ukpcs centertainment - never got a ticket

Coupon-mad

I think you may have taken that from a CPS thread where the POPLA appeal was an early one and it LOST?! And I think most of that isn't relevant to your case either! I suspect that the stuff about 'self-ticketing' is not necessarily relevant to UKCPS, unless you are certain that there was no UKCPS employee on site issuing these tickets. Also you say that 'the UKCPS sign & ticket does not mention trespass nor breach' (are you SURE? UKCPS signs normally do talk about breach/failure to comply!).

I wouldn't use that version and certainly not just copied like that.

You would be better to start off with specific background; start by saying this is a breakdown van and as the registered keeper you contend that it would have been there on legitimate business. Due to the nature of vehicle breakdowns, such a van cannot possibly be parked in a marked bay when assisting a driver and vehicle when broken down!

Then say that no PCN was placed on the vehicle at the time, it was an empty envelope only, according to the driver, so there was no way to make any contact nor even know what the allegation may have been. As the registered keeper you had no knowledge of the matter or allegation until the first misleading letter arrived (which told you that you were 'too late to appeal' = misleading and a breach of the BPA Code of Practice). AM I RIGHT ABOUT THAT LETTER? Check it against this, spot the flaws and tell POPLA what they did wrong in terms of misleading wording and missed wording, and missed deadline (maybe)?:

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/

And then add what UKCPS then did wrong after you appealed, i.e. sending no POPLA code at all and employing stalling tactics which are not compliant with the BPA CoP which applies to this particular fake PCN - which is the March 2013 version (tell POPLA, spell it out) - and as such any PPC had to supply a rejection letter and POPLA code within 35 days. They failed to do so and you should not have had to prompt them for the POPLA code.

Then list the usual stuff you will see explained here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62180281#Comment_62180281

Examples of winning POPLA appeals in that link, plus info about what to include. What's your POPLA 28 day deadline then, which you can work out from the link I gave you the other week? Have you got only a week?

Thelooneytuner

Thanks, I got in a bit of a muddle. It seems clear what I need to put now and how to write it.
My code is the 224th day which I believe to be 12 august. Even though the letter is dated 15 august and received early last week.

I shall write up my appeal tonight and repost

Thankyou

Coupon-mad

Thelooneytuner wrote: »

Thanks, I got in a bit of a muddle. It seems clear what I need to put now and how to write it.
My code is the 224th day which I believe to be 12 august. Even though the letter is dated 15 august and received early last week.

I shall write up my appeal tonight and repost

Thankyou

I think that's 11th August - but for them to then send it with a rejection letter dated 15th August (and posted later than that!) is yet another example of UKCPS' sharp practice.

That is shocking and all of this should be included in your POPLA appeal in a paragraph headed up summat like: 'Breaches of the BPA Code of Practice by this Operator in this Instance' and also then reported as a detailed complaint to the DVLA and BPA, using these email addresses:


[EMAIL="david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk"]david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk[/EMAIL]


[EMAIL="steve.c@britishparking.co.uk"]steve.c@britishparking.co.uk[/EMAIL]


HTH

Thelooneytuner

Thankyou once again, I think, repeat think I'm getting there. This is what I've come up with;




Dear Sir/Madam,
RE: POPLA (code)

Parking Charge Notice: code
Vehicle Reg: YSxx xxx
Date of Issue: xx/xx/2013
Company: Ukcps

On the above date, an employee was issued with a PCN for allegedly parking the vehicle out of a marked bay. Firstly we would like to address that the vehicle in question is a breakdown and service vehicle predominantly dealing with motor vehicles that are immobile.
As the registered keeper we would like to contend that this vehicle would have been at this location on legitimate business circumstances. Due to the nature of vehicle breakdowns (Specifically electrical) vehicles can be left immobile in the most inconvenient of places. With the amount of tools and equipment needed in modern day breakdown it is not possible or reasonable for our van to be parked in a marked bay when no available spaces are available in close proximity to assist our customers.

At the time the PCN was allegedly attached to our vehicle it was unattended with the likely situation our technician was working on a customers nearby vehicle. Upon returning to the van our employee noticed an empty documents attached sticker on the windscreen of the vehicle which was reported to us on return to the office. This left us with no way of knowing where the sticker had come from and hence no port of call for communication.
As the registered keeper we had no knowledge of the allegation until a letter arrived on xx/xx/xxxx 1 month after the alleged offence stating we had failed to pay or appeal and the fine would increase. It also stated we could no longer appeal as the timescale had passed which is both misleading and a breach of the BPA code of practice. There was also no mention of POPLA appeals procedure.

