Sneaky ticket

nigelbb

OK now that you have reported your conversation with the parking guy more fully I think that you have a very good case that this was entrapment. Always assuming that it really was the parking guy that you spoke to & not some random guy photographing number plates. Did he have UKCPS logos on his clothing?

nigelbb

bazster wrote: »

And VAT. Look at the wrangle VCS went through to prove that their charges were not subject to VAT, and yet here is another PPC handing it to HMRC on a plate!

It's not a problem for the PPC to account for VAT. It just means that they get a smaller cut of the parking charge but when they are so outrageous anyway that's not such a problem. Don't forget that proper parking charges e.g. pay & display or pay on exit are subject to VAT.

bazster

nigelbb wrote: »

It's not a problem for the PPC to account for VAT. It just means that they get a smaller cut of the parking charge but when they are so outrageous anyway that's not such a problem.

With VAT at 20% I bet they don't see it that way!

nigelbb wrote: »

Don't forget that proper parking charges e.g. pay & display or pay on exit are subject to VAT.

Yes but those usually go to the real car park operator not some PPC!

nigelbb

bazster wrote: »

With VAT at 20% I bet they don't see it that way!

This is exactly the business model that the legal wizards at District Enforcement use for the car parks that they manage. Contracual charges subject to VAT.

bazster wrote: »

Yes but those usually go to the real car park operator not some PPC!

NCP, Vinci and other PPCs also operate P&D car parks. It's PE who only operate using the ANPR scam.

bazster

nigelbb wrote: »

This is exactly the business model that the legal wizards at District Enforcement use for the car parks that they manage. Contracual charges subject to VAT.

NCP, Vinci and other PPCs also operate P&D car parks. It's PE who only operate using the ANPR scam.

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.

Coupon-mad

nigelbb wrote: »

OK now that you have reported your conversation with the parking guy more fully I think that you have a very good case that this was entrapment. Always assuming that it really was the parking guy that you spoke to & not some random guy photographing number plates. Did he have UKCPS logos on his clothing?

We don't need her to argue it was 'entrapment' as such. The legal definition of that is something else really, to do with crime.

What it definitely can be argued to be, is a misleading practice which is a breach of the CPUTR 2008. It's a long thread now, but earlier on (the other day) I think I added that bit to the bottom of a suggested extra paragraph about the 'only contract formed was one with UKCPS giving permission to park without any risk of a ticket'.

billybumble

Hey peeps,
I am afraid this is all a bit over my head and I don't want to upset or cause arguments. My scan revealed that two weeks after it started , this still isn't over for me It's all so horrendous that I think paying up is an option but I don't want to quash all your hard work. My stress levels just took a step up and I really need to , in one area in my life get closure.

Guys_Dad

Great technical discussion, people, but.....................................With all this advice over getting a VAT invoice, BB still needs to send in her POPLA appeal or she will lose the opportunity.

Obviously there was no contract as for a contract to be fulfilled, bothe parties need to agree and no one in their right mind would agree to that contract. If she didn't agree the contract, then she is guilty of trespass at most.

So anyone better placed than me to redo the draft and put that is so that, at least a POPLA appeal is in place. It can be amended later if the VAT thing comes good.

zzzLazyDaisy

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Obviously there was no contract as for a contract to be fulfilled, both parties need to agree and no one in their right mind would agree to that contract. .

There is a case on parking where the court said exactly that - Lord Denning I think. But I can't bring the case to mind (am dopey today...) anyone know?

I would argue both points -

No contract formed

And GPEOL

On the basis that you can't have BoC without a contract being formed anyway, so there is no harm in arguing both one after the other.

Does this help?

D

Coupon-mad

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

POSTAL ADDRESS & 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 enquired from UKCPS parking attendant on duty where they could park and was directed to an area that had no signage restricting parking whatsoever, within sight, and neither were any UKCPS entrance signs visible on the route as the driver turned into that car park (see photos). To be clear, the driver neither saw any signs nor knew about any terms & conditions, despite specifically asking the UKCPS attendant.

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 on the building wall some metres behind the bay. He had parked his vehicle in front of the only lower sign, I now realise (see photos showing the lower sign on the wall which was completely hidden). The driver asked if it was private land, was there any risk if she briefly parked there, 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 basic premise in contract law of the duty to mitigate any loss, specifically relating to private parking in circumstances where the employee is near enough to observe and speak to 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 make contracts with visitors and (specifically) to pursue their '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 or statute - and the CPUTR 2008 has been breached.

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