Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • bezzer25uk
    • By bezzer25uk 12th Oct 16, 7:17 PM
    • 7Posts
    • 5Thanks
    bezzer25uk
    UKPC Rejected Appeal should I appeal to POPLA
    • #1
    • 12th Oct 16, 7:17 PM
    UKPC Rejected Appeal should I appeal to POPLA 12th Oct 16 at 7:17 PM
    Please could anyone give me some advice on what to do here.

    I parked in a 3 hours free carpark where you need to display a ticket from the machine. My ticket slipped down the windscreen and so it was not fully on display (you could only see the end part). Low and behold I've ended up with a £100 fine.
    I sent a copy of my ticket to UKPC but they rejected my appeal as my ticket was not "clearly displayed".
    Now I can either pay a reduced fine of £60 or appeal to POPLA, but I'm not sure whether they will also reject my appeal?

    Thanks.
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Oct 16, 7:31 PM
    • 40,507 Posts
    • 52,398 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 12th Oct 16, 7:31 PM
    • #2
    • 12th Oct 16, 7:31 PM
    Have you missed reading 'NEWBIES READ THESE FAQs FIRST' and 'POPLA Decisions' (which has POPLA appeal points as templates in the penultimate page from post #2340 or so). They are sticky threads, stuck at the top of this forum you posted on, for reading first.

    Have you searched this board for 'UKPC POPLA' to see all the recent ones in progress? It is NOT a matter pf appealing about what happened.

    Did you admit who was driving? Did you appeal online and choose 'driver' or did you carefully choose 'registered keeper' as we advise here?

    DO NOT RUSH POPLA OR YOU WILL LOSE.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 12-10-2016 at 7:33 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 12th Oct 16, 7:32 PM
    • 36,468 Posts
    • 73,302 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #3
    • 12th Oct 16, 7:32 PM
    • #3
    • 12th Oct 16, 7:32 PM
    It is not a fine.

    Do you have a PoPLA code? If so, use it. If not, complain to the BPA.

    Of course you should appeal. Why would you want to pay a scammer?

    Did you appeal as keeper or did you give away the driver's details? It sounds like the latter unfortunately, which means you will have given away a valuable PoPLA appeal point.

    All is not lost. Read the Sticky thread for NEWBIES on how to beat these scammers, then draft your PoPLA appeal using the most recent successful appeals from the POPLA Decisions Sticky thread. There are loads there abut bearing UKPC, including driver appeals if they know who was driving.

    What happened when you complained to the landowner/retailer?
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 12th Oct 16, 7:34 PM
    • 4,134 Posts
    • 4,750 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #4
    • 12th Oct 16, 7:34 PM
    • #4
    • 12th Oct 16, 7:34 PM
    Please could anyone give me some advice on what to do here.

    I parked in a 3 hours free carpark where you need to display a ticket from the machine. My ticket slipped down the windscreen and so it was not fully on display (you could only see the end part). Low and behold I've ended up with a £100 fine.
    I sent a copy of my ticket to UKPC but they rejected my appeal as my ticket was not "clearly displayed".
    Now I can either pay a reduced fine of £60 or appeal to POPLA, but I'm not sure whether they will also reject my appeal?

    Thanks.
    Originally posted by bezzer25uk
    At least the scammers UKPC acknowledged you had a ticket albiet it was not fully shown. How do you know that the so called warden did not rock your car to move the ticket ??

    You see, UKPC have already been caught out with their fakery so nobody trusts what they get up to next.

