Challenging a UKPC ticket

Joeld

Hi

I'm looking for some advice on how to appeal a parking fine by UKPC on Stevenage Liesure park. I know the usual route is to simply ignore but it's a company car managed by a third party fleet company some I'm a little hesitant.

The ticket itself was issued today and my wife was the driver. She visited the park to take my 5 month old daughter to see a friend and have lunch. There are precisely two parent and child parking spaces on the whole park, both of which were full. As my daughter is in a car seat and pram my wife needed extra space to access the back of the car. With the two spaces full she parked across two spaces, taking care to be away from other vehicles in an otherwise almost empty car park (it was the midle of the day on a week day). Normally I wouldn't condone straddling two spaces but there wasn't much choice in this case.

Sure enough, after lunch etc there was a ticket on the car with the reason for the fine given as "not correctly parked within the markings of the bay or space". The signs around the leisure park make no mention of this being a findable offence although they do say "park within the marked bays"

I'm not sure what tac to take on the appeal, there is no denying that she straddled the bay but there were extenuating circumstances, the child seat was in the ack so it was clear she had a baby.

One thing I thought of going down is tat the fine is an unlawful penalty as the car park was empty and the charges are clearly not a pre-estimate of loss or actual damages caused by the trespass.

Anyways, ideas appreciated, I love a good fight like this so there is no chance of me backing down and having read of a few other cases by ukpc on the same site, they sound like cowboys!

The_Slithy_Tove

Never bother with extenuating/mitigating circumstances, as that is appealing to the better nature of parking companies. They don't have a better nature, they just want your money.

So, go for the hard appeal (unlawful penalty, etc), and say that if your appeal is turned down, you want a POPLA code - make sure they know you mean business, and they'll likely fold. Even if they don't, you will have achieved your main goal of diverting their attention from the fleet company, and youi can simply ignore them from then on.

trisontana

It's not a FINE!

Joeld

So has anyone got any suggestions as to what I should put in the appeal letter?

I guess something simple like:

I can confirm that I am the registered keeper of this vehicle.

I am contesting this charge as:

1. I do not believe you have sufficient interest in the land upon which the charge was issued
2. The amount claimed is an unlawful penalty and the charges claims do not represent any damaged caused or potential loss of business.

If you do not accept the above, please send me my POPLA code so I may take the case further.

How does that sound?

NotanIdiot

Well heres what I would write, if you really want to pee about and play there silly game. But I wouldnt 'appeal', id just tell them to !!!! of in no uncertain terms, like this:


Dear Sir

I am the Registered Keeper of vehicle [VIN]

With reference to the unsolicited invoice placed on [vehicle] on [date].

To authenticate your claim I require proof that you

a) rent the land or
b) are the landowner

otherwise the recent court ruling of VCS vs HMRC 2012 UTT/155, makes perfectly clear that lack of proprietorial interest in the land deprives you of any legal ability to offer parking or or pursue charges on your own behalf.

I therefore require you to demonstrate the ACTUAL LOSSES INCURRED BY THE LANDOWNER as well as YOUR PROPRIETORIAL INTEREST IN THE LAND, ie a lease contract for the land or a title deed to ownership the land. An invitation to you by the landowner to cruise round the land preying on innocent motorists does not give you proprietorial interest

In summary:

1. There was no contract between myself and [SCAMMERS NAME] or myself and the landowner. No individual agreement of contract terms existed at any stage.
2. Even if there was a contract between myself and [SCAMMERS NAME], [SCAMMERS NAME] is disbarred from offering parking or pursuing charge son its own behalf, by virtue of the ruling in VCS vs HMRC 2012 UTT/155, in the absence of any evidence of proprietorial interest.
3. Since there is no contract, I am at most a trespasser, which I robustly deny, as I was a customer of [SHOP NAME], and therefore had an implied right of access.
4. Even if no right of access existed, the landowner may only claim actual losses incurred, which were demonstrably nil, since I was a customer who spent money, and given that I did no damage to the car park and furthermore that the car park was not full when I parked and I believe also when I left, therefore was therefore no loss at all.
5. Notwithstanding any delusional self conviction on [SCAMMERS NAME]'s part, [SCAMMERS NAME]'s operating cost do not feature anywhere in the equation, and such claims for such operating costs by private parking companies have been rejected by the courts many times, I dont even need to post case references again
6.The charge that you are levying is punitive and therefore void (ie unenforceable) against me. The charge of £60 is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Nor does it even equate to local council charges (which in any event are a completely different beast). This would also apply to your mention of any costs incurred through debt recovery unless it followed a court order.
7.The charge you 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."
8. The charge you are levying is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

