UK Parking Control - Ticket not compliant?

CH_7

Second draft done;

---

Dear POPLA Assessor,
Re: UK Parking Control ‘Parking Charge Notice', verification code xxxxxxxxxx

I am the registered keeper of vehicle with reg. XXXXXXX, and I wish to appeal a recent ‘parking charge’ from UK Parking Control Ltd (referred to henceforth as ‘UKPC’). I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge;

1) The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, hence 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. Furthermore, because UKPC are a mere agent and place their signs such a length away from the parking spots, and in such a small size, they have failed to establish the elements of a contract (consideration/offer and acceptance). I have attached a photograph of the closest sign to my parked car – provided by UKPC themselves – as evidence of how UKPC have made a clear and successful attempt to make their signs as unnoticeable as possible. I have circled the signage in red since otherwise it is completely unrecognisable.

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, or indeed for a driver in moving traffic on arrival. The only signage at the entrance of the car park has extremely small text, is high up on poles, and is at an angle to the path a car would take when entering the car park. As a result, these signs were not read, nor even seen by the occupants of the car, therefore no valid contract was ever formed between the driver and UKPC.

2. Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The UKPC signs state that a PCN would be issued for a “failure to comply” with the terms of parking, which indicates that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract (denied in this case).

Accordingly, the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. UKPC has not provided any evidence as to how and why the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore the parking charge is punitive and an unenforceable penalty charge.

The BPA Code of Practice states:

19.5; “If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.”

19.6; “If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.”

I challenge UKPC to provide strict proof that that their charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss. To date, UKPC have refused to provide me with a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the ‘charge’ was calculated in the form of documented, specific evidence applicable to this car park and this alleged incident.

I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business is not an acceptable form of loss caused by the parking event. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement (such as erecting signage, staff wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same, and hence may not be included in this pre-estimate of loss.

3. Unlawful penalty clause – revenue for UKPC

Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract (denied in this case) 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 following cases amongst many;

-Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008)
-OBServices v Thurlow (Review, Feb 2011)
-Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court, Dec 2011)
-UKCPS v Murphy (Apr 2012)

Furthermore, UKPC raise all of their revenue from parking tickets, and, alongside a 10% rebate of all their parking charges collected from that area, offer their services for free to clients. This business model is therefore reliant on the unethical entrapment of motorists to collect money, and as such the parking charge is punitive and an unenforceable penalty, since there was no loss incurred to the landowner by the alleged contravention of not displaying a permit.

4. No authority to levy charges

A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorisation to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract.

UKPC must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner, or a contract that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location. I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles UKPC to levy and pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.

Simply stating that “We can confirm that parking management at this site has been contracted to UK Parking Control Ltd” as can be seen in their reply letter to my appeal is simply not enough. It is unreasonable of them to expect any registered keeper of a vehicle they are pursuing charges from to ‘take their word for it’ on this matter.

I put UKPC to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location, and I demand that the UKPC produce to POPLA the unredacted contract between the landowner and UKPC. 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.

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner. This must confirm that the signatory is authorised to act on behalf of the landowner, has read the relevant terms of the contract, and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company.

It is due to these points that I request that my appeal is upheld, and for POPLA to inform UKPC to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully
(CH 7)

Coupon-mad

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner. This must confirm that the signatory is authorised to act on behalf of the landowner, has read the relevant terms of the contract, and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company.

I would get rid of the above (not relevant to UKPC) but apart from that it's fine. Good to go!

CH_7

Submitted Will let you all know the result!

CH_7

Here's how they've attempted to prove that the 'parking charge' is a genuine pre-estimate of loss;

---

Each of these costs are included in our genuine pre estimate of loss and each of the specific amounts are derived in numerous different ways. In terms of providing proof of our pre estimate of loss, this clearly satisfies that there has been an estimate of our losses before entering into contracts with drivers and therein must satisfy this requirement.

