Sneaky ticket

Guys_Dad

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. On all points.

bod1467

Minor point ... "This was the only possible contract between UKCPS and the driver, who parked with clear verbal permission (albeit from an employee who then placed a ticket on the windscreen unbeknown to the driver, took a photo and then apparently swiftly removed it). The UKCPS employee was still there when the driver returned and spoke to her again, so there was no possibility that the ticket could have been served properly, or removed by an unknown person, as the UKCPS employee was there all the time."

Did the OP confirm the bold part? (It's a long thread so I can't remember).

Coupon-mad

Yep, she did indeed.

Umkomaas

Coupon, I remain in complete awe of your ability to knock out such fantastic appeals.

Coupon-mad OBE (Operator Bashing Expert)

I've just added one inserted sentence regarding signage. As billybumble has a very clear photograph of the sign-lacking entrance, I feel that it would provide some real weight in the opening paragraph of the appeal if that was attached to it. Hope that's OK with you?

billybumble if OK with C-m, enclose a photo of the car park entrance with your appeal.

From my point of view, it's good to go then - and hope to hear back from you with, what I'm sure will be, an 'Appeal Upheld' post.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Hmmmmm... as she is vulnerable let's get this put to bed. I suggest billybumble should just send this to POPLA if we all agree?

Feel free to critique - and I have tried to reduce it in length as much as possible - but I think we have enough to get them even if not on GPEOL.

PCN No: xxxxxx



POPLA Code: xxxxxxxxxx

Todays Date

Dear POPLA,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle reg xxx xxxx and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. I wish to appeal against the notice on the following grounds.

1) Lack of BPA compliant signage
The driver entered the car park, the entrance to which had absolutely no signs to indicate that any restrictions applied, as required by the BPA Code of Practice paragraph 18.2 and Appendix B (see photograph attached). The driver enquired from UKCPS parking attendant on duty where they could park and was directed to an area that had no signage restricting parking whatsoever.

2) The driver had verbal permission from UKCPS to park from the employee, so with no signs seen, this was the only contract formed
The UKPCS employee spoke to the driver and showed her where to park, which was an area where no signs could be seen. The employee stood in front of the driver as she got out, in between her line of vision with a distant high up sign. He had parked his vehicle in front of a lower sign, I now realise (see photos). The driver asked if it was private land, could she park, and would she get a ticket? The employee said 'no' to all questions and specifically had directed her to park there.

This was the only possible contract between UKCPS and the driver, who parked with clear verbal permission (albeit from an employee who then placed a ticket on the windscreen unbeknown to the driver, took a photo and then apparently swiftly removed it). The UKCPS employee was still there when the driver returned and spoke to her again, so there was no possibility that the ticket could have been served properly, or removed by an unknown person, as the UKCPS employee was there all the time.

3) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The charge demanded far exceeds any loss to the landowner. If it exceeds any loss, it becomes a penalty.

In the appeal, UKCPS did not address this issue, and has not explained whether their charge is relating to a breach of terms, or trespass, or contract (all of which are denied).

Further, I contend that the UKCPS employee deceived the driver about any need to pay, which would have mitigated any loss, preferring instead to issue a parking ticket. In Vehicle Control Services Limited (VCS) -v- Mr Ronald Ibbotson (Case Reference 1SE09849 May 2012) District Judge McIlwaine reminded the Operator of the need to mitigate any loss in circumstances where the employee is near enough to observe the driver.

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.

4) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner
UKCPS' lack of title or assigned interest in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. Nor do they have the legal status at that site, which would give them any right to offer parking spaces on a contractual basis, as they are not the landowner and I have seen no evidence of a compliant contract with the landowner.

I put UKCPS to strict proof that they have a relevant, contemporaneous contract with the landowner that entitles them to pursue these charges in the courts in their own name as creditor (a requirement of the BPA Code of Practice). Any breach of the BPA Code of Practice means that 'registered keeper liability' has not been established, since full compliance is a pre-requisite of POFA 2012.

5) The Notice to Keeper was not properly issued
The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with POFA 2012 on three counts.
- Firstly, it fails to state the period of parking: paragraph 8(2)(a)
- Secondly, it fails to identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made: paragraph 8(2)(h)
- Thirdly, it fails to inform the keeper of the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available: paragraph 8(2)(g). This must include:
(a)any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and
(b)any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration.