Following on from this we appealed the alleged offence and received a rejection letter from UKCPS. Within this letter there was no POPLA code. This is obviously stalling tactics employed by UKCPS of which are not compliant with the BPA code of practice.
The code of practice states that with a rejection letter it must include a POPLA code and arrive within 35 days, the former point was not met. Having failed to send us our POPLA code it required a prompting letter from ourselves which we should not be having to do.


We received our POPLA code on the xx/xx/2013, the letter was dated xx/xx/2013 3 days after the date of our POPLA code and most likely posted at a later date than that as the letter wasn't received until the xx/xx/2013. This is yet another breach of the BPA Code of Practice by this Operator.
Due to this we will be reporting this matter further to both the BPA and DVLA.
With all this in mind, I require POPLA to inform UKCPS to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

''At the time the PCN was allegedly attached to our vehicle it was briefly unattended''

''returning to the van our employee noticed an empty 'documents attached' sticker (i.e. there were no documents attached nor enclosed). We suspect the empty sticky envelope was placed there by the UKCPS employee simply to get a quick photo of it on the windscreen while the employee's back was turned.''

''This left us with no way of knowing where the sticker had come from and hence no port of call for communication. As no PCN was ever served this also means that the subsequent letter was too late to be compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (a postal PCN where there has been no windscreen PCN must be received within 14 days). So in this instance there can be no registered keeper liability established at all.''

''We received our POPLA code on the xx/xx/2013; the letter was dated xx/xx/2013 which was a full 3 days after the date that our POPLA code was generated...''

Then list the usual stuff you will see explained here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62180281#Comment_62180281

You haven't included all the usual points yet in that draft! Read the link as you are not even halfway there yet...

Thelooneytuner

Right had another go whilst I have had a brief break from the hospital. Fingers crossed I am getting there

Had a good hours reading and can't see any more points that would be relevant to mine?




Dear Sir/Madam,
RE: POPLA (code)

Parking Charge Notice: code
Vehicle Reg: YSxx xxx
Date of Issue: xx/xx/2013
Company: Ukcps

On the above date, an employee was issued with a PCN for allegedly parking the vehicle out of a marked bay. Firstly we would like to address that the vehicle in question is a breakdown and service vehicle predominantly dealing with motor vehicles that are immobile.
As the registered keeper we would like to contend that this vehicle would have been at this location on legitimate business circumstances. Due to the nature of vehicle breakdowns (Specifically electrical) vehicles can be left immobile in the most inconvenient of places. With the amount of tools and equipment needed in modern day breakdown it is not possible or reasonable for our van to be parked in a marked bay when no available spaces are available in close proximity to assist our customers.

At the time the PCN was allegedly attached to our vehicle it was briefly unattended with the likely situation our technician was working on a customers nearby vehicle. Upon returning to the van our employee noticed an empty documents attached sticker (i.e. there were no documents attached nor enclosed). We suspect the empty sticky envelope was placed there by the UKCPS employee simply to get a quick photo of it on the windscreen while the employee's back was turned. The matter was reported to us on return to the office. This left us with no way of knowing where the sticker had come from and hence no port of call for communication.
As the registered keeper we had no knowledge of the allegation until a letter arrived on xx/xx/xxxx 1 month after the alleged offence stating we had failed to pay or appeal and the fine would increase. It also stated we could no longer appeal as the timescale had passed which is both misleading and a breach of the BPA code of practice. There was also no mention of POPLA appeals procedure.

Following on from this we appealed the alleged offence and received a rejection letter from UKCPS. Within this letter there was no POPLA code. This is obviously stalling tactics employed by UKCPS of which are not compliant with the BPA code of practice.
The code of practice states that with a rejection letter it must include a POPLA code and arrive within 35 days, the former point was not met. Having failed to send us our POPLA code it required a prompting letter from ourselves which we should not be having to do.


We received our POPLA code on the xx/xx/2013, the letter was dated xx/xx/2013 which was a full 3 days after the date that our POPLA code was generated and most likely posted at a later date than that as the letter wasn't received until the xx/xx/2013. This is yet another breach of the BPA Code of Practice by this Operator.
Due to this we will be reporting this matter further to both the BPA and DVLA.



CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE CHARGES

(PPC) do not own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their Notice and in the rejection letters, (PPC) have not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

I would also request that POPLA to please check whether (PPC) have provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists or someone has witnessed it) and check that it specifically enables this Operator to pursue parking charges in their own name and through the court system. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed the legal standing to allege a breach of contract. I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges. It was stated that: "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be." The ruling of the Court was that "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services." In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated, losses, as set out above.

(PPC) also make reference in their appeal refusal of (date) to “seek to recover the monies owed to us” and makes no reference to the Landlord at all.

I further contend that (PPC) have failed to show me any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR) and would require POPLA to consider that particular section of the Code in its entirety and decide whether the Operator has shown proof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance with section 21 of the Code, in its evidence.

NO CONTRACT WITH THE DRIVER

There is no contract between PCC and the driver, but even if there was a contract then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.. So the requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc, were not satisfied.

UNFAIR TERMS

The charge that was levied 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."

UNREASONABLE

The charge that was levied 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.”


BPA CODE OF PRACTICE BREACH - NO 'CREDITOR' IDENTIFIED
The Notice I have received make it clear that UKPC is relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, there must be strict compliance with all of its requirements in order to take advantage of the rights granted under that Act to pursue the registered keeper in respect of a driver’s alleged 'charge'. UKPC has failed to comply in the wording of their Notice to Keeper since they have failed to identify the “Creditor”. This may, in law, be UKPC or indeed some other party. The Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is….”

The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Act does not indicate that the “creditor must be named, but “identified”. The driver is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom he has allegedly contracted and in failing to specifically identify the “Creditor”, UKPC has failed to provide any evidence that it, or a third party, is entitled to enforce an alleged breach of contractual terms and conditions.

NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
UKPC are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice and must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'.

Since it is a free car park with the Operator receiving no other income than these 'charges' then UKPC cannot possibly expect POPLA or me to believe that they are operating at a permanent loss at this site. I contend there has been no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) prepared or considered in advance. There can have been no loss arising from this non-event. Neither can UKPC lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed.

UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), in Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012).

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 June 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%.''

So in conclusion, this is (by their own admission on the Operator's own website!) a revenue-raising scheme disguised as a 'parking ticket' - so in fact it is an unenforceable penalty.
With all this in mind, I require POPLA to inform UKCPS to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,

Thelooneytuner

Actually I think I got a part mixed up with ukcps and ukps?

Coupon-mad

You need to get rid of this first sentence as it seems to actually admit that an employee got a PCN!

[STRIKE]''On the above date, an employee was issued with a PCN for allegedly parking
the vehicle out of a marked bay.''[/STRIKE]


And this is only relevant in a car park with cameras issuing the PCNs for overstaying, not car parks with a dippy high-vis-wearing attendant, so scrub this:

[STRIKE]''I further contend that (PPC) have failed to show me any evidence that [/STRIKE][STRIKE]
the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of
Practice part 21 (ANPR) and would require POPLA to consider that particular
section of the Code in its entirety and decide whether the Operator has shown
proof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance with section 21 of
the Code, in its evidence.''[/STRIKE]


And you have left a huge amount of 'UKPC' stuff in there including a quote from the website - you MUST remove it as this is UKCPS, a different company!!

And remove the bit in brackets at the end too:

''So in conclusion, this is [STRIKE](by their own admission on the Operator's own website!)[/STRIKE] ''


Please don't send it off with ANYTHING about UKPC in it, if you want this appeal to be taken seriously.

Thelooneytuner

Ok, lack of sleep I didn't realise that mistake. Am I correct in thinking that most of them statements also apply to UKCPS if I alter it to the company name.

I have now deleted what you recommended and altered the ukps to UKCPS if that is correct?

Thelooneytuner

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You need to get rid of this first sentence as it seems to actually admit that an employee got a PCN!

[STRIKE]''On the above date, an employee was issued with a PCN for allegedly parking
the vehicle out of a marked bay.''[/STRIKE]


And this is only relevant in a car park with cameras issuing the PCNs for overstaying, not car parks with a dippy high-vis-wearing attendant, so scrub this:

[STRIKE]''I further contend that (PPC) have failed to show me any evidence that [/STRIKE][STRIKE]
the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of
Practice part 21 (ANPR) and would require POPLA to consider that particular
section of the Code in its entirety and decide whether the Operator has shown
proof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance with section 21 of
the Code, in its evidence.''[/STRIKE]


And you have left a huge amount of 'UKPC' stuff in there including a quote from the website - you MUST remove it as this is UKCPS, a different company!!

