PCN - UKPS - Dragon Retail Park, Cardiff

[b789]

@onFourWheels, welcome to the forum. The allegation is "Non customer parked in a customer only car park. What evidence have they that the driver was not a customer? Remember, they have contacted you only as the Keeper. They have no idea who the driver is, unless you blab it to them, inadvertently or otherwise. You only refer to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that".

This is not a case where their ANPR images prove the alleged contravention. The images simply show the vehicle entering and leaving. They do not show who was driving, where the driver went, whether the driver or any occupant used any of the retail units, browsed, made an enquiry, bought something, collected something, returned something, used a service, or had any other customer-related reason for being there.

Consider how utterly stupid they are with this scam... A vehicle is not a "customer" or a "non-customer". A person is. So UKPS need evidence about the conduct or status of the driver or occupants. From what is shown on the notice, they have not provided any such evidence at all.

That means their allegation is just an assertion. They are saying "non-customer" but showing only entry and exit camera images. That is a significant evidential gap.

The initial keeper appeal should therefore be along the lines of:

Formal Appeal and Formal Complaint – PCN [reference]/VRM [registration]

I am the registered keeper. I dispute liability for this Parking Charge Notice. I will not be identifying the driver.

This is both a formal appeal and a formal complaint. If UKPS considers any part of this complaint to include an appeal against the validity of the charge, then it must also be treated as an appeal for the purposes of the applicable appeal timescales.

The alleged contravention is stated as:

"Non Customer Parked in a Customer Only Car Park."

That allegation is denied.

Your notice is evidentially hopeless. The images provided appear to be no more than ANPR/camera images showing the vehicle entering and leaving the site. They do not show who the driver was. They do not show where the driver went. They do not show whether the driver or any passenger was a customer. They do not show whether anyone browsed, made an enquiry, used a service, collected goods, returned goods, purchased goods, or otherwise attended as a customer.

A vehicle is not a "customer" or a "non-customer". A person is. Your notice shows a vehicle. It does not prove the status or conduct of any person.

UKPS is therefore making a serious contractual allegation without providing any evidence that the alleged contravention occurred. Simply labelling someone a "non-customer" does not make it true. ANPR images of a vehicle entering and leaving a car park do not prove a non-customer breach. They prove, at most, that a vehicle passed a camera.

The alleged breach, by its own wording, depends entirely on the status or conduct of the driver or occupants. UKPS does not know who the driver was, and the keeper will not be assisting UKPS by identifying the driver. There is no legal presumption that the registered keeper was the driver.

Your notice contains a vague assertion that UKPS has the right to recover unpaid charges from the registered keeper if the charge remains unpaid after 28 days, or if the name and address of the driver is not known. That is not a free-standing right. UKPS cannot simply declare keeper liability into existence.

If UKPS is not relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, then UKPS has no keeper liability and must pursue only the driver, whose identity is not known to you and will not be provided.

If UKPS later attempts to rely on Schedule 4, then UKPS is put to strict proof of full compliance with every applicable statutory condition. Merely issuing a Notice to Keeper within 14 days would not be enough. Keeper liability is not created by timing alone. UKPS would still have to prove that a parking charge was lawfully incurred by the driver in the first place, and that the Notice to Keeper fully complied with all mandatory statutory wording and content requirements.

That is fatal here because the notice does not evidence the alleged contravention. It alleges "Non Customer Parked in a Customer Only Car Park", but shows only camera images of a vehicle entering and leaving. Those images do not prove who the driver was, whether the driver or any occupant was a customer, or whether any contractual term was breached.

If UKPS wishes to maintain this allegation, it must provide the actual evidence relied upon. That must include, at minimum:

1. the evidence said to prove that the driver was not a customer;
   
2. the evidence said to prove that no occupant of the vehicle was a customer;
   
3. any attendant notes, patrol records, CCTV footage, retailer evidence, witness evidence or manual observation records relied upon;
   
4. the full signage in place on the material date;
   
5. the site map showing the vehicle's alleged location and the relevant contractual area;
   
6. the landowner authority permitting UKPS to issue and pursue parking charges at this site;
   
7. all evidence relied upon to assert that any contractual term was breached.
   

Without that evidence, the PCN is nothing more than a speculative demand dressed up as enforcement.

There are also Equality Act considerations. An occupant of the vehicle had disability-related needs. UKPS, the landholder and the retailers are service providers or agents involved in the provision of services to the public. Any rigid, automated, evidence-free enforcement of a "customer only" term without proper consideration of disability-related circumstances is unacceptable.

This charge must now be cancelled.

If UKPS refuses to cancel it, the rejection must address each point above and must include the IAS appeal details together with the complete evidence pack relied upon. A generic rejection, a template response, or a bare assertion that the charge was "correctly issued" will be treated as further evidence that UKPS has no proper basis for this demand.

Until the appeal process is concluded, UKPS must not pass this matter to any debt resolution agent or attempt to add false or invented debt recovery sums.

For the avoidance of doubt, no driver has been identified and no admission is made as to the identity of the driver.

Keep it tight. Do not embellish with who was driving or what you personally did. Everything should remain from the Keeper's position. The burden is on UKPS to prove the alleged breach, not on you to help them fill in the blanks.