Friday, 19 August 2016

UKPC lose in court - Notice to Keeper not compliant

C9QZ3509 UKPC v Ms E Manchester 19/08/2016

Mr Wilkie parachuted into a case in Manchester this morning - they seek him here, they seek him there - in order to act as a Lay Representative for a lady who was definitely, and provably not driving her car when it was parked in a hotel in Manchester, incurring £1120 worth of Parking Charges. The court documents were prepared by Bargepole, who argued that the claimant has no standing, and that there was no keeper liability.

SCS Law, on behalf of UKPC, submitted another Mr W, who is a charming and skilled advocate, but not a solicitor. As UKPC didn't turn up, or even send their witness, Mr Wilkie challenged the right of audience of the Advocate, and after a few minutes of argument, it was agreed that, notwithstanding any rights of audience issues, the Advocate could present the case.

Following this, Mr Wilkie asked the court to deal with the UKPC's history of false evidence, the lack of attendance of a witness and the harm this did to their case. The court was not with him on these points.

Next, the claimant argued Standing and Right to Litigate. A copy of part of a contract was produced, and together with the witness statement, this was accepted as proof of the contract on the balance of probabilities, and right to pursue charges.

As a result the case turned on one issue - Did the Notices to Keeper comply with Sch4, Section 8.2.  After much to-ing and fro-ing, the Judge found as a finding of fact that the claimant had failed to put the "specified period of parking" on the Notices to Keeper and this therefore meant that the Keeper Liability conditions of the Protection of freedoms Act, Schedule 4 had not been met.

As the defendant was not the driver, there was therefore no liability. Costs of £75 were awarded to the defendant.

UKPC sought leave to appeal, which was granted to the Circuit Judge. 

Prankster Note

The conditions of POFA Sch 4 are fairly easy to comply with, but 4 years after the act it is surprising how many operators fail to meet the requirements.

UKPC has recently changed both the design of its Notices to Driver and Keeper to include the information which it is now appealing about. However, on this occasion, this is a good win for Mr Wilkie, as it proves that he and Private Parking Appeals are "raising standards in Private Parking" - exactly as the BPA intends, as opposed to the IPC race to the bottom.

The Prankster will continue to follow this case if/when it proceeds to appeal.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. Do we take it that Ms E was in fact driving per chance...

    1. It shouldn't matter who was driving. If they pleaded keeper liability then that's the case. Pleadings do have some importance even if most parking and debt collection ones couldn't give a shit.

    2. No, "we" don't. Do you? if so, why?

    3. No, Mrs E was not driving, and could prove it.

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. @On Me Bike -

      "in order to act as a Lay Representative for a lady who was definitely, and provably not driving her car when it was parked in a hotel in Manchester"

      This sentence is what led me to respond.


      It doesn't matter to the court, no, but it matters in the sense that if someone is taking the piss (and £1,120 suggests several tickets) at a hotel car park then, notwithstanding the evidential difficulty in proving they were driving, they deserve little help in my opinion.


      Interesting. Did she adduce that evidence to the court. Although not strictly necessary it certainly would have made things easier for her at the hearing.

    6. @Mick

      The issue of whether she was driving was not at issue in the hearing. Regardless of the fact that she was elsewhere at the material times, the case hinged on whether UKPC could hold her liable as keeper.

      The non-compliance of the NTKs with POFA was sufficient for the Judge to decide that they couldn't.

  2. It is disturbing that the judge did not want to hear about UKPC's frauds.

    1. Or that they proceeded based on a fragment of a contract which doubtless hadn't been made available to the defendant and which couldn't be challenged.

  3. Mystery over. Mick misread 'provably' as 'probably' which of course completely alters the meaning, then thought I edited the post as a cover up. I do still have the original draft which a number of people, including Bargepole, have seen. I did edit the blog with some small changes since then, but not that word.

    1. Yes apologies, that was my error. I missed the original sentence on a second glance.

      What was the reason for the use of 'probably' in that sentence. It is an unusual choice of phrasing if there was no question that the defendant wasn't driving?

  4. Legal clerks have no right of audience, I question if the court can grant such a right. They should send a sol, barr, or legal exec.