newcastle airport UKPPO - to pay or not to pay!?

damy

just received a 'fine' for stopping and getting out of the car to go to the airport in an area apparently i shouldn't have from UK Parking Patrol Office. my wife was driving so we were literally a couple of minutes at most in stopping before she drove off. i'm also expecting another 2 to come through the post in the near future.

In the meantime for anyone going to Newcastle airport in the future i've discovered that you get 15mins free parking in the mid-stay car park but surprise surprise it isn't clearly advertised!!

my question is where do i stand legally in not paying and where do they stand legally in seeking/expecting payment.

i've trawled these forums and theres lots of people saying just ignore them but never any reference to the law or legal standings. am i right in thinking that if they keep sending letters and incurring admin/debt collectors costs which subsequently get added to the 'bill' they would only be able to claim the original cost of the 'fine' if it went to the small claims court? or would i end up paying £300-400 for all additional fees if i lost in the small claims court? what implications are there with regards to any by-laws at newcastle airport?

i would greatly appreciate any help as the wife is panicking as the car is in her name and the 'fine' has been sent to her mothers address who's adding to the panic!!

Kind regards to all

Coupon-mad

''never any reference to the law or legal standings''.


That's because the fake PCN isn't covered by a specific law as such, it's just an invoice not a fine, with the company alleging you entered into a contract by reading their signs. All a complete scam of course!

This is not a parking ticket, just an unsolicited invoice.

The only law which mentions fake parking tickets like this is the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 when the Govt banned clamping on private land last year. To sweeten the bitter pill for the private parking companies (PPCs for short on this forum) they included clauses allowing PPCs to consider the registered keeper of a car liable if they do not know who was driving.

So basically, who wants to deal with this scam, you or your wife?

- if your wife, then she could write an appeal now, as the driver.

- if you, then you could wait for the 'Notice to Keeper' and then appeal (if you are the owner).

Here's a thread explaining the sort of 'legal challenge' (with links) that we suggest people use these days:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4564539

Have a read of that and the other threads on this forum to see the sort of challenge to do. If it's you handling it, as I said, just wait for the NTK and then respond (like on the linked thread, see the Parking Cowboys website links). It's not an 'appeal' in the way you might think!

You won't be paying this, it really is a scam but best to get it cancelled by POPLA or they subject you to months of debt collector scary threatogram letters. Read the links and any threads you see here about POPLA - the top sticky thread on the forum shows you recent winning 'POPLA decisions' (the lost ones were early ones, we mainly know how to win them now at the PPCs' own expense as they have to foot the bill!).

The_Slithy_Tove

damy wrote: »

my question is where do i stand legally in not paying and where do they stand legally in seeking/expecting payment.

i've trawled these forums and theres lots of people saying just ignore them but never any reference to the law or legal standings.

That's because there is no specific statute relating to these, unlike real parking tickets. Private Parking Charges are based on contract law (and in some cases, trespass).

These airport so-called parking charges are based on the very flimsy premise that you have made a contract not to park. In stopping, even for a nanosecond, they will allege you broke their contract, and must pay some money. This falls down in many ways:

To make a contract, you have to have seen, read, understood and accepted the terms. The problem for the scum that (fail to) manage airports is that they expect to you read and accept the terms of their so-called contract as you drive past the sign bearing all the terms. You did see it, didn't you? Probably not, in fact. And you certainly would not have been able to read it all as you drove past. So, there is no contract formed, so a breach cannot occur.

Even if there were a contract, they cannot impose a £90 penalty for breaching it. Such penalties are unlawful. Bylaws are irrelevant. If there are any, they don't allow private companies to impose penalties. You would have to have received a proper Penalty notice from a proper authority (police or real traffic warden).

Anyway, you weren't "parked" as they no doubt allege. You were dropping off/picking up. In the more sane world of statute-driven highway laws, they are different beasts. (However, parking companies make up their own rules to suit themselves).

