Parking Charge by UKCPS Ltd

Washalowski

Now received POPLA code from UKCPS together with a standard letter. I guess I need help now to make POPLA appeal. Thanks, everyone.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Yes, have a good look round, post up your proposed draft and go from there

Washalowski

1st POPLA draft: Would somebody take a look please?

I wish to appeal this charge because I believe it was issued in contravention of the Equality Act 2010 which states that reasonable adjustments should be made to accommodate the elderly/disabled. I was parked in a disabled bay when taking my 87 yr old father and 84 yr old Mother to shop at B & Q store (they spent £230). We needed the extra space afforded by the disabled bay because of my Father's wheelchair and my Mother's walking frame. The disabled bays are also nearer to the entrance, which greatly helps us.


For this reason, I request that this unfair charge of £100 be withdrawn.

The original parking charge was £60, reduced to £100 if paid within 14 days. I wrote to UKCPS to contest this unfair charge within 14 days, so cannot understand why UKCPS are now demanding £100?

For this reason I request that this unfair charge be withdrawn.

My parents do not drive, and so do not possess a Blue Badge. However, we shall be applying to the local Council for a Blue Badge. I feel it totally irresponsible of UKCPS to discriminate against the disabled who cannot drive and do not possess a Blue Badge.

For this reason I request that this unfair charge be withdrawn.

The car park at B & Q is quite extensive and was quite empty at the time of our visit. There were numerous empty parking spaces and numerous empty Disabled Bays. We were not depriving any other motorists the ability to park wherever they wanted. I cannot possibly see how UKCPS can possibly charge £100 as a genuine pre-estimate of loss?

For this reason, I request that the unfair charge of £100 be withdrawn.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

NO!!!! all but the last sentence charge £100 as a genuine pre-estimate of loss is wrong.

None of what you have put apart from the last sentence is irrelevent and and not needed so please start again. Dont bother putting what happened on the day "1st hand accounts are not needed as its all mitigation and will never win at Popla

Have a read of this first before u try again https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337

once you have read the link about you will understand why GPEOL is a winner ,also bring up the issue of no contract.....

stargazer7

I'm going through this process (albeit in different circumstances) and the most effective thing to write depends on who it's to. I think this where confusion arises sometimes because in the first instance if you are writing to the store or landowner, a breach of the equality act or other legislation is relevant and might well result in them telling the parking company to cancel it.

If that fails, mentioning it in a soft appeal to the parking company is fine, but by all accounts, most are pretty heartless/uninterested and will turn it down.

Then you're into POPLA territory, and at this stage, there is no point in mentioning any mitigating circumstances - you have to challenge on at least one of : no genuine pre-estimate of loss, no contract with the landowner allowing them to impose charges, poor signage (if applicable), failure to prove ANPR equipment has been properly serviced (if applicable) etc etc - there's loads of info out there on this forum that should help you put your appeal together. I'm drafting mine at the moment. You may as well get as many relevant points in as possible (without making it excessively lengthy) - only one has to be accepted by the POPLA adjudicator for the appeal to be upheld. The first two I mentioned are the most commonly accepted arguments I believe.

Good luck with it. Pretty poor customer service if B&Q didn't even get back to you.

Washalowski

OK thanks. Have read the link and still no wiser! Sorry for being so dense. I did not display Blue badge because we haven't got one. We needed the wheelchair room etc. and hence the equality Act reference. I guess I could say that I did not have a contract with UKCPS and maybe I should question whether the parking company has clear authorisation from the landowner to enforce parking restrictions. Totally confused now!!!

Redx

Washalowski wrote: »

We needed the extra space afforded by the disabled bay because of my Father's wheelchair and my Mother's walking frame. The disabled bays are also nearer to the entrance, which greatly helps us.

My parents do not drive, and so do not possess a Blue Badge. However, we shall be applying to the local Council for a Blue Badge. I feel it totally irresponsible of UKCPS to discriminate against the disabled who cannot drive and do not possess a Blue Badge.

please note , it is NOT a requirement that you have to be a driver to get a BB, anyone can get a BB if its deemed necessary , my mother (sadly now passed away last year) had a BB and had never driven in her life (80 years) but had BB and this was used for hospital trips, shopping trips, dentist and many other reasons too, so yes get applying for each person who qualifies , so separate ones if both qualify , I know this may not matter to this case but they clearly are in need of BB and its time they made a claim for one judging by this fiasco. the BB protects the vehicle they are being carried in, no matter who is driving the vehicle, providing its being used to help the BB holder and they are present. my friends grandson has been a BB holder from the age of 4 or 5 years due to walking difficulties from birth and also had a motability car too, clearly he could not drive said car until he reached 17 years of age !!

so remember, a BB holder does not have to be a driver

as above, forget mitigation as its not a consideration by POPLA , you win this on a technicality, points of law, not compassion or common sense

check the newbies sticky thread for suitable POPLA wordings like the one by guys-dad and use that as a basis for your rebuttal (so forget about the circumstances and concentrate on the legalities)

ps:- this thread and post explains what is going on here

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4835943

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Washalowski wrote: »

OK thanks. Have read the link and still no wiser! Sorry for being so dense. I did not display Blue badge because we haven't got one. We needed the wheelchair room etc. and hence the equality Act reference. I guess I could say that I did not have a contract with UKCPS and maybe I should question whether the parking company has clear authorisation from the landowner to enforce parking restrictions. Totally confused now!!!

