04-16-2026, 09:17 AM
Hi @TheParkingmeister. Can you please do me a favour and fill out the PCN details form here and paste the summary so I have a separate record of this PCN.
Uxbridge Industrial Estate is a very well known entrapment site. The PCN appears seriously flawed. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not specify any period of parking, so there is an obvious PoFA 9(2)(a) failure. The location is also not identified with any proper precision, and the signage is prohibitory and therefore incapable of forming any contractual offer in the first place. On paper, those are strong points.
The problem is that this is not really a case that is likely to be killed off at the appeal stage. An initial appeal is still worth doing to set the position down, but POPLA is not a forum I would place any faith in here. Even where the legal defects are obvious, POPLA too often waves these cases through regardless. In reality, this is the sort of charge that would stand the best chance of being defeated only if the matter ever reached a defended court claim.
That, however, is where the Catch-22 comes in. The registered keeper is the employer, and if they have already made clear that they will not tolerate debt recovery letters and will simply pay and pass the cost onto the driver, then the case is likely to be frustrated before it ever reaches the only stage where it could properly be beaten. In other words, there may be a good defence in law, but the employer’s commercial attitude is likely to prevent the matter ever getting to the stage where that defence could be used.
So the realistic advice is this: submit a proper initial appeal to preserve the points and see whether PPS folds, but the driver needs to understand that, unless the employer is willing to hold firm beyond the debt collector stage, this will probably end up being paid regardless of the legal merits.
Uxbridge Industrial Estate is a very well known entrapment site. The PCN appears seriously flawed. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not specify any period of parking, so there is an obvious PoFA 9(2)(a) failure. The location is also not identified with any proper precision, and the signage is prohibitory and therefore incapable of forming any contractual offer in the first place. On paper, those are strong points.
The problem is that this is not really a case that is likely to be killed off at the appeal stage. An initial appeal is still worth doing to set the position down, but POPLA is not a forum I would place any faith in here. Even where the legal defects are obvious, POPLA too often waves these cases through regardless. In reality, this is the sort of charge that would stand the best chance of being defeated only if the matter ever reached a defended court claim.
That, however, is where the Catch-22 comes in. The registered keeper is the employer, and if they have already made clear that they will not tolerate debt recovery letters and will simply pay and pass the cost onto the driver, then the case is likely to be frustrated before it ever reaches the only stage where it could properly be beaten. In other words, there may be a good defence in law, but the employer’s commercial attitude is likely to prevent the matter ever getting to the stage where that defence could be used.
So the realistic advice is this: submit a proper initial appeal to preserve the points and see whether PPS folds, but the driver needs to understand that, unless the employer is willing to hold firm beyond the debt collector stage, this will probably end up being paid regardless of the legal merits.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
