going to be discontinued before hearing. Their standard operating model is to press claims forward to the point where a defendant must either pay or commit to defending, in the expectation that many will capitulate out of ignorance or fear. In the overwhelming majority of defended single-PCN claims I have dealt with involving DCB Legal, discontinuance occurs approximately a month before the listed hearing date, once it becomes commercially unattractive for them to proceed.

For now, you simply wait. If a Letter of Claim arrives, you return here immediately and we respond properly and methodically.