UK Parking Control Fine - Help

FunnyMunny

I'm surprised UKPC actually gave you popla codes, after they twice didn't do that with me. I won each one despite this, however.

Your first point of attack, pre estimate, is the strongest, I think.

Also, the fact that you weren't using the car park abusively ie a free public car park and leaving your car there for the whole day while you go to work for example, but were actually using it to visit a friend is a strong argument. Any court is going to look at the intended use and the primary purpose of UKPC operating there, not just the narrow issue of whether you displayed a permit or not, as UKPC like to make out to screw you over.

You'll most likely win at popla - be sure to use the guidelines given in the help threads, but if somehow you don't, then don't be cowed by any debt collectors letters. I accused them of incompetence and told them where to shove it and won.

Coupon-mad

FunnyMunny wrote: »

Your first point of attack, pre estimate, is the strongest, I think.

Agreed. That and 'no standing/authority/contract'.

FunnyMunny wrote: »

Also, the fact that you weren't using the car park abusively ie a free public car park and leaving your car there for the whole day while you go to work for example, but were actually using it to visit a friend is a strong argument.

I wouldn't bother with that - it doesn't make any difference to POPLA at all. And it's a classic example of where an OP might write 'I was' which isn't the right thing as it admits who was driving of course.

And to rivmix - yes, make your own hybrid appeal out of several. The examples aren't meant to be templates to copy verbatim, they are there to show people the arguments that win.

FunnyMunny

Indeed coupon. I meant to say that as a court argument only, not popla. My bad for not being clear, lol.

The court defence (it won't come to court) should also be carefully worded to remove any reference to "I", of course.

rivmix

Hi, I have written my first draft response. What do you think?

Dear POPLA Assessor,

Re: UKPC ‘fake’ PCN, Reference No:

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from UKPC. UKPC claim to manage the private car park which the vehicle was recorded in that belongs to a friends flat of which he is a tenant of. I have requested the contract from themselves and the parking spaces/ flats landlord which they have been unable to supply. The tenancy agreement for the flat makes no mention to UKPC or any specific requirement for the properties allotted parking space.
I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss
The parking space the vehicle was parked in belongs to the tenants of the flat and permission was given to park there for free. There is no requirement in the tenancy agreement that requires a parking permit e bought to use this space. There was no damage nor obstruction caused so there can be no loss arising from the incident. UKPC notices allege 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event. Given that UKPC offer to reduce the charge from £90 to £50 if the PCN is settled before appealing to POPLA, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging, or trifling as in my case), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The charge from UKPC as a third party business agent is an unenforceable penalty. They have failed to provide proof of any agreement in place between themselves and the landlord of the property who also owns the parking space they claim to manage. No genuine loss has been incurred and permission was granted by the tenants for the parking space to be used.
The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event.

UKPC and POPLA will be familiar with the well-known case on whether a sum is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or a penalty: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v New Garage and Motor Company [1915] AC 79. Indeed I expect ParkingEye might cite it. However, therein is the classic statement, in the speech of Lord Dunedin, that a stipulation: “… will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach.'' There is a presumption... that it is penalty when "a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation, on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage".

2) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
UKPC do not own the land mentioned in their Notice to Keeper and have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. Even if a contract is shown to POPLA, I assert that there are persuasive recent court decisions against UKPC which establish that a mere parking agent has no legal standing nor authority which could impact on visiting drivers.

3) Flawed landowner contract and irregularities with any witness statement
Under the BPA CoP Section 7, a landowner contract must specifically allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name in the courts and grant them the right to form contracts with drivers. I require UKPC to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner as I believe it is not compliant with the CoP and that it is the same flawed business agreement model as in Sharma and Gardam.

If UKPC produce a 'witness statement' in lieu of the contract then I will immediately counter that with evidence that these have been debunked in other recent court cases due to well-publicised and serious date/signature/factual irregularities. I do not expect it has escaped the POPLA Assessors' attention that UKPC witness statements have been robustly and publicly discredited and are - arguably - not worth the paper they are photocopied on. I suggest UKPC don't bother trying that in my case. If they do, I contend that there is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract terms, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner, or signed it on the date shown. I contend, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, that this should be disregarded as unreliable and not proving full BPA compliance nor showing sufficient detail to disprove the findings in Sharma and Gardam.

