10-08-2026, 10:37 AM
Hi @zyno. Welcome to the forum. The image of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not a very high resolution but I can make out most of it.
The material details are:
The keeper-liability section is particularly interesting. UKPC says:
Then the important paragraph at the bottom appears to say:
There are two things I would immediately flag.
First, the paragraph 9(2)(f) wording appears defective. PoFA Schedule 4 requires two cumulative conditions before keeper liability can arise: the parking charge remains unpaid AND the creditor does not know both the driver's name and a current address for service. UKPC's notice appears to use "or". That materially changes the statutory warning. On its literal wording it tells the keeper that liability arises if either condition exists. That is not what PoFA says. Paragraph 9(2)(f) expressly requires the warning to reflect both conditions.
Secondly, I do not see an actual "period of parking". What UKPC gives is apparently one timestamp together with a "recorded duration of stay" of 12 minutes 31 seconds. Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to "specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates".
A duration is not necessarily the same thing as specifying the period of parking, particularly where the notice does not state clear commencement and end times.
Timing itself is not a problem: an event on 26 September followed by a postal NtK dated 30 September is comfortably within the 14-day requirement applicable to a paragraph 9 NtK.
There may therefore be a reasonably strong PoFA attack here, especially because of that apparent "or" instead of the statutory cumulative conditions. I would want to see the reverse of the NtK as well, because paragraph 9 has several other mandatory requirements concerning appeals/dispute resolution, and UKPC may have put some of them on the back.
The material details are:
• Notice date: 30/09/2026
• Parking Charge date: 26/09/2026
• Alleged contravention: "Parked in a roadway"
• Location: "Nine Elms Park – Zone 1 – Mount Lane, Nine Elms Park, Embassy Gardens, New Union Square, Ponton Road, Nine Elms, London, SW11 7DN"
• It appears to give an incident time of 10:16:58 on 26/09/2026.
• It states: "The recorded duration of stay was 0 Hours 12 Minutes 31 Seconds."
• Charge: £100, discounted to £60.
• Creditor expressly identified as UK Parking Control Ltd.
• Two photographic images are reproduced on the NtK.
• Parking Charge date: 26/09/2026
• Alleged contravention: "Parked in a roadway"
• Location: "Nine Elms Park – Zone 1 – Mount Lane, Nine Elms Park, Embassy Gardens, New Union Square, Ponton Road, Nine Elms, London, SW11 7DN"
• It appears to give an incident time of 10:16:58 on 26/09/2026.
• It states: "The recorded duration of stay was 0 Hours 12 Minutes 31 Seconds."
• Charge: £100, discounted to £60.
• Creditor expressly identified as UK Parking Control Ltd.
• Two photographic images are reproduced on the NtK.
The keeper-liability section is particularly interesting. UKPC says:
"UK Parking Control Ltd do not know the name and address of the driver. We therefore invite you, the registered keeper, to pay this Parking Charge or provide us with the name and current address of the driver…"
Then the important paragraph at the bottom appears to say:
"If, after a period of 28 days (beginning on the day after this Parking Charge is given), the amount requested in this Parking Charge has not been paid in full (or we have not been informed of the driver's name and current address), you, the registered keeper, will, subject to the conditions of, and under the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, be liable to pay the unpaid Parking Charge."
There are two things I would immediately flag.
First, the paragraph 9(2)(f) wording appears defective. PoFA Schedule 4 requires two cumulative conditions before keeper liability can arise: the parking charge remains unpaid AND the creditor does not know both the driver's name and a current address for service. UKPC's notice appears to use "or". That materially changes the statutory warning. On its literal wording it tells the keeper that liability arises if either condition exists. That is not what PoFA says. Paragraph 9(2)(f) expressly requires the warning to reflect both conditions.
Secondly, I do not see an actual "period of parking". What UKPC gives is apparently one timestamp together with a "recorded duration of stay" of 12 minutes 31 seconds. Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to "specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates".
A duration is not necessarily the same thing as specifying the period of parking, particularly where the notice does not state clear commencement and end times.
Timing itself is not a problem: an event on 26 September followed by a postal NtK dated 30 September is comfortably within the 14-day requirement applicable to a paragraph 9 NtK.
There may therefore be a reasonably strong PoFA attack here, especially because of that apparent "or" instead of the statutory cumulative conditions. I would want to see the reverse of the NtK as well, because paragraph 9 has several other mandatory requirements concerning appeals/dispute resolution, and UKPC may have put some of them on the back.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