    Do not pay the scammers, get a POPLA code.
    Whilst POPLA appear not to be very intelligent, they are not scammers like UKPC. YOU PAID YOU HAVE THE TICKET TO PROVE
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • bezzer25uk
    • By bezzer25uk 12th Oct 16, 8:06 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    bezzer25uk
    • #5
    • 12th Oct 16, 8:06 PM
    • #5
    • 12th Oct 16, 8:06 PM
    I've read through a few of the threads but I couldn't find a similar situation to mine. Unfortunately I had already given them my details as the driver when I appealed
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Oct 16, 8:13 PM
    • 40,507 Posts
    • 52,398 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 12th Oct 16, 8:13 PM
    • #6
    • 12th Oct 16, 8:13 PM
    You are not looking for a similar situation. The NEWBIES thread tells you the circumstances do not matter and POPLA is fairly generic.

    Show us the photos of the permit/signs please (they are on UKPC's website of course where you will have already seen them, as you would before appealing). As you can't post links, screenshot the photos of sign & permit 'close up' evidence and crop out any sight of your VRN.

    Then host the screenshots in Dropbox or tinypic etc, showing us the URL changed from http to hxxp. This is because you can't show working links yet. We want to find you some reasons to appeal and signage is a good point, as is the fact the permit was viewable....if the evidence photo is a bit duff!

    As I said, 'POPLA Decisions' has POPLA appeal points as templates in the penultimate page from post #2340 or so.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 12-10-2016 at 10:21 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • bezzer25uk
    • By bezzer25uk 12th Oct 16, 9:55 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    bezzer25uk
    • #7
    • 12th Oct 16, 9:55 PM
    • #7
    • 12th Oct 16, 9:55 PM
    hxxpdropbox.com/sh/5fws6v7y4f8xixm/AADQUfPjeQXQRsdHVHOyt3CVa?dl=0
    • bezzer25uk
    • By bezzer25uk 12th Oct 16, 9:56 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    bezzer25uk
    • #8
    • 12th Oct 16, 9:56 PM
    • #8
    • 12th Oct 16, 9:56 PM
    I've also emailed who I think is the landowner to complain, as it says to do it the threads.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Oct 16, 10:29 PM
    • 40,507 Posts
    • 52,398 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 12th Oct 16, 10:29 PM
    • #9
    • 12th Oct 16, 10:29 PM
    I've also emailed who I think is the landowner to complain, as it says to do it the threads.
    Originally posted by bezzer25uk
    Good stuff. Always complain about this nasty industry!

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5fws6v7y4f8xixm/AADQUfPjeQXQRsdHVHOyt3CVa?dl=0

    Permit looks displayed on the dash but they've chosen to take a pic from an angle that includes the shaded edge of the windscreen. Typical. Had the person looked from straight on, in front of the car, they could have seen the permit in full, it seems? That is one POPLA argument.

    You have a very good argument about signage, seeing as they've put the lower sign in LARGE letters which makes the small print above even more unreadable by comparison and because of the height. there is no way you would know about £100 charge so you can't have accepted that offer nor that risk. You have to explain that well to POPLA but we have templates which cover it, can be tweaked just a bit and you would be there. We've said where to find those template POPLA points and other UKPC examples (read recent ones only please, this Summer, no older!). Show us your draft, you have 28 days from the rejection letter so ages to put this together.

    You are very welcome to use the templates in the penultimate page of 'POPLA Decisions', post #2341 onwards in that sticky thread at the top of this forum board. Come back and show us your handiwork, much is copy & paste so not as hard work as it sounds.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • bezzer25uk
    • By bezzer25uk 12th Oct 16, 11:15 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    bezzer25uk
    Do you think this is good enough? Thanks for the help by the way and all the templates

    I am writing to appeal the PCN that I have received from UKPC on **/**/** at St Stephens Place, Trowbridge.

    1. I have a valid parking ticket at the time the PCN was issued, which was displayed on my dashboard (copy attached).

    2. I do not believe that UKPC has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers in its own right, or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. In the absence of such title, UKPC must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at Court level.

    I contend that UKPC merely holds a basic licence to supply and maintain signs and to issue 'tickets' as a deterrent to car park users. I therefore require UKPC to provide POPLA and me with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract that it holds with the landowner. This is required so that I may be satisfied that this contract permits UKPC to make contracts with drivers in its own right and provides it with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in Court in its own name.

