UKPPO Newcastle Airport Fine

Simmo7

Hi All, hoping I can get some help from this lovely community...

I received a dropping off/picking up fine from the UKPPO for picking up my boss from Newcastle Airport, after finding this site and reading through a lot of posts and recommendation I sent an email challenging the fine, I've never done anything like this before but gave it my best shot with the information I received from this and the parking cowboys site.

I have received a reply, but am unsure on what my next step is? If anyone could help me out that would be brilliant.

This is the Challenge email I sent them

Challenge regarding ticket number **********

On 16/07/13 at 07:43AM I visited Newcastle airport in my wifes car, registration number *****. Subsequently, your Parking Charge Notice which was sent to the registered keeper, my wife, 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.



I dispute the parking charge for the reasons set out below.



1. Inadequate Signage



Where I stopped the car on 16/07/2013 there was no visible signage from the area in which I stopped. 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’. In my case I do not believe this to be true, I have since visited the area and noticed signage placed around the roundabout which is visible from the image you have included in your claim, I do not believe the signage on a roundabout to be in accordance with the BPA's requirements as it is impossible to read and understand whilst driving around the roundabout. From the position I stopped on the access road there is no visible signage at all, 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’.



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 shortly after a roundabout 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’. The text on the signage is not which clearly contravenes section 18.1 of making the driver aware from the start, the text on the signage in the area in which I stopped is approximately 30mm. 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.


2. No contract


There was no contract between the myself and The UK Parking Patrol Office. I did not see any contractual information on any signs when entering the area and therefore at that time had no idea that any contract or restrictions applied. As a consequence the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied.

If there was no contract, then at most I was guilty of a civil trespass (though this is neither admitted nor denied). If this were the case, then I may be liable to damages. Given that no ‘damage’ was done to the car park nor the area in which I parked and that the car park nor area in which I parked was not completely full or busy with other road users when the I parked or when the I left, there was in fact no loss at all.



3. Fairness of Contract



The following matters are relevant:

The charge UKPPO are imposing is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable). The £60 charge is arbitrary and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract or trespass.

The £60 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 £60 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 the medium stay car park which is completely free for 0-15mins. By stopping where I did on what would seem to be the entrance to the Airport restricted area for approximately 10 seconds and being issued with a £60 charge clearly demonstrates an unfair/punitive and unreasonable charge and is therefore unenforceable.



4 Further information I require you to provide and take notice of:


Please note specifically that this letter is not an appeal however, it is a challenge to the issue of the Notice to Driver as set out in the BPA AOS Code of Practice B.22. I should be grateful for answers to all questions raised. In this respect I remind you of the obligations set out in the current Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct.

4(a). Cause of action.



Please make this clear. If it is your claim that the driver entered into a contract, please send me a complete version of the terms and conditions of that contract to which you say that I agreed to.



4(b). Further to the above please explain fully on which of the following grounds your claim is based:

(i) Damages for trespass

(ii) Damages for breach of contract

(iii) A contractual sum



4(c). If it is your case that that a trespass was committed or that a contract was breached such that your claim is one for damages, please give me a full breakdown of the actual loss you say was suffered by your business or the landowner/landholder.



4(d). If it is your case that a contract has been breached or that a contractual sum is now due, please send me photographs of the signs that you display and upon which you seek to evidence that a lawful and legally enforceable contract was been entered into. Please ensure that the photographs show the terms and conditions in a clear and legible manner. Please provide me with a diagram showing the locations and layout of those signs in the are in which I parked. Also provide evidence that the wording is in plain and intelligible language and in sufficiently large print as to be legible to a driver at the Airport’s entry point.



5. 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 signs state NO STOPPING, PARKING, LOADING OR UNLOADING IN THIS AREA. As in my case I accidentally and unknowingly stopped in what the UKPPO call a Restricted Area on an access road at Newcastle Airport where my friend got into the car ******* and I drove off before I was able to distinguish and read a sign. By that time the car had already left in less than approximately 10 seconds. 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 10 seconds? 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 my friend to get into the car 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 ‘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.

Simmo7

Just to try and keep this in some sort of order I've added the reply in another post....

Bearing in mind this is not my registration nor is this my reference number, I believe whoever wrote this has probably copy and pasted it and forgot to change the details....

UK Parking Patrol

Great Northern House,

275 Deansgate

Manchester

M3 4EL

Parking Charge Number: 206378

Vehicle Registration Number: ND55ULP

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your challenge against the above parking charge reference number.

The vehicle was parked on private land that is well signed with contractual notices stating that the area is a no stopping/loading/unloading zone at all times. There is a warning sign just out of shot of the photograph you have been provided with approximately 6feet behind and clearly visible from where you parked. We do not expect drivers to stop on the roundabout (although a surprising amount do) and therefore the signage was placed there to alert drivers and as an added deterrent to encourage them to look for warning signs after exiting the roundabout.

