UKPCS Ticket

hollie.weimeraner

Hi Guys


A colleague of mine has received a NTK from UKPCS (In England) regarding parking in a bay outside the apartments where he lived. He parked for a few minutes whilst loading his car as he was moving. The NTK states there was a ticket placed on his windscreen but he is disputing this as he never saw one.


The NTK has been issued after the 28 day statutory period and within the 56 day period. Standard letter stating £60 charge has not been paid and £100 is now due.


I have had a look at the stickies which seem to indicate UKPCS are not BPA AOS approved but the letter bears the logo of BPA. The sticky was dated 2 or 3 years ago so are UKPCS now members?


I have taken on the job of assisting with his dealing with this and intend to submit a first response along the lines of


"Dear PPC


In reference to the invoice xxxxxx, and your letters of (date). As the keeper of the vehicle, I've decided to deal with this myself and raise the following points.

I wish to appeal this parking charge on the grounds that the driver was a resident, using the space to load a vehicle whilst moving out of his rental accommodation.

In regards to your parking charge I would like to make the following points


1) There was no ticket affixed to the vehicles windscreen
2) The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
3) Your signage is inadequate and does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice
4) You do not have authority or contract to issue these invoices

As you know popla upholds all appeals on the above, so you are invited to cancel this invoice now, or to issue a POPLA code so I can take my case to them

Sincerely

The Registered Keeper"

Thanks in anticipation

The_Slithy_Tove

They are in the BPA AOS (look at the BPA's site, not some old thread here).

Anyway, in your appeal, the "grounds" that the driver was resident will fail, as, probably, will the other points. But I guess you are aware of that, the intention being to get the POPLA code, where you will use the normal killer arguments. Let us know how you get on.

Guys_Dad

I would say that "I wish to appeal this parking charge on the grounds that the keeper is a resident, and the vehicle was being unloaded whilst moving out of his rental accommodation. Various people were driving the vehicle on that day and the keeper is unable to determine which person last drove the vehicle".

Coupon-mad

''I have had a look at the stickies which seem to indicate UKPCS are not BPA AOS approved but the letter bears the logo of BPA. The sticky was dated 2 or 3 years ago so are UKPCS now members?''

What sticky are you talking about? This makes no sense because UKCPS are members and AFAIK no sticky talks about them not being AOS members?

hollie.weimeraner

Coupon-mad wrote: »

''I have had a look at the stickies which seem to indicate UKPCS are not BPA AOS approved but the letter bears the logo of BPA. The sticky was dated 2 or 3 years ago so are UKPCS now members?''


What sticky are you talking about? This makes no sense because UKCPS are members and AFAIK no sticky talks about them not being AOS members?

Might be that I looked at an old link and got an old thread before they were accredited

Coupon-mad

They've been AOS/BPA members for at least the six years I have posted on this forum, AFAIK.

Anyway whilst waiting for their reply, if you get time search Google for the phrase: 'UKCPS address the factual issues' which finds you loads of recent UKCPS threads with their usual template reply to appeals, so you can see what happens and how people have then gone on to win at POPLA.

There's a 'how to win at POPLA' link in this sticky thread:

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




HTH

hollie.weimeraner

Thanks for the help so far guys. My colleague has now received a response from UKCPS (rejecting the appeal) and provided him with a POPLA Code. I am in the process of drafting the POPLA appeal at the moment.

I did ask UKCPS to provide photographic evidence that the ticket had been issued and they have not provided this. Should this be included within the grounds for appeal or is it irrelevant. I've tried searching for similar circumstances but cannot find anything. Additionally I've checked the site entrance (only on Google maps at the moment) and there are no notices at the entrance to the site so will be going down tonight to get photographs. I take it the signage is definitely still required even though it's a residents car park. I believe there is signage attached to the building but will get that as well.

Redx

the details you asked for are irrelevant in order for you to appeal, they have to provide their defence to popla and you should get a copy as well, a week or two before the hearing (yeah right, we know all sorts of problems occur in their favour with the evidence pack , lol)

if and when you get it, that is the time to study their evidence and refute or rebut anything you like as an addition to your appeal

concentrate on doing your appeal, dont help them with theirs , they get your defence, you get theirs, then its argued out and popla decides

as for signage, it can be crucial in many cases, even the actual wording can and is crucial

nigelbb

If the appeal was made as the keeper and no indication has been given as to who the driver was then it is very relevant whether there was a ticket on the windscreen or not. If there was no Notice To Driver then the subsequent Notice To Keeper is invalid as it is woefully out of time. The onus will be on the PPC to prove that a NTD was delivered (they normally photograph the NTD on the windscreen). It's not unknown for a passing joker to remove the NTD & chuck it away or stick it on another windscreen. It's also not unknown for the parking attendant to photograph the NTD on the windscreen & then remove it to avoid confrontation.