There are lots more hurdles for the parking people here. You can ignore them completely, and be prepared for a barage of ever more threatening letters (all of which are meaningless). Or you can appeal, get turned down, then appeal to POPLA, which will cost them £27, and finally ignore POPLA should they find against you. But with a strong defence, with the help of people here, you will not lose.

Why is the notice being sent to your mother-in-law? Is she the actual registered keeper? If this is worrying the ladies, then best thing is to appeal yourself. That way, all further threats will come straigt to you, and not worry your wife or MiL.

damy

thank you both for replying so quickly its greatly appreciated.

coupon-mad
i would like to deal with the ticket myself however my wife is the registered keeper/owner and was the one driving. the picture they sent with the 'fine' shows her in the driving seat so i couldn't even say i was driving. do you know if the cameras they use take video or just still images? i'm thinking along the lines of saying i drove into the airport then she drove off as she was dropping me off.
all the forums say though not to tell them who was driving or admit/tell them anything so how can i take the burden off my wife and onto me?

the slithy tove
the fine was sent to her mothers address as we have just moved to newcastle and hadn't quite got round to changing address details with the DVLA. i sort of new that i shouldn't be stopping were i did but like you say the signs they do have are impossible to read and understand whilst driving past. having now read the signs they say no stopping,parking,loading/unloading so they have pretty much covered every base with regards to that.


i personally haven't yet seen the ticket as we haven't been back to the mil yet in preston (we will be doing this weekend though...unfortunately!) but i'm hoping the picture they have as evidence shows no signs in the background so as to base my appeal on the fact the signs were inadequate and not clear whilst driving so i couldn't have entered or agreed the 'contract'.
also as we have just moved to newcastle we will change address info with the dvla asap so could my mil just post it back to sender saying my wife is no longer at this address forcing them to go back to the dvla for the info again?

my wife wants to pay because its in her name and no matter what i say shes worried but i'm happy to take it my name and play the game. can you confirm this course of action would be appropriate- appeal to ppc (inadequate signs) and asking them on what legal basis they are fining me and to confirm if its a 'fine' or invoice and what legal basis am i expected to pay? appeal to popla (inadequate signs) and if that fails i will inform them that any subsequent letters will be ignored until the worth of the contract is proved in a court of law (small claims court) at which point does anyone know if i lose i would only have to pay the fine and no additional costs incurred by them? as the appeal to popla and small claims court would cost them £60+ and defeat the object for them claiming £60-£100!

once again thanks for your help

Coupon-mad

''I would like to deal with the ticket myself however my wife is the registered keeper/owner and was the one driving. the picture they sent with the 'fine' shows her in the driving seat so i couldn't even say i was driving. do you know if the cameras they use take video or just still images? i'm thinking along the lines of saying i drove into the airport then she drove off as she was dropping me off.
all the forums say though not to tell them who was driving or admit/tell them anything so how can i take the burden off my wife and onto me?''



You can take the 'burden' from her if you use the sort of response on the Parking Cowboys website where they have a template legal challenge which does not give any info (sorry I am at work so can't link it).

I wouldn't lie, just challenge it as per the template (but change it to suit your case) and they'll have to respond to you. They'll probably assume you were driving (we've never known a PPC to ever check the CCTV to see if it was a male or female driver, certainly not just because they receive a challenge).


''also as we have just moved to newcastle we will change address info with the dvla asap so could my mil just post it back to sender saying my wife is no longer at this address forcing them to go back to the dvla for the info again?''

I wouldn't bother. Just hook them in your direction by being the one to challenge it. They'll assume you were driving I suspect, if you word it cleverly. Then they have to deal with you and not the registered keeper, which means they cannot legally revert back to writing to your wife or the other address.

And you final summary is pretty much on the money, except that ''appeal to popla (inadequate signs)'' is a lot more than that. A strong POPLA appeal will have much more in it and we can help you with that once you get the rejection letter from the PPC with a POPLA code. Again, you can handle that appeal in your name without actually saying who was driving or mentioning your wife.

