02-21-2026, 02:15 PM
@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 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.
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:
Quote:‘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.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
