UKPC - epic incompetence

pramsbottom

Hi folks need some advise and reassurance that I'm heading in the right direction

Background:
I live in an apartment block there are three blocks on the site all joined to each other with a car park around the outside only one way in but then you can go round clockwise or anti clockwise if you wish. Two blocks are private homeowners one is a housing association.
There are two private parking companies operating in the carpark UKPC covers the 32 spaces belonging to the HA and another company covers the other spaces belonging to the homeowners.

Now my wife has been parking her car In front of some open bike shelters with ample room for bike to come in and out and vehicles to go past the area is not marked as a parking bay nor are their yellow lines which have been painted around other areas of no parking. The area in question we queried with both the HA and a parking operative of UKPC when they started and were told 'that because half of it belongs to the HA and the the other half belongs to the leaseholders they wouldn't ticket there'

We'll guess what after 12 months they have started ticketing my wife's car in two months we've had 7 tickets with 2 different reasons
First two for not parking in a permit space and last 5 for parking in a permit space without displaying a valid permit.

Now I have appealed all of the tickets with UKPC but they've started to come back saying there valid so I plan to take everyone of the to POPLA to cost them money now as I firmly believe they haven't got a leg to stand on.
Here are the status of the tickets
FYI all appeals were sent recorded. And in the appeals my wife as registered keeper did not inform who was driving

Ticket 1 appeal sent no reply received back from them debt recovery letters received and ignored, follow up letter sent this week informing them that there outside of there's and the BPA's 35 day window and instructing them to cancel

Ticket 2 appeal sent and rejected, had to right another letter to them to request POPLA code and form( which I believe is a breach of the code of practice) will be pursuing POPLA

Ticket 3 and 4 appeals sent and rejected but requesting copy of parking permit which is irrelevant

Tickets 5,6 and 7 sent appeal but still waiting

Now I believe these ticket are all invalid because

1. There are two PPC's operating in the same car park with no physical divide between there areas of enforcement, how can they say a contract has been made with the driver when the driver doesn't know which PPC that are dealing with

2. Signage is inadequate UKPC only have 2 signs which can't be seen from each other to cover 32 spaces

3. As you enter the carpark you are greeted with the other ppc's signs not UKPC so a breach in code of practice.

4. In relation to the last 5 tickets the area where the car was parked is not marked as a bay so the tickets are not enforceable

5. Also the sheer amount of signs that the other Ppc has on display 18 of them compared to 2 for UKPC makes UKPC's signs inadequate.

Sorry for the long post but they have annoyed me now, my plan is to appeal to POPLA for each ticket costing them money, right to the BPA informing them of UKPC's incompetence and requesting sanctions against them and right to my HA also informing them of UKPC's incompetence and requesting that they end their contract and dealings with these cowboys

Can I just get some advice and reassurance from you that I'm going about this the right way.

Regards peter

4consumerrights

Sorry -just a quickie first - are all the parking charges from UKPC?

pramsbottom

Yes all are from UKPC

Umkomaas

You're going to have to appeal each individual ticket, firstly to the PPC, get individual POPLA codes and then produce a POPLA appeal separately for each. You're going to need a good tracking system to ensure none slip through the net to court action.

The description you've put above is only a 'scene setter', on its own every one of your POPLA appeals will fail, then you're going to be in a bit if a mess with 7 failed appeals. Definitely expect court action then, you'd be a big fish well worth frying - IMHO.

The heavyweight appeal points at the moment are:

1. Genuine pre-estimate of losses (guaranteed win if the PPC can't produce acceptable GPEOL to POPLA - and none have been able to do this so far).
2. Lack of proprietary interest in the land
3. Exposure of the PPC/Landowner contract to examine their authority
4. Signage
5. Punitive charge, therefore a penalty

So you'll find more about these points by reading the following (concentrate on the most recent posts, last couple of months):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=SF&s=&f=17

Don't do POPLA alone, show us your draft appeal and we'll help fine tune it. As you've got several appeals, if all the circumstances are identical, then probably you can use the first as a copy and paste template for the others. On a point of tactics, if your first appeal is strong and upheld by POPLA, then you could also attach copy of the POPLA decision to future appeals (although timing may not be perfect for every one of them - your first appeal won't be dealt with for at least 2 months after submission).

HTH

zzzLazyDaisy

Assuming you do have a valid parking permit, it is worth sending a copy in response to their request for two reasons:

1 The contract between UKPC and the principal may well contain a 'secret' clause to the effect that genuine permit holders must not be pursued, in which case this would result in some of the charges being cancelled.

2 If that works, you can then write to them about the other charges, stating that the other two were cancelled on production of the valid permit so you expect these to be cancelled as well (enclose a copy of the permit with these too).

Daisy

pramsbottom

I have a permit it's worth a try I suppose

esmerobbo

As incompetence goes thats not bad for them I remember them issuing charges on a public highway at one time!

Coupon-mad

pramsbottom wrote: »

I have a permit it's worth a try I suppose

You are doing well, so keep juggling all of these to POPLA and it will cost UKPC loads! But make sure the POPLA appeals you submit all contain the 'killer' paragraphs, as already mentioned by Umkomaas above. I normally provide this link for people writing a POPLA appeal, as it shows the killer paragraphs and examples too:

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

Also, do them all online at POPLA - and forget this 'recorded delivery' idea as it's costing you a fortune and is pointless to a PPC like UKPC (who do not do court, by the way). You only need to use 1st class post to a PPC and just get proof of posting from the PO counter (ask for a free certificate of posting when you post each one).

pramsbottom

Ok here is my first draft of a popla appeal can i request any advice on it please.


