UK Parking Control Fine - Help

rivmix

Hi,

I recently parked my car in my friends parking space within his gated residential flats car park. Neither of us paid much attention to the UKPC signs as we had read the contract for his flat previously and know that it states 'Parking for the property is slot XX'.

Got a ticket about a week or so ago saying that because the car is not registered to the property it was illegally parked. Having re-read the UKPC signs they state that 'A valid parking permit must be clearly displayed at all times'.

Having read a few threads on here I initially was going to ignore it as others have but having re-read the UKPC signs I'm not so sure if actually I do need to pay the fine as the signs are clearly displayed..

Would really appreciate some advise..

Pay up or paper aeroplane?

Thanks

Andy

Umkomaas

Did they actually use the phrase 'illegally parked'?

Here's everything you need to know to get you underway with your problem. Read it, and the links, carefully and work through the advice contained within it.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

rivmix

Thanks for your reply.

Just been round my friends to get the ticket and the exact terminology is:

"Parked in a residents' parking space without clearly displaying a valid residents parking permit"

I am told by my friend that in his contract however it just says something along the lines of your parking space is first on the right, make sure you only park there. Nothing about Parking permits or UKPC.

Further help would be appreciated!

Andy

Coupon-mad

Pay up or paper aeroplane?

Neither. Read the linked thread from Umkomaas, please then ask any questions. I have tried to make it clear in the sticky thread that you DO NOT YET APPEAL if it's a windscreen PCN.

And the thread explains why.

rivmix

Hi,

Thanks for your response.

I did read the link initially although was a little worried about just leaving the timer to run out as I miss the reduced rate and having read other posts on the forum couldn't find a situation quite like mine so was unsure if they are actually allowed to enforce the car park.

Anyway having read the thread again it sounds like i just need to wait until the notice comes through, so that is what I shall do!

Thanks

Coupon-mad

That is right, trust us!

rivmix

Thanks, will do..

just to re-clarify though this is not a commercial parking area like the majority of posts seem to be about but a Gated Private residence for which the parking area is managed by a Management Company.

Assuming the above doesn't change the situation, I shall continue to await the arrival of the NTK.

Thanks

martmonk

rivmix wrote: »

Assuming the above doesn't change the situation, I shall continue to await the arrival of the NTK.

Thanks

You assume correctly so yes.

rivmix

Hi,

I have now received the NTK dated 3/12/12 with a date of offence being 1/11/12.

Since last posting I received another ticket for the same offence 2 weeks later and I have also sold the car roughly a week or so ago.

I see no mention of 'POFA 2012' on the ticket. I have read through Schedule 4, paragraphs 8&9, done a comparison to the NTK but not noticed any omissions.

I understand from /forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822 I now need to appeal.

Is it best to adapt one of the previous letters to my situation?

My argument is that I was parked in a tenants space with permission however in his tenancy contract there is no mention regarding having a residents permit or UKPC regulating the parking.

Thanks for your help!

Coupon-mad

Yes, adapt one of the appeal links in the NEWBIES thread. Show it here first if you like so we can help.

But if you can't see any mention of POFA2012 or keeper liability on the ticket then I fail to see how it can possibly have 'no omissions' in wording?! And UKPC do usually issue their Notices under POFA 2012 so there must be stuff about the keeper being liable. Can you show us both sides of the postal NTK?

rivmix

Hi,

Thanks for responding. NTK images below, just add ( http:/ ) before the rest of the link

/s17.postimg.org/3r0wjn2xb/PCN2_Andrew_001.jpg

Apologies if I have misread anything here. When i mentioned omissions I was referring to differences between PCN, NTK and section4.

Below is my draft 1st appeal, please let me know if it's way off the mark! Just ot confirm this letter should be sent to UKPC and not POFA?

Thanks for your help.

-
Dear UKPC,

RE : UKPC PCN – Ref XXXX

I'm writing this to appeal a charge sent to me by UKPC that occurred after the vehicle in question was allegedly parked in a permit holders only space at XXXX, on 1/11/2013. UKPC claim that the vehicle's driver owes them £90 for “Parking in a residents’ space without clearly displaying a valid residents’ parking permit”. I now want to set out why I want you to cancel this charge.


(1) UKPC's lack of legal enablement to override residents leases and rental agreements
The tenancy agreement for the residence entitled to use the parking bay clearly states an entitlement to the use of a set parking space at the complex. The tenancy agreement does not specify any conditions on this entitlement – i.e. a permit must be displayed.
UKPC have not produced any evidence that they are enabled to override the prior rights, covenants and easements enjoyed by the residents under their rental agreements. I therefore require UKPC to provide written evidence in the form of a legal document to prove they have the right to override the lease.


(2) UKPC's lack of legal capacity to enforce/issue Fixed Charge Notices
In all correspondence with me, UKPC haven't produced any evidence to demonstrate that they have the necessary legal capacity to charge the driver of a vehicle using a space without a displayed permit. Nor that they have any proprietary interest in this particular piece of land.
Accordingly, I require UKPC to produce an unredacted, up-to-date and signed copy of the contract or agreement with the person or organisation that contracted UKPC – one which states that they are entitled to pursue these matters through issuing PCNs and through the courts. I require that this is an actual copy and not simply a document which claims that such a contract or agreement exists. A witness statement will not satisfy this requirement.
Equally I require UKPC to demonstrate that the person or organisation they have contracted with has the legal capacity from the landowner to form such a contract with UKPC. I do not believe they do. UKPC should produce an unredacted, up-to-date and signed copy of the contract or agreement between landowner and the person or organisation that contracted UKPC.


(3) UKPC's lack of signage / poor signage
The BPA Ltd AOS Code of Practice makes clear that there should be signage at the entrance to the parking area to allow drivers the opportunity to understand they are entering into a contract.
The UKPC entrance signage at the site is not at the entrance but set back after the first few parking spaces that are covered by the alleged contract. The text on the sign is also too small for a driver in a moving car to read.
There is no signage facing a driver as they enter a parking space – i.e. in front. There is only limited signage throughout the complex – most of it well away from the actual parking spaces. What signage there is has been fixed underneath other signs – such as No Ball Games – which are bigger and in very large text. This draws drivers attention away from the UKPC signage.
Accordingly, I require UKPC to provide the following :
Ø A current map of all the areas and bays of the complex where the permit scheme is and is not applicable, as agreed with the landowner/contracting party
Ø Contemporaneous photos of the actual signs on site taken from the view of the driver of a car at the entrance and in the car park
Ø A definitive map of where these signs are in that particular car park

(4) The UKPC charge does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The sum claimed cannot be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, as any contractual breach attracts the exact same apparent amount of loss, whether no permit was displayed or a car was parked over a white line. If the sum claimed were a genuine pre-estimate of loss, it follows that the loss cannot be £50 on days 1 to 28, then £90 thereafter. This is clearly an arbitrary sum invented by UKPC.
Equally, as there is no charge to tenant for using the parking space, there cannot be any loss to the landowner should a tenant fail to display a permit.
UKPC have failed to provide a true pre-estimate of loss as set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA’s CoP, v3 of June 2013.
I therefore require that UKPC provide a detailed breakdown of the £90 charge to show how the landowner has lost this amount due to a permit not being displayed by a leaseholder. It should be noted that losses cannot include operating costs such as wages, uniforms, signage and general running costs.
Given that UKPC have presented no evidence as to how their costs relate to the event in question, I suggest that the charge is disproportionate and accordingly not in line with Schedule 2(1)(e) of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, nor as described in the BPA Code as above.