Parking Charge for a quick stop!

[d_ancz]

This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Monday, 29 June 2026. The notice itself is dated on the 7th of July, 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 Arcadia Library & Leisure Centre, Manchester.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates PENDING: Enter the notice issue date to calculate deemed delivery and timing. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Not available.

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

Additional notes provided:
The charge is for Failure to Register for Duration of the stay.

it was at 22:47 in the night, I could not see any visible signs, and the leisure centre was closed, meaning I wasn't able to register my vehicle at night since it was closed.

I was there for 17 minutes.

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

[b789]

Hi @d_ancz. Can you please show us both sides of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) that was received.

Is the vehicle leased or hired?

[d_ancz]

Hi @b789, i have attached the photos below. The vehicle is mine.[=171]

[b789]

The Notice to Keeper was issued within the required timescale, but that does not make it PoFA compliant. To transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, the operator must comply with every mandatory requirement of Schedule 4.

This notice fails to state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, as required by paragraph 9(2)(e). Merely asking the keeper to provide the driver’s details does not satisfy that separate statutory requirement.

The keeper-liability warning is also defective. It refers vaguely to payment not being received “after 28 days”, rather than the prescribed period of 28 days beginning with the day after the notice is given. It also omits the condition that the operator must still not know both the driver’s name and a current address for service before keeper liability can arise.

There is also an arguable failure to specify a genuine period of parking, because ANPR entry and exit timestamps record movement past cameras, not necessarily the period during which the vehicle was parked.

Accordingly, the operator has not acquired any right to recover the charge from the keeper. The keeper should not identify the driver. There is no legal obligation to do so, and identifying the driver would remove the strongest defence available.

As UK Parking Patrol Office is an IPC member, the initial appeal will almost certainly be rejected regardless of its merits. The keeper can then take the matter to the IAS, although this so-called independent appeal service regularly disregards clear PoFA defects or attempts to infer that the keeper was the driver without evidence. That does not create keeper liability and does not bind a court. The keeper should maintain the same position throughout: the driver has not been identified, the notice does not comply with PoFA, and the operator has no lawful basis to pursue the keeper.

The most likely outcome will be a county court claim which is easily defended. I just need to know whether the Keeper is prepared to fight this all the way.

[d_ancz]

Hi @b789, i have attached my draft for my appeal below, please let me know if there are any adjustments i should make to it, thanks!

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and wish to appeal the above Parking Charge Notice.

I deny any liability for this charge.

Firstly, your Notice to Keeper does not comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore you have not established keeper liability. In particular, the Notice fails to comply with paragraph 9(2)(e), as it does not state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver. Merely inviting the keeper to identify the driver does not satisfy this statutory requirement.

Further, the keeper liability warning does not accurately reflect the wording prescribed by paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4. It refers generally to payment not being received “after 28 days” rather than the statutory period of 28 days beginning with the day after the Notice is given, and omits the condition that keeper liability can only arise where the creditor still does not know both the driver’s name and a current address for service.

In addition, your Notice does not specify a genuine period of parking as required by paragraph 9(2)(a). The ANPR timestamps merely record entry and exit from the site and do not establish the actual period during which the vehicle was parked.

As the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4, you cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to me as the registered keeper.

In light of the above, I require that you cancel this Parking Charge Notice. Should you reject this appeal, please provide a full explanation addressing each of the points raised, together with all evidence you intend to rely upon, including copies of the signage in place at the material time, the landowner authority authorising you to issue and enforce parking charges at this location, and the ANPR records.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am appealing solely as the registered keeper. No admission is made as to the identity of the driver, and no inference should be drawn in that regard.

I look forward to your confirmation that the Parking Charge Notice has been cancelled.

[b789]

I would add that according to the driver, the alleged requirement was to register the vehicle inside the leisure centre. However, the vehicle entered at approximately 22:47, when the leisure centre was closed, and no accessible alternative means of registration was apparent. Compliance with the alleged term was therefore impossible because of the operator’s own arrangements.

The signage did not clearly state that parking was prohibited whenever the premises were closed or explain how registration could be completed outside opening hours. The operator cannot reasonably allege acceptance or breach of a contractual obligation that was neither adequately communicated nor capable of performance. Any such term would, in any event, be unfair and non-transparent under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The operator may contend that the driver should have left immediately. That argument assumes, without evidence, that the registration requirement was clearly visible, adequately illuminated and understood at the material time.

According to the driver, no sufficiently prominent or legible signage conveyed any such restriction. The primary issue is therefore the absence of adequate notice; the fact that registration was apparently impossible while the premises were closed and is a separate and reinforcing failure in the operator’s alleged contractual arrangements.

[d_ancz]

@b789 thank you!! Will let you know how the appeal goes