UKPC - epic incompetence

Ok thanx so much for your time ive made some changes as per your suggestions :


On 25/6/13 I was the Registered Keeper of xxxxxxxxx. On this day my vehicle was issued with a Parking Charge Notice by UKPC.
I wish to contest this parking charge on a number of grounds:

1. Insufficient/Unclear Signage
2. Lack of Proprietary interest in the land
3. Exposure of UKPC / Landowner contract to examine their authority
4. Punitive Charge and therefore I believe a penalty
5. The Charge is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss
6. Business Rates
7. Failure to follow Procedure

On all correspondence with UKPC their letters and website clearly state:
‘Operating in accordance with the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice’
This is not the case.
1. Insufficient and Unclear Signage.

The BPA Code of Practice June 2103 clearly states:
18.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use.

There are NO entrance signs belonging to UKPC in this car park, therefore the driver is not warned before entering the car park of UKPC’s Terms and conditions.

18.3 Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.

There are only 2 signs belonging to UKPC in the whole car park, however another Private Parking Company also operates in the same car park and has separate signage of which there are 18 signs, UKPC have failed when requested to supply myself with a site plan showing the locations of their signs to comply with 18.3 so I have produced one myself and is included along with this appeal showing both UKPC and ‘Other PPC’ Signs. The sheer number of signs of the other PPC when compared with UKPC’s ONLY TWO signs leads the whole sight to be very confusing.


2. Lack of Proprietary Interest in the Land.

I do not believe that the operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give UKPC any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, UKPC lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge.

3. Exposure of UKPC / Landowner Contract.

I contend that UKPC are only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to UKPC. I expect to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code, which would detail any land boundaries.
Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between UKPC and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that UKPC can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.
I requested this information from UKPC in my previous appeal and they refused to produce any document, I therefore ask POPLA to require UKPC to provide the full, un-redacted and contemporaneous copy of the contract between them and the landowner to prove they have authority to make charges, to pursue those charges up to and including county court. If UKPC supply a 'Witness Statement' to confirm a contract exists, this will not be acceptable.

4. Punitive Charge and therefore I believe a penalty.


I believe the charge that UKPC are levying is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997 and therefore void.
The charge of £100 is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract.
The charge UKPC are levying is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e)
"Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation."
Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that:
"A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer"
and 5(2) states:
"A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."

This transparently punitive charge by UKPC is a revenue-raising exercise and is therefore unenforceable in law. UKPC's own website is damning in this regard:

http://www.ukparkingcontrol.com/faq.html

From UKPC website October 2013:
''frequently asked questions
How much would it cost us to use your parking management services? Nothing at all! We provide parking management services to our clients free of charge (subject to site survey).
So how do you earn your money?
Our revenue is generated from the parking charges issued. In many instances we are also able to provide a client revenue rebate of 10%.''

5. The Charge is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss

I consider the PCN to be a penalty because UKPC have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss.
It is a strict requirement in the BPA code of Practice that a charge for 'breach' must represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, flowing from a breach of the parking terms, in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same.
I therefore ask POPLA to require UKPC to provide a fully detailed breakdown of their genuine losses that arrive at the (£100) charge claimed. Please also note the erection of signs, maintenance of ANPR cameras, back office staff, hi-viz jackets, membership fees to the BPA are general running costs that they would be liable for whether or not you parked there and as such cannot be included in their alleged loss calculations.

In addition, the Office of Fair Trading information to the BPA about parking charges states on page 2 that these are not automatically recoverable:

''Further, the OFT expressed the view that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable, simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists. It will not be recoverable if the court finds that it is being imposed as a penalty. If a parking charge is imposed for parking beyond hours permitted under a contract, in order for it to be recoverable as liquidated damages, the court will need to be satisfied of a number of matters, including that it represents a genuine pre-estimate of the loss incurred and that it meets the requirements of applicable consumer protection legislation, for example the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999”.

6. Business Rates

I Ask of POPLA to require UKPC to confirm that they are paying local Business Rates in respect of that particular car park from which they are running a business and from which they derive income and profit. If they are not paying such rates to provide evidence of their exemption.

7. Failure to follow Procedure.
In my appeal dated 15/8/13 I stated:
‘If you reject this challenge or fail to address the issues that have been raised then, in accordance with BPA Code of Practice 22.12, Please ensure that you enclose all the required information (including the necessary ‘POPLA’ Code) so that I may immediately refer the matter for their decision’

However in their rejection of my appeal on 12th September 2013 they failed to supply the relevant forms and code which they were requested and REQUIRED to supply.

In light of the breaches of the BPA’s code of practice listed here and all other points raised I feel this charge should be cancelled forthwith

Regards

xxxxxxxx




i really liked the addition of the ukpc website faq that is pure genius i does put some icing on it, let me know what you think guys i plan to send it via email tomorrow night as advised.

regards peter

Ok folks I emailed the appeal and all supporting evidence (over 10mb of photos and letters) to popla(appeals@popla.org.uk) last night but so far haven't heard from them to confirm they've received it or give me a hearing date , any ideas how long they take to acknowledge receipt of an appeal

Regards


Peter

ok for now i have resubmitted appeal via website and uploaded some of the files online that meet the size limits, and have emailed others over two emails each showing POPLA code and will chase them up tomorrow and if needs be send via post.

peter