In a flagrant disregard for the POPLA rights of appeal available to myself as the registered keeper, the section 'Appeals Procedures' wholly misleads the recipient. It wrongly informs me that I can only now appeal if the vehicle was stolen.

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the validity of a Notice to Keeper is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability ... it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act. As the Notice was not compliant with the Act, it was not properly issued.

6) Misleading business practices - breach of CPUTR 2008
UKCPS have breached the CPUTR 2008 on two counts.

The 'warden' on site misled the driver by specifically telling her that she could park in that space and would not get a parking ticket. And the NTK misled the registered keeper (myself) by stating that I could only make an appeal if the vehicle had been stolen.

It is an unfair trading practice, to mislead, misinform and/or hide core terms which would have caused a consumer to make a different economic decision. POPLA has a duty to make its decisions taking into account any relevant law.

7) Business Rates and VAT would apply if the charges are contractual agreements for the provision of a service
UKCPS run a business in this car park for revenue and profit, and (although no signs were seen by the driver at all) I now notice that their signage appears to try to create a contractual agreement for 'services'. I put UKCPS to strict proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority Valuation Office in respect of this 'contractual parking service' business, and that they are paying VAT to HM Revenue & Customs.

I respectfully ask the POPLA assessor to consider my points and photographic evidence and order that this charge be cancelled.

yours faithfully,


billybumble

billybumble

Yes he was indeed. I don't know why he was though. As I said before it's an unmanned car park. I almost thought did some stranger dupe me? Except for he was photographing a car, and he my ticket was issued the very moment I walked away and wasn't here on my return.

I can't remember where his car was parked when I got there. It was a hot summers evening, my window was down and I just asked him first if parking was allowed there. But when I returned it was parked across wards, below or over the lower sign. I spoke to him again. From the age of my car he should have guessed I probably couldn't afford £100 to park for an hour. After major surgery last year and everything else I am due some better luck. Hope this is the start of it. It looks like a great draft to me.

Umkomaas

I don't want to unnecessarily prolong this, but just one final question, did you have your blue badge displayed and does your car have exempt road fund licence because of your health issues?

billybumble

No. I didn't use it and yes it does just until the start of next year.

Umkomaas

billybumble wrote: »

No. I didn't use it and yes it does just until the start of next year.

It's a pity your Blue Badge wasn't on display as there is a very specific BPA CoP paragraph which requires PPCs not to issue tickets to cars with a Blue Badge on display.

I recognise BBs are not relevant on private land, but if we were to raise an appeal point based on the Equality Act, then I doubt the understanding of the assessor would stretch to considering the proxy basis of the zero rated tax disc.

So maybe too fine a point for this - unless C-m thinks it worth pursuing. If not, then it's time to be spurred into action in getting this away.

billybumble

Thanks. I have done that draft up and included most of the photographs, with explanations underneath. I think I do need to get it off asap, as I know I have difficult times ahead and need to move on. I really appreciate all the effort everyone has gone to. I really, couldn't have managed this. I have elsewhere to print this as my printer is broken , unless it is better to do it online?

nigelbb

bazster wrote: »

Pedantry thy name is nigelbb. I think you could pick a fight on your own in a locked room.

So what if one PPC uses that model? Do you think many others do? Do you think UKCPS does? We know that VCS/Excel fought tooth-and-nail in the courts to prove they weren't.

And what part of "usually" did you have difficulty in understanding? And operating in a P&D car park is not the same as operating the P&D car park. Charging people £100 for parking a millimetre over a white line doesn't necessarily mean that you are also getting the P&D revenue.

I'm not being contrary just for the hell of it. I am pointing out that not all PPCs claim the same contractual terms. In the OP's case UKPC's sign claims an agreed charge.

Some PPCs actually own or lease the car park (NCP & Vinci for starters) & do operate P&D schemes where they pocket the P&D revenues & account for VAT. PE never do this.

Assuming that all PPCs operate in the same way is dangerous as using "genuine pre-estimate of loss" is not a valid appeal point if the claim is for a contractual charge.