And remove the bit in brackets at the end too:

''So in conclusion, this is [STRIKE](by their own admission on the Operator's own website!)[/STRIKE] ''


Please don't send it off with ANYTHING about UKPC in it, if you want this appeal to be taken seriously.

As per your recommendation




Dear Sir/Madam,
RE: POPLA (code)

Parking Charge Notice: code
Vehicle Reg: YSxx xxx
Date of Issue: xx/xx/2013
Company: Ukcps

Firstly we would like to address that the vehicle in question is a breakdown and service vehicle predominantly dealing with motor vehicles that are immobile.
As the registered keeper we would like to contend that this vehicle would have been at this location on legitimate business circumstances. Due to the nature of vehicle breakdowns (Specifically electrical) vehicles can be left immobile in the most inconvenient of places. With the amount of tools and equipment needed in modern day breakdown it is not possible or reasonable for our van to be parked in a marked bay when no available spaces are available in close proximity to assist our customers.

At the time the PCN was allegedly attached to our vehicle it was briefly unattended with the likely situation our technician was working on a customers nearby vehicle. Upon returning to the van our employee noticed an empty documents attached sticker (i.e. there were no documents attached nor enclosed). We suspect the empty sticky envelope was placed there by the UKCPS employee simply to get a quick photo of it on the windscreen while the employee's back was turned. The matter was reported to us on return to the office. This left us with no way of knowing where the sticker had come from and hence no port of call for communication.
As the registered keeper we had no knowledge of the allegation until a letter arrived on xx/xx/xxxx 1 month after the alleged offence stating we had failed to pay or appeal and the fine would increase. It also stated we could no longer appeal as the timescale had passed which is both misleading and a breach of the BPA code of practice. There was also no mention of POPLA appeals procedure.

Following on from this we appealed the alleged offence and received a rejection letter from UKCPS. Within this letter there was no POPLA code. This is obviously stalling tactics employed by UKCPS of which are not compliant with the BPA code of practice.
The code of practice states that with a rejection letter it must include a POPLA code and arrive within 35 days, the former point was not met. Having failed to send us our POPLA code it required a prompting letter from ourselves which we should not be having to do.


We received our POPLA code on the xx/xx/2013, the letter was dated xx/xx/2013 which was a full 3 days after the date that our POPLA code was generated and most likely posted at a later date than that as the letter wasn't received until the xx/xx/2013. This is yet another breach of the BPA Code of Practice by this Operator.
Due to this we will be reporting this matter further to both the BPA and DVLA.



CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE CHARGES

UKCPS do not own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their Notice and in the rejection letters, UKCPS have not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

I would also request that POPLA to please check whether UKCPS have provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists or someone has witnessed it) and check that it specifically enables this Operator to pursue parking charges in their own name and through the court system. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed the legal standing to allege a breach of contract. I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges. It was stated that: "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be." The ruling of the Court was that "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services." In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated, losses, as set out above.

NO CONTRACT WITH THE DRIVER

There is no contract between UKCPS and the driver, but even if there was a contract then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.. So the requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc, were not satisfied.

UNFAIR TERMS

The charge that was levied 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."

UNREASONABLE

The charge that was levied 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.”


BPA CODE OF PRACTICE BREACH - NO 'CREDITOR' IDENTIFIED
The Notice I have received make it clear that UKCPS is relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, there must be strict compliance with all of its requirements in order to take advantage of the rights granted under that Act to pursue the registered keeper in respect of a driver’s alleged 'charge'. UKCPS has failed to comply in the wording of their Notice to Keeper since they have failed to identify the “Creditor”. This may, in law, be UKCPS or indeed some other party. The Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is….”

The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Act does not indicate that the “creditor must be named, but “identified”. The driver is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom he has allegedly contracted and in failing to specifically identify the “Creditor”, UKCPS has failed to provide any evidence that it, or a third party, is entitled to enforce an alleged breach of contractual terms and conditions.

NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
UKCPS are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice and must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'.

Since it is a free car park with the Operator receiving no other income than these 'charges' then UKCPS cannot possibly expect POPLA or me to believe that they are operating at a permanent loss at this site. I contend there has been no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) prepared or considered in advance. There can have been no loss arising from this non-event. Neither can UKCPS lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed.

UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), in Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012).

So in conclusion, this is a revenue-raising scheme disguised as a 'parking ticket' - so in fact it is an unenforceable penalty.
With all this in mind, I require POPLA to inform UKCPS to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,