Please don't let her pay this scam invoice. These are like phishing emails - only the 'delete button' in this case is POPLA and it costs the scammers money!

damy

thanks again coupon-mad.

i've just been looking through the template on the parking cowboys website and can i put my name and address and refer to myself as the registered keeper even though the car is in my wife's name?

Name
Address
Date

Without prejudice, except as to costs

Notice to Driver/Keeper (delete as appropriate) [Give its ref number]
On (date) I was the registered keeper of a (make and model of vehicle) registration number (reg number).

will they actually supply all the info asked for on the template? i'm just curious as to what response i shall receive so i don't get any surprises!

cheers

Coupon-mad

Never just copy a template letter, always amend it to suit.

So in your case you could just start:


Dear Sir/Madam,

Challenge regarding ticket number xxxxxxxxx

'On xx/xx/13 I visited Newcastle airport in my car, registration number xxxx xxx. Subsequently, your Parking Charge Notice which was sent to the registered keeper has been passed to me so that I can challenge it, based on my recollections of that day and because I wish to dispute the charge itself and your own legal status.'

Summat like that as your opening paragraph places you in the car so leads them to assume you were driving - which is what you want really so they will deal with you at your address.

But then the rest of your letter should (sort of) follow the legal challenge template and not talk much about that day - except stuff like 'no clear signs were seen, so I contend that any warning was inadequate and I deny any contract exists between me and your company.'

Will they come back with all the answers to that challenge? NO.

Do you care? NO!

Will POPLA care if the PPC don't show their evidence? YES! See the top thread.

But do get further help and advice here with the POPLA appeal before submitting that, as that should be more individual (but just as detailed and demanding). Also at POPLA stage you get a code and can just write an email appeal - so I would make a mental note to sign that stage off 'from Mr and Mrs damy' (both of you) to completely avoid the possibility of the PPC trying to get POPLA to refuse the appeal as 'it's not from the driver, look at this thread on MSE forums'. Another PPC did try using forum posts as evidence as part of a POPLA appeal they lost recently, I seem to recall, and printouts from a forum have also been known to be produced as part of a small claim attempt by a PPC (also lost!!).

damy

Dear Sir/Madam,

APPEAL RE: PCN301181

On 22/03/13 I accidently drove into what is an area of No Unauthorised Access. This was due to extremely poor signage at Newcastle Airport in trying to find the 15mins free car park. I briefly stopped my car SV51 NLE on an access road at Newcastle Airport and exited the car, the car subsequently left within a couple of minutes of stopping. On the 19/04/13 I received a notice for the alleged contravention “dropping off/picking up in a restricted area”. (Please see appendix 1 for copy of the notice).

I challenged this notice on a number of issues. (Please see appendix 2 for copy of my challenge). On the 08/05/13 I received a rejection with regards to the alleged contravention (Please see appendix 3 for copy of rejection). Attached to the rejection was the POPLA form and verification code.

I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds.


1. Inadequate Signage
2. No Contract was Knowingly Entered and No Losses Have Been Demonstrated
3. Punitive/ Unfair/ Unreasonable Charge
4. Withholding Contract to Operate
5. Withholding Diagram Showing Locations and Layout of Signs
6. Grace Period














1. Inadequate Signage

Picture 1 - the car was parked against the kerb with the cars nose facing to the right. No signs visible.




Picture 2 - the car was parked with the nose facing to the left of the picture. No signs visible.
¬


Picture 3 - the view looking through the front of the car. No signs visible.




Picture 4 – the view from the rear of the car. 2 signs circled at a distance +20m.



