UKPC ticket whilst driver was delivering parcels on moat lane, nine elms.

[zyno]

This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by UK Parking Control Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Saturday, 26 September 2026. The notice itself is dated Wednesday, 30 September 2026, 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 Nine elms park - zone 1 - moat lane..

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 Friday, 02 October 2026 (6 days after the alleged event).

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

Additional notes provided:
n/a

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

[b789]

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:

• 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.

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.

[zyno]

https://ibb.co/kgp5w5hF
That’s the back of the NtK, the image might also be blurry but i hope it’s readable. Thank you for your help!
If you could let me know what points the driver should include in their appeal that would be great.

[b789]

@zyno, having reviewed both sides of the Notice to Keeper (NtK), there are several grounds on which to challenge UKPC's parking charge.

First, however, an important distinction:

The driver is NOT appealing. The appeal must be submitted ONLY by the registered keeper.

UKPC has absolutely no idea who the driver was. Do not assist them by identifying the driver, either directly or inadvertently.

The driver and the registered keeper are two legally distinct capacities. There is no legal obligation on the keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company.

Parliament enacted Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) to provide private parking operators with a statutory mechanism for pursuing registered keepers where the driver's identity is unknown. However, that mechanism is only available where the operator complies with the relevant statutory requirements.

UKPC cannot simply disregard those requirements and presume that the keeper was driving.

The NtK raises concerns regarding the statutory warning under paragraph 9(2)(f), the specification of the period of parking under paragraph 9(2)(a), and whether the alleged conduct amounts to a contractual breach at all.

I suggest submitting the following appeal through UKPC's online appeals portal, selecting Registered Keeper as the appellant and ensuring nothing in the submission identifies the driver.

Re: Parking Charge Notice [reference number]

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle identified in your Notice to Keeper dated 30 September 2026. I dispute the parking charge and require its cancellation.

1. Failure to establish keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

Your Notice to Keeper does not adequately comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

In particular, the warning concerning keeper liability under paragraph 9(2)(f) appears to misrepresent the cumulative statutory conditions through its use of alternative wording.

PoFA requires that the parking charge remains unpaid and that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service before the statutory warning can operate as prescribed.

The notice fails to reproduce those conditions correctly. Consequently, you have not established any entitlement to recover the charge from me as registered keeper.

2. Failure to specify the period of parking – paragraph 9(2)(a)

Your notice states that the recorded duration of stay was 12 minutes and 31 seconds.

However, it does not specify the actual period of parking to which the charge relates, as expressly required by paragraph 9(2)(a).

A recorded duration of presence on the site is not necessarily evidence of a period of parking, particularly where the alleged contravention concerns a roadway.

3. No demonstrated contractual liability

The allegation is described as "Parked in a roadway".

You have provided no adequate evidence that the terms displayed at the location offered a contractual licence to park on the roadway, that those terms were capable of acceptance in the circumstances, or that any enforceable contractual obligation arose.

If the signage prohibits parking on the roadway, rather than offering parking subject to payment of a specified charge, you must explain the contractual basis on which you contend that the parking charge is recoverable.

4. No presumption that the registered keeper was the driver

The identity of the driver has not been established. There is no statutory presumption that the registered keeper was driving, nor any obligation on the keeper to identify the driver.

Any attempt to impose keeper liability must therefore satisfy the applicable requirements of PoFA.

I require you to cancel this parking charge. Should you refuse, provide a POPLA verification code so that the matter may be considered independently.

Submit the appeal without adding any explanation of who was driving, why the vehicle was present or what occurred at the location.

If UKPC rejects it (almost certainly), the next stage is POPLA, where we can develop the statutory and contractual arguments using the operator's evidence.

If possible, I would also like to see photographs of the actual roadway signage, particularly the wording concerning prohibited parking. That may provide another substantial ground of appeal independently of PoFA.

[zyno]

I will appeal using the quote you gave me and will get back to you. Thank you again & i can’t find a clear image of the signage that says no parking, however there were only bays for, blue badge holders & electric vehicles only. 
https://ibb.co/vxj2nKLP
The link above shows a screenshot of the sign, however it is extremely hard/impossible to read. 
I will get back once UKPC reply to the appeal. 
Thank you.

[b789]

@zyno, thanks for the additional photograph. This strengthens the appeal considerably. I've also had a look at the location on GSV and the entrance sign merely states that parking conditions apply and directs motorists to other notices. However, the actual sign prominently states "NO PARKING", reinforced by a crossed-out parking symbol.

This is prohibitory signage, not an offer to park in exchange for £100. UKPC would have to establish how a driver could accept a contractual offer to park somewhere that parking is expressly forbidden.

There is also the distinction between the entrance sign referring to a car park and the NtK alleging parking on a roadway. UKPC must establish that the relevant contractual terms applied to the precise location.

The existing PoFA objections concerning paragraphs 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(f) should remain in the keeper appeal.

I would add the following paragraph:

"The signage at the location is expressly prohibitory, prominently stating 'NO PARKING'. Such wording does not constitute an offer of parking capable of acceptance by the prohibited conduct. The entrance sign merely states that parking conditions apply and does not establish any contractual offer relating to the roadway. UKPC is put to strict proof of the contractual offer allegedly made, its acceptance, and its authority to pursue any alleged breach. Any allegation of trespass would require a separate legal basis and proof of the necessary standing."

Remember, this is an appeal by the registered keeper ONLY. The driver must not be identified. There is no legal obligation on the keeper to do so, and UKPC cannot presume that the keeper was driving.

Submit the keeper appeal and, if rejected, we can develop these arguments further at POPLA.

[zyno]

I had already sent the appeal as the keeper not the driver. However, as I have already sent the appeal with the previous quote you gave me i am unable to add this too. But as you said they would reject my appeal, I can keep this for after.. Right?
Much appreciated

[b789]

Absolutely. The initial appeal is rarely successful, so we can put more effort into the POPLA appeal later.

[zyno]

okay thats perfect, i have sent the appeal & will get back to you once they’ve responded. 
Thank you for your help!