I therefore reject your charge outright and unreservedly as above.

SO BE WARNED

1. DO NOT COMMUNICATE WITH ME FURTHER UNLESS YOU ACCEPT A CONTRACTUAL ADMINISTRATION FEE FOR MY TIME OF £100. CONTINUED CORRESPONDENCE INDICATES ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONTRACTUAL TERMS OFFERED TO YOU AS SPECIFIED.
2. IF YOU DECLINE TO ACCEPT MY CONTRACTUAL CHARGE, DO NOT SEND ANY FURTHER COMMUNICATIONS OTHER THAN PROPERLY FILED AND REGISTERED COUNTY COURT PAPERS.
3. CONTINUED COMMUNICATION REGARDING THIS MATTER IN BREACH OF CLAUSE TWO ABOVE WILL RESULT IN THE PROSECUTION OF YOU PERSONALLY AND [SCAMMERS NAME] UNDER THE PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT ACT 1997
4. UNPAID ADMINISTRATION FEES WILL BE PURSUED IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT!!

spacey2012

If the car has lease plates "arnold clark" sort of stuff under the reg, they would ticket it anyway even if you are doing nothing wrong , they know most firms just pay up and dock wages.

Coupon-mad

The pepipoo regular poster Gan is very good at short appeal letters which tell it like it is!

See this thread from that forum, and the advice given by Gan:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=74795

It includes a suggested appeal in post #6 but there's also further advice too.

As it turns out, that PPC had to cancel the fake PCN when the OP complained in writing to the landowner/retailer on site. Why not do that as well, or copy the Leisure park into the appeal email and word it quite assertively that you want this harassment cancelled immediately.

The important thing is to appeal so that they NEVER have any cause to write to the employer/lease hire co.

By the way, parent and child spaces are not a right (just a gimmick to encourage visitors) and no-one should have to leave a car parked like that (could have moved it after unloading the baby into the pram). I have 4 kids myself and there's no need for wider bays even with babies/prams - in fact 'P&C bays' very existence causes this problem because people get used to the provision/gimmick and think they 'have to have' a wider bay and go and park straddling two, or even worse, just take a disabled bay.

Only disabled people have the right to a wider bay.

But then of course, only the Police or Council (or Train Operators under Bylaws) have the right to issue penalties for parking!

Coupon-mad

spacey2012 wrote: »

If the car has lease plates "arnold clark" sort of stuff under the reg, they would ticket it anyway even if you are doing nothing wrong , they know most firms just pay up and dock wages.

Yes, PPCs target these vehicles I think. But at least the OP has got a windscreen fake ticket rather than a postal one - so if they just appeal then nothing will ever go to the company fleet/lease firm.

NotanIdiot

No, really, dont pee about, dont talk about 'appealing', just tell them to get lost as demonstrated above. Thats the standard eff off letter I now use.

rdwarr

BTW Stevenage Leisure Park is owned by Legal and General. To them it's just an asset in an investment fund.

Coupon-mad

NotanIdiot wrote: »

No, really, dont pee about, dont talk about 'appealing', just tell them to get lost as demonstrated above. Thats the standard eff off letter I now use.

You are right, the word 'appeal' is wrong. If I sent one it would be worded as a serious complaint, possibly a Letter Before Action, and copied to the landowner/retailer responsible for the scammers. Then off to POPLA after that with plenty of points for them to look at regarding the PPC pathetic business model.