The BPA have initiated an entrance sign scheme but there is a grace period in which to allow us to have these signs made and erected as this is a new initiative. The entrance signs will be in place before the grace period expires.

The BPA state that signage must not be smaller than 450x450mm in size. The signage at Newcastle Airport is 600x600mm and therefore larger than the BPA recommendation.

When a driver parks in direct contravention to the parking restrictions and does not adhere to the warning signage they then enter into a contact/agreement to pay a fee. The terms & conditions of this contract and all charges are clearly displayed on the signage. Please see the attached requested copy of the contract/agreement the driver entered into which states the charges, informs the driver they have entered into a contract/agreement and informs them why they have incurred the notice. It is the driver’s responsibility to check for parking restrictions.

The attached copy of the signage shows the terms & conditions of the contract.
The charge is based on a contractual sum.

The grace period applies to parking within an actual car park/a main road where the driver is allowed to stop, exit the vehicle and look for parking restrictions. You were clearly not in a parking area, you were on a slip road in a potentially dangerous position. Not only did you park on the slip road you allowed your passenger to disembark from the vehicle.



If you decide to appeal you will be given the chance to pay the reduced fee for an extended 14 day period. The 35 day rejection you refer to is the amount of time we must let pass before we are able to pass your details onto our debt recovery agents. Therefore we are adhering to the BPA’s code of practise.

Regards
Appeals Dept
UK Parking Patrol

The_Slithy_Tove

No!!!

Don't admit to being the driver, as you do in the very first sentence. This reply should be from your wife as registered keeper, and then simply refer to "the driver" in the third person.

Your appeal will be rejected, so you may as well save most of this for POPLA. At which point, you can point out that you weren't parked, so a Parking Charge is not valid, and many other points.

But never state who the driver was. If they are claiming the charge is issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act, they are wrong, because
- you weren't parked, so PoFA doesn't apply
- airport roads are normally covered by Statutory Authoriry (Byelaws) so POFA doesn't apply
- their notices are probably non-compliant as well

This means they can ONLY pursue the driver, and not the keeper. So if you don't tell them who that was, they are rather stuck.

Simmo7

I read another case on here where they told the guy to take the case up as he was the driver (and I've just read the case again and he wasn't the driver or the registered keeper, but the person being dropped off and he wanted to take the fine) damn it, I thought i'd read that differently and followed suit.

EDIT: ok so since I've already stated I was the driver, where do I stand and go from here?

The_Slithy_Tove

Simmo7 wrote: »

EDIT: ok so since I've already stated I was the driver, where do I stand and go from here?

That's a shame, as they now know who to go for.

When they reject your appeal, take it to POPLA and win. Lots of winning POPLA appeal points on the forum.

"Not only did you park on the slip road you allowed your passenger to disembark from the vehicle."
So, by their own admission you were not parked, you were dropping off. These are different things in the real world (which, unfortunately, the PPCs don't inhabit).

Simmo7

So I now write my appeal, does anyone have any advice on writing this and what It should contain, what points I should focus on?

I think one should be the fact that the reg and reference number they've replied with are not even mine...

The_Slithy_Tove

Plently of information on this forum (and Pepipoo) regarding winning POPLA appeal points. You'll need to do your homework. Focus on no right to issue and pursue tickets, demanding the contract between PPC and landowner to prove otherwise (this has often won), and no loss to landowner on breach of contract.

Your points on wrong info can be included, but are by no means killer points.

Guys_Dad

On the POPLA web site is the Lead Adjudicator's first yearly report (June 2013)

This is what he has to say. You might want to read this and refer your adjudicator to it for their guidance

No stopping zones
An area where Assessors are beginning to see issues arise in appeals is one where there is a prohibition on vehicles stopping.

Whilst this does not usually occur in car parks, it can do, for example, on approach roads to airports.

Typically the motorist may have stopped on a double yellow line to allow passengers to board or alight the vehicle. Of course, on the public highway this is generally permitted, although not on a red route where there is a clear red line.

It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it.

Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it.

As always, each case will turn on its own facts and will be determined on the evidence produced by the parties

It seems, therefore, reasonable to claim that by using double yellow lines as on public highways, signs that a motorist can't read whilst driving would fail to indicate that the private double yellow line restrictions are any different from public roads.

Simmo7

Does anyone else have any more points that I can include....also after the reply from them do I now go straight into my POPLA appeal or do I appeal to the UKPPO first?

The_Slithy_Tove

You already have appealed to UKPPO, surely. Have they formally rejected your appeal yet? If so, they should have also sent you a POPLA reference code and information on how to take it to POPLA.

Simmo7

I guess I challenged it but haven't formally appealed (not sure if I intended to do that, first time I've done this so obviously worded it wrong), the only communication we have had I have included above, which has the incorrect reference and licence plate number. I have just replied asking them to respond to my case as that clearly isn't mine.