Where I stopped the car on the 22/03/13 there was no visible signs in the vicinity. Please see the above pictures 1-4 with regards to the location of my car and the lack of signs. With regards to BPA Operational Requirements Section 18.3 operators ‘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’. As you can see in the pictures they are not placed throughout the site even though there’s ample places for them to be positioned. Having gone back to the site to take the photos I discovered in total four UKPPO signs not several that UKPPO state in Appendix 3 “the vehicle was parked in close proximity to the customer service offices where several signs are visible’. Two are positioned together and are barely visible in picture 4 due to a distance greater than 20m from where the car stopped. This clearly contravenes BPA Code of Practice Operational Requirements Section 18.1 ‘In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are’.

Here is a sign that I would have driven past on my way into the No Unauthorised Access zone:



Please note in the following pictures the size of the text on this sign. I have used a 30cm ruler to clearly show the size. Please note the size of the letter P is 30mm.
















BPA Operational Requirements Section 18.2 states ‘Entrance signs MUST follow some minimum general principles and be in 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.

As the car was on an access road then according to BPA code of practice Appendix B Mandatory Entrance Signs then ‘for an access road with a typical approach speed of 25mph the minimum capital height for group 1 text should be 90mm’. As you can clearly see from the picture of the white letter ‘P’ on the red background the height is only 30mm. This clearly contravenes section 18.1 of making the driver aware from the start. As this is an access road and not a car park all the signs in this vicinity should adhere to the 90mm sizing, which they don’t and therefore are not valid as evidence for entering a contract. (BPA Appendix B Mandatory Entrance Signs Section -Text Size)

My appeal is not that I entered a No Unauthorised Access zones (which I did by accident) but when I did I wasn’t made aware of any terms and conditions I would be entering into.

This brings me onto my next point.

2. No Contract was Knowingly Entered and No Losses Have Been Demonstrated

There was no contract between the driver and UK Parking Patrol Office. I did not see any contractual information on any signs, due to the poor sizing, when driving on the road and therefore at that time had no idea that any contract or restrictions applied. Once stopped there was insufficient signage in the vicinity. As a consequence the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied as I have proved with my photographic evidence.

As there was no contract, then at most I was guilty of a civil trespass. If this were the case, I may be liable to damages. Given that no ‘damage’ was done to the road and that the road was not blocked when the driver stopped or when the driver left, there was in fact no loss at all.
In my challenge (appendix 2) I clearly asked UKPPO to give details of any losses suffered by me stopping where I did, which they refused to address in their rejection. (Appendix 3) I argue that the parking charge does not reflect the operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable.

3. Fairness of Contract

The following matters are relevant:

The charge UKPPO are imposing is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable). The £100 charge is arbitrary and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract or trespass.

The £100 charge UKPPO are imposing is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations which 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) says:

‘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), which 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.’

The £100 charge UKPPO are imposing is an unreasonable indemnity clause under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which says:

‘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.’

Newcastle Airport allows parking in front of the terminal at a cost of £1 for 0-15mins. By stopping where I did next to the terminal and being issued with a £100 charge clearly demonstrates an unfair/punitive and unreasonable charge and is therefore unenforceable.

4. Withholding Contract to Operate

In my challenge to UKPPO (Appendix 2) I asked them to provide me with a copy of the contract for them to operate and subsequently demonstrate they have the authority to issue PCN’s. In their rejection (Appendix 3) they state ‘we are unable to provide you with a copy of the agreement we hold with our clients as we are bound by Data Protection’. Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme requires the Operator to have clear authorisation from the landowner (if the Operator is not the landowner), to manage and enforce parking. As I raised the point and asked for evidence then the Operator should at the very least address it by producing such evidence they believe shows that they do have the authority. They have provided no such proof and subsequently the burden of proof now lies with the Operator.

5. Withholding Diagram Showing Locations and Layout of Signs

In my challenge (Appendix 2) I asked UKPPO to provide evidence of the locations and layout of any signs, which they subsequently failed to do in their rejection letter (Appendix 3). BPA Operational Requirements section 18.3 ‘Keep a record of where all the signs are’. They have failed to supply this evidence when asked for so making it more difficult for me to construct an appeal. Therefore my pictures of the area are valid and true dated 10/05/13. To reiterate my point the pictures clearly display a lack of signage clear enough for one to see let alone read in and around the vicinity I stopped.

