UK Parking Control - Ticket not compliant?

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Its a joke when they say Popla is at no cost to the motorist
yet their best legal brains say:

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

Umkomaas

Jeez, all that effort and work involved in order just to break even. A pretty rubbish business model it would seem.

Surely they wouldn't go to all that trouble and not make a profit, unless of course they are providing a philanthropic community service? Oh, wait.

Three cheers for UKPC. The world is a much better place, thank you UKPC.

CH_7

Thanks very much for all the responses so far, really appreciate it.

This was also included in their 'evidence'. I'm compiling an email to POPLA now, any other pointers would be great.

---

"On xx/xx/2013 warden number xxxxx issued a parking charge to vehicle registration xxxxx at xxxxx. The parking charge was issued because the vehicle was parked in a permit space without displaying a valid permit.

The Parking Charge amount was £100, reduced to £60 if payment was received within 14 days.

An appeal was received from xxxxx on xx/xx/2014, to which the appeals department investigated and decided to reject.

There are four bases of xxxxx's POPLA appeal and these are addressed in turn below.

1) All of our signage is fully compliant with the guidelines set out within the BPA Code of Practice and we reject the notion that it is in any way unclear or ambiguous. Our photographic evidence clearly shows that there are numerous signs, both at site entrances and throughout the site itself, giving motorists ample opportunity to check they are not in breach of the terms and conditions of parking on site.

2) We have attached a breakdown of our pre-estimate of loss.

3) UK Parking Control Ltd does not issue or collect “Penalty Charges”, “fines” or “Excess Charges”. Such things are only relevant to the on-street or civil enforcement area and enforced by police/traffic wardens or council civil enforcement officers under the Traffic Management Act 2004 or the Road Traffic Acts. This legislation is not applicable to private land. We can confirm, however, that UKPC has the authority to issue and enforce Parking Charge Notices, for breach of contract in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Further evidence that parking charges cannot be viewed as penalties, can be found in Mayhook v National Car Parks and Fuller [2012], Combined Parking Solutions v Mr Stephen James Thomas [2008], Combined Parking Solutions v De Brunner [2007] and in a High Court / Court of Appeal case of (ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011]).

4) We have attached confirmation of the contract which authorises us to manage parking at xxxxx. There are sufficient signs warning drivers that should they choose to park without displaying a valid permit they may become liable to receive a Parking Charge. xxxxx’s vehicle was parked without displaying a valid permit and consequently the Parking Charge was issued. By parking in this manner xxxxx has deprived a resident of access to the parking space which they pay for. A letter was sent to xxxxx informing them of our decision on xx/xx/2014."

---

As a side note, they state that they have attached confirmation of the contract in (4) but this is nowhere to be found in the documents I've been sent. Maybe they've sent POPLA a copy but not me.

CH_7

Namely I'd appreciate some help on how to respond to point (3) regarding the collection of penalty charges. I've got all the others covered.

bod1467

Your No GPEOL exactly covers point 3)

Coupon-mad

Further evidence that parking charges cannot be viewed as penalties, can be found in Mayhook v National Car Parks and Fuller [2012], Combined Parking Solutions v Mr Stephen James Thomas [2008], Combined Parking Solutions v De Brunner [2007] and in a High Court / Court of Appeal case of (ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011]).

You could state that their use of case law is strangely similar to ParkingEye's missives - and just as flawed:

- Mayhook was a case won by Mr Mayhook and he cleaned NCP out for thousands in costs, after they had desperately reduced their claim to around £12 during the court case in an attempt to snatch victory. They didn't succeed so it's an amusing one for a PPC to cite. {By the way NCP v Mayhook is linked in the NEWBIES sticky thread as one of the 'small claims won by defendants - non exhaustive' link and the pepipoo thread he covered his case on is great reading!}.

- CPS cases are not relevant because they don't use a 'breach of contract' parking ticket model. A different animal entirely.

- The PE v Somerfield case is another amusing one for a member of 'PPC World' to cite, seeing as it showed the PPC letters sent to victims as deceitful (allegedly) and did not come to a conclusion about whether the charges were penalties as that wasn't the focus of the case.

CH_7

The appeal was accepted. Thanks for all the help on here, good work everyone

4consumerrights

CH_7 wrote: »

The appeal was accepted. Thanks for all the help on here, good work everyone

Well done - can you post up the appeal decision in the POPLA appeals thread please..

CH_7

Of course, done

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=65114402&postcount=959