    For the avoidance of doubt, a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide the necessary detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.). A witness statement would not comply with section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice as the definition of the services provided would not be stated in such a vague template document.

    3. No Contract was entered into between the UKPC and the Driver or Registered keeper

    The signs at the car park in question are unsuitable to inform drivers of the full terms and conditions of what they are entering into by physically entering the car park. UKPC clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of contract. It is not appropriate for a car park such as this to have such a limited amount of signs and rely on drivers to look carefully for where and how the terms are displayed.
    It is surely the responsibility of UKPC to make the terms of their contract far clearer so that drivers have no doubt whatsoever of any supposed contract they may be entering into. I require UKPC to provide evidence as to how clear the terms and conditions are and consider if the methods used are clear enough for this type of car park. I would specifically like them to look into how clear the signs are that inform drivers what the penalty charges are.

    Furthermore a contract can only be considered to be entered into if enough evidence exists that it actually happened. For a contract to have been entered into the driver would have had to get out of the car, read the signs, fully interpret and understand them and then agree to them.

    I request that UKPC provide concrete evidence that a contract existed between themselves and the driver on the day in question, which meets all the legal requirements of forming a contract. They should include specific things including, agreement from both parties, clarity and certainty of terms etc. If they are not met then the contract would be deemed “unfair” under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

    4. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-bpa-compliant signage leading to the driver not being aware that a parking contract was being offered at the time (evening).

    As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
    “Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

    The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount that UKPC is now demanding.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Oct 16, 11:46 PM
    • 40,507 Posts
    • 52,398 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You are getting there but no rush, that's old and the wording is weaker than we have here now.

    I can tell that's based on an old hand-me-down appeal because the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 was superseded over a year ago. Also the points are weak templates - as I said there are longer, recently-written ones in POPLA Decisions, post #2341 onwards.

    The deliberately long 'unclear signage' argument I wrote 3 weeks ago in the templates in POPLA Decisions is very much suited to your case and the 'no landowner authority' point in that sticky thread has more detail than the older one you have used.

    Your point #1 is fine (except do not 'attach' a copy of the permit). Instead, embed it in the actual word document appeal to illustrate what you say, there and then. Make the appeal look appealing to the Assessor, with pics! But you appear to have missed saying this:

    The permit was undoubtedly displayed on the dash and UKPC's own photo shows it:

    (embed photo of the permit showing through the windscreen, here)

    However, it is apparent that UKPC have deliberately chosen to take their photos from an inappropriate angle that includes the shaded edge of the windscreen, to make it appear it could not be read. Had the person looked from straight on facing the windscreen, in front of the car, they would have seen the 'ticket' in full, which after all was the permit that allowed 3 hours free and not a ticket that could in any way be hiding anything such as an underpayment. I did nothing wrong at all and am furious that the UKPC person took a photo at that misleading angle.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 13th Oct 16, 11:23 AM
    • 5,561 Posts
    • 4,272 Thanks
    The Deep
    Some bad stuff about UKPC


    UKPC are former clampers who have been involved in quite a number of sordid scams, for example

    Hull Trading Standards took them to court on 15 counts of fraud. UKPC won all but one, but only because they had a better lawyer, a Q.C. If I recall correctly

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=63597

    They were bested by a Winchester barrister
    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**

    They were involved in a large scale scam which resulted in a DVLA suspension

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html

    And then of course there was Tracey Kiss

    http://www.tracykiss.com/product-reviews/my-ukpc-parking-charge/
    • bezzer25uk
    • By bezzer25uk 17th Oct 16, 6:56 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    bezzer25uk
    Ok so I think I've covered the right points this time. (I've taken the links out as I couldn't post them on here)Thanks again for your help. I've not mentioned the angle of the photos as if you look at bigger copies you can't really see the details from the front of the windscreen.