6. Grace Period

BPA General Conditions in the UK Section 13.2 ‘You should allow the driver a reasonable grace period in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action’. The sign above states NO STOPPING, PARKING, LOADING OR UNLOADING IN THIS AREA. As in my case we stopped, I got out and the car was driven off before I was able to distinguish and read a sign. By that time the car had already left in less than 5 minutes. How long is a grace period? Why has no such grace period been applied in my case as the whole arriving, stopping and leaving was less than 5 minutes? I argue if I were to stop in the same place not knowing what I know now about the No Unauthorised Access zone it would take me longer to actively find and read a sign and return to my car than it took me to get out and for the car to be driven off.


One last note to finish on, in BPA Code of Practice Operational Requirements Section 22.12 it states

If you reject challenge you must:

• Give the driver a reasonable amount of time to pay the charge before restarting the collection process. We recommend that you allow at least 35 days from the dates you rejected the challenge.

As you can see on the rejection of my challenge (Appendix 3) UKPPO states ‘the current fee is £60 and will only increase to £100 if payment is not received within 14 days of this letter as further charges will have been incurred’

I understand the ‘at least 35 days’ is a recommendation however I would argue that offering less than half that time is both unreasonable and unfair and is not in keeping with the BPA Code of Practice.





In conclusion I would like you to uphold this appeal based on the points I have raised above and the evidence I have presented. Also please bear in mind the difficulties I have had in constructing this appeal due to requested information being withheld by UKPPO.


I look forward to your outcome in this matter.

nigelbb

The reference to the contract between the PPC & the landowner needs to be stronger. They need to demonstrate that as per the BPA CoP that not only do they have authorisation to manage parking but also to take "offenders" to court.

7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying
out parking management, you must have the written
authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed
agent) before you can start operating on the land in
question. The authorisation must give you the authority
to carry out all the aspects of the management and
enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In
particular, it must say that the landowner requires you
to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have
the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges,
through the courts if necessary.

BTW Well done apart from that.

Coupon-mad

''I accidently drove into what is an area of No Unauthorised Access''

maybe change to:

''We accidentally and unknowingly drove into what UKPPO now say is an area of No Unauthorised Access''

and to make the brief stop clearer:

'' I briefly stopped my car xxxxxxx on an access road at Newcastle Airport and exited the car, the car subsequently left within a couple of minutes of stopping.''

could be {allowing for more 'vague driver' information}

''We briefly stopped in my car xxxxxxx on an access road at Newcastle Airport but left within a couple of minutes of stopping as we had no intention of actually parking on an Airport approach road. We saw no signs nearby and found the area confusing, with a distinct lack of signs even when briefly stepping out of the car to try to check where to park.''

And add that the alleged breach did not occur:

''“dropping off/picking up in a restricted area” is the allegation - but if you didn't do either then the alleged 'contravention/breach' did not occur.


And just another thought - you could maybe allege that this is not in fact 'private land' as defined in the POF Act 2012.

You may have to check the text of the POF Act - but I think it defines 'private land' and mentions that some Airport/Railway land covered by bylaws is not covered by this Act (and so registered keeper liability isn't available to a PPC there). So why not allege that you think because this is Airport land, it's likely to be covered by statutory bylaws - which puts it outside of the POF Act, as it does not meet the Act's definition of 'private land'. If UKPPO think otherwise they will need to prove from a reputable source (Airport/Council) that there are no bylaws here.

And (maybe) that the incident is not one of 'parking', as defined in the POF Act either. Again you'd need to check the wording in the Act but I think parking is defined and 'stopping' may not cut it?

damy

thanks again guys i'll let you know the outcome.