Challenging a UKPC ticket

Stroma

I don't advise lying by saying you are the RK of the vehicle, you are not! Simply say that your wife was driving the vehicle on that day with your name and address. Give the reference number of the fake ticket in the email, but do not admit liability. Once they are writing to you either ignore them or cost them money by going to popla if they give you the code

romik

NotanIdiot wrote: »

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!!

I am thinking of borrowing this rather excellent template to write to a company that has sent me a charge notice. Thank you.

I am a cab driver, stopped to pick up a passenger at an industrial estate. Was there no longer than a few minutes.

Abbie1977

VCS v HMRC 2012...etc.........I dont think that's the correct case citation is it??? Or if it is, then why cant I find it - would like to read the case :-( Tar.

Stroma

Abbie1977 wrote: »

VCS v HMRC 2012...etc.........I dont think that's the correct case citation is it??? Or if it is, then why cant I find it - would like to read the case :-( Tar.

Did you try a search engine ? First hit on google was this thread on pepipoo with a link

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=70585

Abbie1977

Also..............I know this sounds daft...........but how do I know whether my parking ticket is from the police or council or from a private company? (I assume the police ticket would be obvious) - I got a parking ticket in Morrisons a few months ago and paid £60 for going 5 minutes over the 2 hour time slot even tho the car park is always half empty - they have cameras that clock your reg no going in and then again going out of the car park and then they send you a ticket through then post a month later! NICE!! Anyway, suffice to say I paid it :-( DOH!!!

Coupon-mad

Never pay one again! You've been had! OMG why would anyone think it's OK to have to pay a fake fine for a 5 min (or even 50 min) overstay when shopping, did it not occur to you to complain to Morrisons or simply Google the PPC?! :eek:

Anyway, for you and your friends & family to know, the simplest way to tell the difference is in the very first word. You had a PARKING CHARGE NOTICE = well known scam.

A real Police or Council ticket has the word 'penalty' in it, so a real PCN from a Council is a PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE.

Also the lack of a Council logo, the fact that a private one will not be telling you to appeal to any Council, and that payment is to be made to the scammers at a PO Box or website are other giveaways about fake PCNs.