    I am writing to appeal the PCN that I have received from UKPC on 30/09/16 at St Stephens Place, Trowbridge.
    1. I have a valid parking ticket at the time the PCN was issued, which was displayed on my dashboard.
    The permit was undoubtedly displayed on the dash and UKPC's own photo shows it:


    2. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:


    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:



    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...]In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:



    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:



    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:


    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.


    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:


    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.


    3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

    a: the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b: any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

    c: any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d: who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

    e: the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
    I look forward to hearing from you.

    Yours faithfully

    ******
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 17th Oct 16, 7:08 PM
    • 36,468 Posts
    • 73,302 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    You can upload pics to a web hosting sit such as tinypic or photobucket then post the URL here, but change http to hxxp. Someone here will change it back to a live link. Make sure your account isn't in your real name, and there are no other pictures or any personal information showing.

    You should leave the bit in about the angle the picture was taken from. Let them prove otherwise. Say that you believe it is quite possible that a picture taken from another angle would have shown all the information.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 17-10-2016 at 7:11 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Oct 16, 11:22 PM
    • 40,507 Posts
    • 52,398 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You should leave the bit in about the angle the picture was taken from. Let them prove otherwise. Say that you believe it is quite possible that a picture taken from another angle would have shown all the information.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    I agree, this is for them to refute if you raise the point, so add something like this back in (reword it if you prefer):

    However, it is apparent that UKPC have deliberately chosen to take their photos from an inappropriate angle that includes the shaded edge of the windscreen, to make it appear it could not be read. Had the person looked from straight on facing the windscreen, in front of the car, they would have seen the 'ticket' in full, which after all was the permit that allowed 3 hours free and not a ticket that could in any way be hiding anything such as an underpayment.

    I did nothing wrong at all and am furious that the UKPC employee took a photo at that misleading angle, almost as bad as the doctored photographs by UKPC that this operator admitted in the National Press and which saw them banned by the DVLA a few months ago.



    Also I would add another appeal point:


    4. This charge is unconscionable, offends against the penalty rule and breaches the CRA 2015 and the CPUTRs 2008 (no transparency of terms nor fairness)

    The operator makes much of the Beavis case, yet they are well aware that the circumstances of the Beavis case were entirely different. Essentially, that case was about parking after the end of an accepted licence to park free, where there was a 'legitimate interest' flowing from the landowner, in deterring overstayers by charging more than could normally be pursued for trespass.

    In this case, we have an authorised user using the car park appropriately and there has been no loss nor detriment caused to the owner, nor any similar overstay affecting other potential parkers. The Beavis case certainly does not 'supersede' any argument about the conscionableness or fairness of a charge, indeed it was clear that case was considered 'complex' and 'entirely different' from simple contracts (e.g. parking and using a ticket machine, like here).

    There is nothing in this case to suggest that a reasonable person would accept that a £100 fine is a conscionable amount to be charged for the simple problem of a permit that is agreed to be valid apparently not being visible to a parking firm employee when he/she took a photo from a certain skewed angle. It was not even as if the employee needed to be able to read a detail such as how much had been paid, because the tickets are free/parking is free and it was perfectly possible to see when that ticket was generated.

    To charge £100 to a valid car park user whose ticket was sufficiently visible from other angles is sharp practice and the very essence of 'unconscionableness'. The Beavis case makes it clear that the Judges would have considered such a charge to offend against the penalty rule, unlike the charge they were considering, arising from wholly different facts.

    Therefore, in this case the rights of a consumer must be balanced against any interests of the landowner and any putative contract needs to be assessed on its own merits. Consumer law always applies and no contract “falls outside” The Consumer Rights Act 2015; the fundamental issue is always whether the terms are fair (i.e. was the PCN 'properly' given, based on all the evidence and was I 'bound to have seen' the £100 charge buried in small print?).