3.5.1 Site Based
Parking Charge – Directly relates to the breach

Weatherproof Wallet – Directly relates to the breach

Staffing costs associated with the charge – while some of UKPC’s staffing costs are not directly attributable to the breach there are some that are directly attributable. Where a warden has been made aware of a breach and has gone to the site to issue the charge, then we can clearly allocate the cost to that breach. The cost is best apportioned on a time basis relative to the amount of time associated with that breach. This cost will vary again depending on the type of site and warden allocation methodology that is employed at any particular site. This is looked at on a case by case basis but typically we review the remoteness of the site as well as if there are fixed members of staff or whether staff are deployed on a call out basis. Retail sites therefore are more likely to have a lower pre-estimate of loss than residential sites (this will not always be the case).

Motor and Travel expenses – wardens may need to travel to the site to issue charges. There are times where this travel cost has been directly attributed to the breach. This cost will vary dependant on the warden allocation methodology that is employed at any particular site. Again a number of things are taken into account. Typically a warden will travel a certain distance to get to a site. UKPC have sites across the whole of the UK. Our wardens are spread across the whole country with some working solely at one site, and others travelling to cover a specific region.

3.5.2 Parking Charge Validation
All of these costs are administrative costs checking the details of the breach in order to comply with requirements set out in the AOS Code of Practice and the DVLA requirements.

3.5.3 Appeals
UKPC handle a number of appeals relating to parking charges. It is not only suitable to have an internal appeals process, but it is also a requirement of the AOS code of practice and in England and Wales a requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012)`. In reviewing these costs we have looked at the amount of time that is spent in dealing with a phone call or appeal and have then apportioned this cost to the Pre Estimate of Loss, by factoring the costs relative to its likely outcome. When people appeal there tend to be follow up appeals. From looking at data we have calculated that when people do appeal there are 1.4 appeals per case.

Telephone Costs Call Centre – we anticipate that all calls will last between 6 and 12 minutes on average and so have allocated the time and staff costs appropriately. We estimate that 25% of people that receive a charge will call in and use this to discuss their parking charge.

Reviewing Appeal – This is done by three tiers of employee. The majority of appeals are dealt with by appeals staff, but some are escalated to managers or directors for review.

Legal Advice – Sometimes appeals contain references to court cases or legislation and we need to seek legal advice on our position.

Appeal Letter – We need to send a letter responding to the appeal.

Communication with Client – Often charges require us to verify a claim made with the client or their agents. We need to arrange for our Client Liaison dept to make contact with the client or tenants to verify the stories and gather evidence for the appeals department to make a decision on the case in question.

Consultation with other clients – Often the appeals team will need to follow up on claims made in the appeal and review evidence from other departments. This may be conversations that were claimed to have occurred or evidence from wardens.

3.5.4 POPLA
In England and Wales, UKPC offer the recipient of a parking charge, the opportunity to have their appeal heard by an independent appeals service. For the BPA this is currently POPLA. All costs associated with POPLA are directly related to the breach.

POPLA Appeal administration – UKPC managing the POPLA process recording cases that are with POPLA and managing the process of coordinating the work.

Preparation of Evidence pack – This work is completed by people in different pay grades and takes time to bring together.

Legal Advice – Occasionally, the appellants change their appeal from the one that they submitted to us. Therefore at the POPLA stage there is often a need to gain further legal support. We find that appeals at the POPLA stage are usually far more involved and more frequently require professional advice.

POPLA Cost – The Charge for POPLA is clearly directly attributable to the breach and therefore this can be attributed to the Pre Estimate.

Letters after POLPLA Decision – The writing of a letter and then the printing and postage of that letter is directly attributable to the breach and recovery of the parking charge.

3.5.5 Payment Costs
UKPC have various ways of paying a parking charge. There are bank costs and personnel costs associated with managing and processing these. These costs are directly attributable to the breach.