Dont bother with equality act stuff as Popla side step it

so concentre on loss, no contract, there is loads of winning appeals on here if you look

And forget what happened on the day, take that out of your mind, look at it from the 3rd person

Washalowski

POPLA appeal - 2nd attempt.

POPLA verification code: xxxx
UKCPS Ltd PCN No. xxxx
Location xxxx
Vehicle Reg No. xxxxx

On 17th October 2013 UKCPS issued a Parking Charge Notice because the above vehicle was alleged to be parked in a disabled bay without valid badge displayed

I appealed against this which was declined by UKCPS on 11th November 2013, however no POPLA code was issued with the rejection as per the BPA code, just an invitation to appeal again and that POPLA code would be sent at 'appropriate time if requested'

I appealed again to UKCPS and received a 2nd rejection letter from UKCPS dated 29th November 2013. This time they provided a POPLA Code (as requested both times in my correspondence to them).

No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers

UKCPS 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. Under the BPA CoP Section 7, a landowner contract must specifically allow UKCPS 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 without it, UKCPS have no legal standing nor authority at this site which could impact on visiting drivers.

In ParkingEye v Sharma, Case No. 3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court 23/10/2013. District Judge Jenkins dismissed the case on the grounds that the parking contract was a commercial matter between the Operator and the landowner, and didn’t create any contractual relationship with motorists who used the land. This decision was followed by ParkingEye v Gardam, Case No.3QT60598 in the High Wycombe County Court 14/11/2013 where costs of £90 were awarded to the Defendant. District Judge Jones concurred with the view in ParkingEye v Sharma that a parking operator has no standing to bring the claim in their own name. I submit that this applies in my case as well because the parking contract - if one is even produced - is a similar business agreement between an agent and landowner, nothing more.

If UKCPS produce a 'witness statement' 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. 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 legal standing.

Notice to Keeper not compliant with the PoFA 2012

The operator (UKCPS) has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for failure to display a Blue Badge whilst parking in a disabled bay. Under the terms of the Protection of Freedoms Act, specifically Schedule 4, paragraphs 8 and 9, UKCPS must identify the creditor who is legally entitled to recover parking charges on their Notice to Keeper. They have failed to do so and so they have no right to reclaim parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. In a previous ruling, 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 under para 8 or 9, it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act. As the Notice was not compliant with the Act, is was not properly issued.

No genuine pre-estimate of loss

The Notice from UKCPS alleges that a breach of the terms and conditions of parking have occurred and so the charge levied must be damages that UKCPS are seeking in redress. But this car park is free and there is no provision for the purchasing of a ticket or any other means for paying for parking. There was no damage nor obstruction caused so there can be no loss arising from the incident. Given there has been no genuine pre-estimate of loss the charge levied is unenforceable and the charge should be cancelled. I also request that UKCPS provide a full breakdown of costs.

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, so this charge breaches the code and is unenforceable.

Unlawful penalty clause - revenue for UKPC

Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), in Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012).

This transparently punitive charge by UKCPS is a revenue-raising exercise and is therefore unenforceable in law.

So in conclusion, this is a revenue-raising scheme disguised as a 'parking ticket' - so in fact it is an unenforceable penalty.

I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform UKCPS to cancel the PCN.

£100 Calculation

In this case, UKCPS Ltd has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) figure is arrived at, whether as an actual or pre-estimated loss. Following the issue of this PCN, an appeal was sent to UKCPS within 14 days - as requested on Part 2 of their original PCN. In their reply, UKCPS have said that this discounted period (14 days) is no longer applicable. Surely, it is unethical and/or unlawful to change their own rules whilst still in discussions?

UKCPS state that my appeal has been rejected for the reasons stated:

UKCPS have not stated any reasons why my appeal has been rejected! In fact, they have flatly refused to enter into any discussions. They state: "We will not enter into discussions about the legality of parking on private land or of the landowners right to impose parking conditions on their property". They then go on to state that I have 3 choices: 1. Pay 2. Appeal to POPLA or 3. Do Nothing - and they will seek debt recovery/Court action.

Since UKCPS have no intention of discussing anything at all with me, then surely their appeals process is simply a waste of time? I would therefore urge POPLA to instruct UKCPS to withdraw their PCN.

Breach of the Equality Act

I believe that both UKCPS and the POPLA adjudicators have a duty to consider the legal obligation for making reasonable adjustments: We parked in a disabled bay to allow the space required to negotiate my 87 yr old father's wheelchair and my 84 yr old Mother's walking frame in and out of the car. We also needed to be near to the B & Q entrance/exit. The car park is very extensive and was mostly empty - we were not denying other disabled drivers access.

Washalowski

Just realised that I have used examples from UKPC not UKCPS, so maybe I need to amend everything.