Coach bay fine from UKCPS

Coupon-mad

Yes I would include pics of the alleged 'coach bay' and the signage. And I would change your introduction or the SIGNAGE paragraph to be more specific to your own case and the coach bay and mentioning the photos that you have enclosed (just be careful to word it in the third person about 'the driver parked in what appeared to be a normal bay because...' not 'I'). Your appeal is a straight template lifted from another appeal and I think you need to be more specific about this 'invisible coach bay'. Does the fake PCN say 'parked in a coach bay'?

Also did UKCPS actually send you a POPLA code with the first rejection letter? They normally faff about with some old rubbish about 'the factual issues' and pretending you have to write a second time for the POPLA code. If they did that, then also add another paragraph mentioning this non-compliance with the BPA Code of Practice, by not issuing the POPLA code with a rejection letter as required.

Beware that if you try to submit this online, the POPLA appeals box will cut a long appeal short and/or give you an error screen. So you will need to attach your photos (hosted on tinypic or photobucket) and attach a PDF of your full appeal, in the POPLA appeal box as links instead. Put a header with the POPLA code on the appeal document PDF so that the 10 digit code appears on every page, if POPLA print it out at the other end.

Obviously type in the appeals box as well as the links, a one-liner saying that the attached PDF links constitute your appeal wording and photos and asking POPLA to email you if the appeal wording is not readable in full in letter format, from salutation to signature.

Or post it snail mail, with a POPLA appeal form on the front, stapled securely (not paper-clipped) and with the 10 digit code written on every single attached page. Tick 3 out of 4 appeal grounds (just not the stolen car one).

Plushchris

Those the coach bays near the cinema by any chance?

Not clearly marked and have been painted over several times so its just confusing?

Tilt

Cafcbrown wrote: »

Hi

It was Chatham Dockside outlet, Kent

Sorry, cannot see any coach bays on street view. Would need to see images.

If it is the case that the bays are not obviously reserved for coaches, then you should deffo appeal as per Coupon-mad's advice.

Cafcbrown

Yes the ones by the cinema,

I will adjust the letter tonight and put a new draft up on here

Many thanks for the help

Custard_Pie

Cafcbrown wrote: »

Here is my current draft to Popla.
On the letter from UKCPS it states reason for issue "without a valid permit or authorityy" should i mention this anywhere in the letter? I have pictures of the signs and alledged parking bay, do i need to include these also?


POPLA appeal re UKPC ticket number xxxxxxxxxx

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and this is my appealsummarised below. I am not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle wasnot improperly parked. As such, the parking 'charge' notice exceeded theappropriate amount.


UNCLEAR AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE


Due to their high position and the barely legible size of the smallprint, the signs in this car park are very hard to read and understand. Icontend that the signs and any core parking terms UKCPS LTD are relying uponwere too small for the driver to discern when driving in and that the signsaround the car park also fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practicerequirements . I request that POPLA should check the Operator's evidence andsignage map/photos on this point. I contend that the signs in that car park(wording, position, and clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/informthe driver of the terms and any consequences for breach (as in the case ofExcel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011).


CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OFPRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS


UKCPS LTD does not own this car park and are acting merely as agents forthe owner/occupier.

In their Notices and in the rejection letter, UKCPS has not provided mewith any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver,since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the landin question. I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legalcapacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the carpark, or indeed to allege a breach of contract (as evidenced in the HigherCourt findings in VCS v HMRC 2012). I would require POPLA to check whetherUKCPS have provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed &dated site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signedslip of paper saying it exists) and check that it specifically enables thisOperator to pursue parking charges in the courts, and whether that contract iscompliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.
.


BPA CODE OF PRACTICE BREACH - NO 'CREDITOR' IDENTIFIED
The Notice I have received make it clear that UKCPS LTD is relying onSchedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, there must bestrict compliance with all of its requirements in order to take advantage ofthe rights granted under that Act to pursue the registered keeper in respect ofa driver’s alleged 'charge'. UKCPS LTD has failed to comply in the wording oftheir Notice to Keeper since they have failed to identify the “Creditor”. Thismay, in law, be UKCPS LTD or indeed some other party. The Act requires a Noticeto 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 notindicate that the “creditor must be named, but “identified”. The driver isentitled to know the identity of the party with whom he has allegedlycontracted and in failing to specifically identify the “Creditor”, UKCPS hasfailed to provide any evidence that it, or a third party, is entitled toenforce an alleged breach of contractual terms and conditions.



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

Since it is a free car park with the Operator receiving no other incomethan these 'charges' then UKCPS LTD cannot possibly expect POPLA or me tobelieve that they are operating at a permanent loss at this site. I contendthere has been no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge forbreaches' at this site) prepared or considered in advance. There can have beenno loss arising from this non-event. Neither can UKCPS LTD lawfully includetheir 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 contracthas been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing upa penalty to impersonate a parking ticket, as was found in the case of ExcelParking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow(review, February 2011), in Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County CourtDecember 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012).