3.5.6 DVLA Costs
In line with the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) UKPC are able to contact the DVLA after a certain time period to request the Registered keeper details from them. There are various costs that are associated with this. There is the DVLA charge itself, as well as the costs of processing and ensuring that the data is correct.

3.5.7 Written Communication with the Driver or RK
UKPC write to people who have received a Parking Charge to follow up and get the charge paid. We send a number of letters in line with the requirements of the AOS Code of Practice and the Protection of freedom Act (2012). These various letters have different likelihoods of needing to be sent so this is factored in when we are considering the cost basis for them.

3.5.8 Debt Recovery
If Charges remain unpaid, UKPC will send a number of cases to A debt recovery company for further action on our behalf. We need to prepare the information and get this over to the company so that they can pursue it on our behalf.

3.5.9 Legal Action
Occasionally it is necessary for UKPC to go through the courts to recover the amounts due. UKPC anticipate taking a certain number of people per year to court. The costs vary depending on how involved the cases are and whether a case is settled earlier. UKPC have started taking more people to court and anticipate that this will continue into the future. As such we have sat down with our lawyers and advisors to try and estimate the likely costs involved in this.

3.5.10 Notes on the timing of the incurrence of costs
While UKPC have done their best to review the order and timings when costs will be incurred, we have found that this is very difficult. For example we have included the costs for correspondence with the driver or RK in the larger figure as we only need to provide a discount for payment for 14 days. Typically DVLA and Further costs will be incurred after this point. Occasionally however we may incur costs of writing to nominated drivers etc before this has happened. Furthermore, a lot of people wait to appeal and at this point UKPC could have increased the Parking Charge to the higher amount. Should we do this however, we are in the situation where there would be no incentive for appellants to pay rather than to go to POPLA. As such a vast amount of the correspondence could conceivably be made before the price rise. Payment during this time is rare, but is something that we are bearing in mind when reviewing a cost allocation methodology.

3.5.11 Business Costs that are not included in the pre-estimate of loss
The following are required regardless of whether or not a breach occurs on the site. While we can argue that they are commercially justifiable to include, we have taken the view not to include them;

>Head Office Rent and Rates
>Employee wages that are not related to directly dealing with the parking charge
>Signage on site
>Warden training
>Hiring costs
>Company Insurance
>Membership of ATA
>Installation of ANPR Equipment
>Pay and Display equipment
>Warning flyers
>iwarden software
>Employee Uniform
>Area Managers

bod1467

Usual UKPC bull - don't worry about it.

Redx

those costs are mainly raised after they reject an appeal , so the costs of you having parked there or not (the genuine pre estimate of loss) are typically low in nature, say £12 according to the OFT and the rest of the costs are their business costs and its those aspects that mean they lose when popla see that mosts of the costs are business costs and not actual losses caused by the incident

you are not responsible in paying for those business costs

Stroma

Anything that is deductible against tax, like computers , cameras and staff training costs are not part of loss, as they had these costs even if you didn't park there

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Have they included any actual figures with that list?

I would write back to Popla and say that that list includes a large number of items that are no directly related to the parking breach, ie warden costs which are incurred anyway, ie Motor and Travel expenses , the warden will still have these costs if he issues 20 tickets or 200 tickets
Popla charges can not be included as they may or may not happen following a breach.
The GPEOL can only be those that flow directly from the breach itself not just an endless list which doesnt even have any figures attached.

Fail

4consumerrights

No figures given now seems the new way that PPCs are going now - the BPA coaching session on the 5th March......

can't calculate a GPEOL so don't show any figures and hope for the best.

All again mainly business operational and/or tax deductible - very little to show actual GPEOL from one alleged breach.

Also for a parking attendant site - how do they know a breach will occur at a specific date or time - rubbish... they would have to be there in any case.

Nodding_Donkey

Isn't it convenient that all these costs that are "looked at on a case by case basis" always add up to a nice round £100