I look forward to your response.

Yours Sincerely,

Coupon-mad

A good start. Add a paragraph you will have seen ALWAYS used which is 'unclear signage' even if you aren't convinced! It makes them have to show all sorts of site maps and photos which could be omitted/wrong!


Get rid of this in bold below (for a start you don't need the second 'of'!):


to a friends flat of which he is a tenant. of. I have requested the contract from themselves and the parking spaces/ flats landlord which they have been unable to supply.


And remove this as it's about ParkingEye only, NOT relevant!

3) Flawed landowner contract and irregularities with any witness statement
Under the BPA CoP Section 7, a landowner contract must specifically allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name in the courts and grant them the right to form contracts with drivers. I require UKPC to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner as I believe it is not compliant with the CoP and that it is the same flawed business agreement model as in Sharma and Gardam.

If UKPC produce a 'witness statement' in lieu of the contract then I will immediately counter that with evidence that these have been debunked in other recent court cases due to well-publicised and serious date/signature/factual irregularities. I do not expect it has escaped the POPLA Assessors' attention that UKPC witness statements have been robustly and publicly discredited and are - arguably - not worth the paper they are photocopied on. I suggest UKPC don't bother trying that in my case. If they do, I contend that there is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract terms, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner, or signed it on the date shown. I contend, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, that this should be disregarded as unreliable and not proving full BPA compliance nor showing sufficient detail to disprove the findings in Sharma and Gardam.

rivmix

Excellent! Sounds like I'm almost there..

Updated below:

--

Dear POPLA Assessor,

Re: UKPC ‘fake’ PCN, Reference No:

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from UKPC. UKPC claim to manage the private car park which the vehicle was recorded in that belongs to a friend’s flat which he is a tenant of. The tenancy agreement for the flat makes no mention to UKPC or any specific requirement for the properties allotted parking space. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The parking space the vehicle was parked in belongs to the tenants of the flat and permission was given to park there for free. There is no requirement in the tenancy agreement that requires a parking permit e bought to use this space. There was no damage nor obstruction caused so there can be no loss arising from the incident. UKPC notices allege 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event. Given that UKPC offer to reduce the charge from £90 to £50 if the PCN is settled before appealing to POPLA, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging, or trifling as in my case), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The charge from UKPC as a third party business agent is an unenforceable penalty. They have failed to provide proof of any agreement in place between themselves and the landlord of the property who also owns the parking space they claim to manage. No genuine loss has been incurred and permission was granted by the tenants for the parking space to be used.
The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event.

UKPC and POPLA will be familiar with the well-known case on whether a sum is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or a penalty: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v New Garage and Motor Company [1915] AC 79. Indeed I expect ParkingEye might cite it. However, therein is the classic statement, in the speech of Lord Dunedin, that a stipulation: “… will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach.'' There is a presumption... that it is penalty when "a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation, on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage".

2) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
UKPC do not own the land mentioned in their Notice to Keeper and have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. Even if a contract is shown to POPLA, I assert that there are persuasive recent court decisions against UKPC which establish that a mere parking agent has no legal standing nor authority which could impact on visiting drivers.

3) The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there was no valid contract formed between UKPC and the driver.
I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. Further, because UKPC are a mere agent and place their signs so high, they have failed to establish the elements of a contract (consideration/offer and acceptance). Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) UKPC have no signage with full terms which could ever be readable at eye level.

I look forward to your response.

Yours Sincerely,

bod1467

Don't get anyone's back up by saying 'fake' PCN ... remove 'fake', even though we know it's a border-line scam.

rivmix

Thanks - Removed.. was a bit unsure about that myself tbh, I imagine whoever wrote the letter initially had gotten pretty wound up at the point of writing it!

FunnyMunny

rivmix, great letter. I'll keep a copy of this for reference should I ever get into a similar situation.

I really like the last bit about the dodgy signage. It gives anyone who parks there a cart-blanche get out of jail card!

rivmix

Unfortunately I can't really take the credit for this, most of it is from another thread, although hopefully it will serve some purpose for others!


Just entered the POPLA code they had given me into POPLA's appeal section and it's thrown up 'number invalid' !!!!

What is best to do now? Should I request a correct code from them or just ignore them as they probably don't have a POPLA code..

Is it against BPA's code of conduct to issue false POPLA codes?

Thanks.