    In this case the specific question is whether a reasonable person would agree to a term where parking in a place that they accepted three hours free parking could give rise to an unknown liability of £100 due to no fault of theirs. I followed instructions and displayed the free 'voucher' ticket in good faith and it is unclear who or what might have dislodged it slightly (if at all, this must have been after I had parked) in order to enable a photo to be taken at that misleading angle.

    UKPC’s signs fail the requirement for transparency of terms and do not meet the bar set by the Beavis case for 'adequate notice' of the parking charge. There are two signs, one above the other, and the sign below is in large lettering (offering 3 hours free if displaying a ticket, which I did, yet it is silent about any charge). By contrast, the sign above it is in tiny font, so it seems that UKPC are attempting to hide the charge in small print.

    By not stating in the largest font, that displaying the free ticket is an obligation which risks £100 'penalty', there is a failure by the operator to 'identify its commercial intent', contrary to Consumer law. Specifically missing (or otherwise illegible, buried in small print on that too-high-to-read sign) is the vital information that the ostensibly free ticket can actually give rise to £100 charge.

    In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it contract) and where there is any ambiguity, omission or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms.

    This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68: Requirement for Transparency:

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    Withholding material information (or hiding it in small print) from a consumer, regarding the commercial purpose of the ostensibly 'free ticket' would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTRs) because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent':

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents/made

    Misleading omissions: 6.—(1) ''A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—
    (a) the commercial practice omits material information,

    (b) the commercial practice hides material information,

    (c ) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or

    (d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context...

    ...and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.''

    I would certainly not have taken the decision to park and display that free ticket if I knew that UKPC had hidden from me the most onerous (illegible in small print) term in the higher sign. I did not agree to pay any sum at all. I had no idea that I could be liable for £100 due to (perhaps) persons causing slight movement of the car after I left and/or a misleading angle deliberately chosen by the UKPC employee for their photos. This was the secret commercial intent, to generate a 'fine' where it was clear that the car was legitimately parked and authorised from the time shown on the ticket (if they had looked closer, which is perfectly reasonable to expect). I was oblivious to any charge at this free car park.

    As there was an absence of agreement on the charge, I leave POPLA with the words of the Judges in the Beavis case:

    ''But it may fairly be said that in the absence of agreement on the charge, Mr Beavis would not have been liable to ParkingEye. He would have been liable to the landowner in tort for trespass, but that liability would have been limited to the occupation value of the parking space.’’


    I believe that this charge is unrecoverable from myself, due to all or any of the above appeal points.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 17-10-2016 at 11:34 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • bezzer25uk
    • By bezzer25uk 18th Oct 16, 8:47 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    bezzer25uk
    Positive Result
    What happened when you complained to the landowner/retailer?[/QUOTE]


    Thank you all so much for your help with this. I received a letter from UKPC today telling me that the landowner has requested that they cancel the fine, after receiving my complaint.
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 18th Oct 16, 9:20 PM
    • 2,248 Posts
    • 2,731 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    well done ....

    now can we ask for your help by supporting this campaign

    This is a campaign of asking people to keep sending Theresa May actual hard copies of the trash they've been deluged with. Let her advisers' desks overflow with annoying paperwork re PPCs.

    No emails, all letters from genuine people pouring their hearts out. Write to your MP as well as Mrs May:

    https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/211923909-Why-not-write-to-your-MP

    The more the better, write it yourself if you are able and enclose copies of the threatograms and rubbish thrown at you.

    Do not do this by email - make your paperwork land with a thump on desks, just like it all landed in a very unwelcome way on your doormat.

    Apparently the DCLG are looking to make an announcement before the year end so let's make MP's and Mrs May aware that action needs to be strong. You can be sure that the BPA and IPC suits are lobbying Parliament and meeting their friends in suits.

    So let the consumers' voices be heard.


    thanks


    Ralph
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

5,399Posts Today

7,830Users online

Martin's Twitter