This transparently punitive charge by UKCPS LTD is a revenue-raisingexercise and is therefore unenforceable in law.


So in conclusion, I feel this is a revenue-raising scheme disguised as a'parking ticket' - so in fact it is an unenforceable penalty.

I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.




Signed:

Dated:

I would change some of the wording to state that you require the operator to prove xxxx rather than PoPLA to check.

I would also suggest that driving a coach may also impair your ability to see or read certain signs. Not sure if this is the case exactly as never driven one Myself.

Remember, as stated already that there is a character limit for PoPLA appeals. It cut mine off and I had to e-mail the full evidence in also.

Do chose "I am not liable for the charge box" or all of them as PoPLA do not accept mitigation as part of an appeal.

Cafcbrown

Yes they did include the code on the first letter.

New letter is below. If you want to appeal by post , do you complete the form online, then print that ?


POPLA appeal re UKPC ticket number xxxxxxxxxx

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and this is my appealsummarised below. I am not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle wasnot improperly parked. As such, the parking 'charge' notice exceeded theappropriate amount.


UNCLEAR AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE OF ALLEGED COACH BAY


Due to their high position and the barely legible size of the smallprint, the signs in this car park are very hard to read and understand. Icontend that the signs and any core parking terms UKCPS LTD are relying uponwere too small for the driver to discern when driving in and that the signsaround the car park also fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I request that UKCPS LTD provide evidence and that signage map/photos on thispoint are legible. You can see from the photos that i have enclosed of thesigns, and alleged coach bay, that there is no mention of a coach bay or permitneeded. The driver merely parked in the bay, after allowing another car driverto pull out from said space. I contendthat the signs in that car park (wording, position, and clarity) and poorlymarked out bay markings, do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform thedriver of the terms and any consequences for breach (as in the case of ExcelParking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011).


CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OFPRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS

UKCPS LTD does not own thiscar park and are acting merely as agents for the owner/occupier.

In their Notices and in therejection letter, UKCPS LTD has not provided me with any evidence that it islawfully entitled to demand money from the driver, since they do not own norhave any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. I do notbelieve that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into acontract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed toallege a breach of contract (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings in VCS vHMRC 2012). I would require UKCPS LTD to provide a full copy of the actualcontemporaneous, signed & dated site agreement/contract with thelandowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists) and checkthat it specifically enables this Operator to pursue parking charges in thecourts, and whether that contract is compliant with the requirements set out inthe BPA Code of Practice.
.


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

The wording of Paragraph9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Act does not indicate that the “creditor must benamed, but “identified”. The driver is entitled to know the identity of theparty with whom he has allegedly contracted and in failing to specificallyidentify the “Creditor”, UKCPS LTD has failed to provide any evidence that it,or a third party, is entitled to enforce an alleged breach of contractual termsand conditions.


NO BREACH OF CONTRACT ANDNO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
UKCPS LTD are clearlyattempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code ofPractice and must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA witha detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amountof loss or damages in this particular car park for this particular'contravention'.

Since it is a free car parkwith the Operator receiving no other income than these 'charges' then UKCPS LTDcannot possibly expect POPLA or me to believe that they are operating at apermanent loss at this site. I contend there has been no pre-estimate (priorto starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) prepared or considered inadvance. There can have been no loss arising from this non-event. Neither canUKCPS LTS lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any'loss' claimed.


UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE
Since there was nodemonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty toimpersonate a parking ticket, as was found in the case of Excel ParkingServices 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 punitivecharge by UKCPS LTD is a revenue-raising exercise and is thereforeunenforceable in law.

So in conclusion, I feelthis is a revenue-raising scheme disguised as a 'parking ticket' - so in factit is an unenforceable penalty.

I respectfully request thatthis appeal be allowed.

Coupon-mad

Either complete the form online then print it, or print a blank copy and fill it out by hand. Staple your actual appeal to it (not paper-clipped) and with the 10 digit code written on every single attached page.

As mentioned above, tick 3 out of 4 appeal grounds (just not the stolen car one).

Guys_Dad

I am going to suggest a slight change to your paragraph below.

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

UKCPS LTD does not own this car park and are acting merely as agents.

In their Notices and in the rejection letter, UKCPS LTD has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. 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 to allege a breach of contract (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings in VCS vHMRC 2012).

I would require UKCPS LTD to provide a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated site agreement/contract with the occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists) and I need to check that it specifically enables this Operator to pursue parking charges in the courts, and whether that contract is compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

In addition, if the contract was drawn up between UKCPS LTD and anyone who is not the actual landowner, then I require to see any contract between that company and the actual landowner that in turn confers the right to employ a Parking Company that may be entitled to make charges on the landowner's land.

Comments? May be in need of slight rewording but the thrust is there.

Cafcbrown

Thanks,

Will amend and then send my appeal to POPlA, unless anyone else can improve on what I have?

Coupon-mad

Cafcbrown wrote: »

Thanks,

Will amend and then send my appeal to POPlA, unless anyone else can improve on what I have?

Looks good to go once amended.