Dear Sir or Madam

On 25/6/13 I was the Registered Keeper of xxxxxxx. On this day my vehicle was issued with a Parking Charge Notice by UKPC.
I wish to contest this parking charge on a number of grounds:

1. Insufficient/Unclear Signage
2. Lack of Proprietary interest in the land
3. Exposure of UKPC / Landowner contract to examine their authority
4. Punitive Charge and therefore I believe a penalty
5. The Charge is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss
6. Failure to follow Procedure

On all correspondence with UKPC their letters and website clearly state:
‘Operating in accordance with the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice’
This is not the case.
1. Insufficient and Unclear Signage.

The BPA Code of Practice June 2103 clearly states:
18.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a 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 on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use.

There are NO entrance signs belonging to UKPC in this car park, therefore the driver is not warned before entering the car park of UKPC’s Terms and conditions.

18.3 Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You 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. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.

There are only 2 signs belonging to UKPC in the whole carpark, however another Private Parking Company also operates in the same carpark and has sepertae signage of which there are 18 signs, UKPC have failed when requested to supply myself with a site plan showing the locations of their signs to comply with 18.3 so I have produced one myself and is included along with this appeal showing both UKPC and ‘Other PPC’ Signs. The sheer number of signs of the other PPC when compared with UKPC’s ONLY TWO signs leads the whole sight to be very confusing.


2. Lack of Proprietary Interest in the Land.

I do not believe that the operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give UKPC any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, UKPC lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge.

3. Exposure of UKPC / Landowner Contract.

I contend that UKPC are only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to UKPC. I expect to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code, which would detail any land boundaries.
Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between UKPC and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that UKPC can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer. I requested this information from UKPC in my previous appeal and they refused to produce any document.

4. Punitive Charge and therefore I believe a penalty.

I believe the charge that UKPC are levying is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997 and therefore void. The charge of £100 is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. The charge UKPC are levying 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."

5. The Charge is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss

I consider the PCN to be a penalty because UKPC have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include business running costs or the POPLA fee).

6. Failure to follow Procedure.
In my appeal dated 15/8/13 I stated :
‘If you reject this challenge or fail to address the issues that have been raised then, in accordance with BPA Code of Practice 22.12, Please ensure that you enclose all the required information (including the necessary ‘POPLA’ Code) so that I may immediately refer the matter for their decision’

However in their rejection of my appeal on 12th September 2013 they failed to supply the relevant forms and code which they were requested and REQUIRED to supply.

In light of the breaches of the BPA’s code of practice listed here and all other points raised I feel this charge should be cancelled forthwith.


thanx in advance for reading everyone this is getting stressful i dont want to mess this up

peter

Umkomaas

Nicely laid out.

Where possible, at the end of each appeal point you need to ask POPLA to put the PPC to 'strict proof' to provide evidence that counters your contention.

This is especially important in the 2 key points of appeal:

Contract - you need to ask POPLA to require the PPC to provide the full, unredacted and contemporaneous copy of the contract between them and the landowner to prove they have authority to make charges, to pursue those charges up to and including county court. You also need to state here that a 'Witness Statement' to confirm a contract exists, which some PPCs are getting signed by random staff of the landowner, will not be acceptable.

Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss - actually their POPLA fee might well be a GPEOL - so leave that little bit out! You need to ask POPLA to require the PPC to provide a fully detailed breakdown of their genuine losses that arrive at the (£100?) charge claimed. State that erection of signs, maintenance of ANPR cameras, back office staff, hi-viz jackets, membership fees to the BPA are general running costs that they would be liable for whether or not you parked there.

You might want to also add a further appeal point:

Business Rates. Ask POPLA to require the PPC to confirm that they are paying local Business Rates in respect of that particular car park from which they are running a business and from which they derive income and profit. If they are not paying such rates to provide evidence of their exemption.

Some of your appeal points need breaking down into more readable paragraphs, points 3 and 4 each have a large block of text, putting some paras in there would make them more readable.

If there's no rush in terms of a tight deadline to get this off immediately, leave it here for 24 hours to see if any others wish to make comment.

HTH

Coupon-mad

That's good. Peter. A few points from me, in addition to Umkomaas' advice:

''sepertae signage'' = a typo and should read ''separate signage''.



And the punitive/penalty paragraph is strongest if it actually quotes from UKPC's website!


4. Punitive Charge and therefore I believe a penalty.

I believe the charge that UKPC are levying is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997 and therefore void. The charge of £100 is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. The charge UKPC are levying 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."

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 October 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%.''




The pre-estimate of loss should be expanded IMHO, maybe this:


5. The Charge is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss

I consider the PCN to be a penalty because UKPC have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include business running costs or the POPLA fee). It is a strict requirement in the BPA code of Practice that a charge for 'breach' must represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, flowing from a breach of the parking terms, 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.

In addition, the Office of Fair Trading information to the BPA about parking charges states on page 2 that these are not automatically recoverable:

''Further, the OFT expressed the view that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable, simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists. It will not be recoverable if the court finds that it is being imposed as a penalty. If a parking charge is imposed for parking beyond hours permitted under a contract, in order for it to be recoverable as liquidated damages, the court will need to be satisfied of a number of matters, including that it represents a genuine pre-estimate of the loss incurred and that it meets the requirements of applicable consumer protection legislation, for example the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.''

UKPC's website (quoted in point 4 above) admitting that this is purely 'revenue' for them and the landowner, proves that the charge cannot possibly be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. ''





HTH