Along with the usual points (No contract, No GPEOL, inadequate signage etc) the POPLA appeal should put the PPC to strict proof that a valid NTD was affixed to the car. If they do not produce a photograph then the appeal must succeed.

Redx

sorry in my last reply , I may not have made myself totally clear

my point is that if the PPC has not provided the proof you asked for, you cannot make them do so , generally they keep such proof back for popla or even for court (like unredacted contracts), in an appeal I worked on with Escel they refused any paperwork or photos and only issued a popla code, it was after their defence was submitted to popla that we found extra discrepancies because they had to file paperwork like contracts, which even when redacted had vital evidence still in them

but if you put them to strict proof in your popla appeal then if they dont provide it popla may throw it out on that basis

so my point is get on with making up a good popla appeal that tries to make them prove these aspects , or slip up, and let your requirements of proof through popla generate the ppc to either provide this proof , or fail to provide it and then fail because of the lack of such proof

what I really meant was that you should not have expected them to rollover and give you all the paperwork and photographs etc, but popla may , and popla may rule in your favour if the proof is sadly lacking or incorrect or completely absent

so my use of the word "irrelevant" was in the fact that they had not given you any proof along with the popla code

but using your popla code and a good legal argument to back them into 10 different corners or give them no legs to stand on is clearly what you should be doing, including what the last reply said seeing as it seems highly relevant

but no point getting in a war of words with the PPC, it wont work, especially not when a popla code has been given

but when you put in your popla appeal, they get a copy of your defence and they then have to issue theirs, which is when you can send in further evidence or rebut what they say or point out any errors in their paperwork or photos etc

but in short , get on with your popla appeal including all relevant points , forget about the ppc until they issue their defence

hopefully I have explained it better now , as initially I saw one issue of relevance but then you used it again in a different paragraph , so both needed addressing

hollie.weimeraner

OK this is my first draft of the POPLA appeal. I have some images but photobucket is having a maintenance outage at the moment. I'll post images as soon as I can upload them.

Dear POPLA

Appeal re verification code xxxxxxxxxx UKPCS PCN number xxxxxxx

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.

1. The missing, contradicting and unclear signage which creates no contract between a driver and UKCPS.

2. The amount demanded is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

3. I require the contract with the landowner is produced, as UKCPS are not the landowners and I contend they have no legal standing to pursue this charge.

4. There was no PCN affixed to the windscreen of my car at the time of the alleged charge. I have asked for photographic proof and have not received it.

Please find below detailed information about the points raised above.

1. To the point of the signage I have taken the effort to showcase some issues I have found which demonstrate that the signage is not compliant with Appendix B and section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Please note that one image attached is of the entrance to the car park where it is impossible to see any UKCPS signs erected at all.

As an AOS member, their entrance signage must be prominent and readable from a seated position, with terms & conditions in the driver's clear view on arrival when a vehicle first turns into a car park. In this car park UKCPS have failed in this regard.

This is an operator which my photos show, has failed to meet the strict BPA requirements for clear entrance signs. The entrance is where any alleged parking contract with a driver must be made - and I deny any contract was made between the driver and UKCPS since there was no consideration, and no offer nor acceptance.

2. This charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. UKCPS may try to allege their minimal signage creates a contractual agreement, but this is denied. In any case, UKCPS’s letter clearly states that this parking incident relates to an alleged 'breach of contract' (their words). So the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be possibly enforceable. UKCPS in this case cannot possibly justify £100 as a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

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. Parking charges cannot include tax-deductible business costs for running a parking company, such as site signage and maintenance, staff employment, membership fees, postage, etc. It shouldn’t be recoverable as it is being enforced purely as a penalty. Since there is no other income at this site, these PCNs represent the only profit for CPM and it is clear that they cannot be operating at a permanent loss.

3. I put UKCPS to strict proof that they have the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in their own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract. To show compliance with the BPA CoP section 7, I require UKCPS to produce the landowner contract - not just an inadmissible 'witness statement' saying such a contract exists - since they do not own the land. I contend that any business arrangement for parking services (if it exists) is merely an agency matter between the landowner and UKCPS and cannot impact upon drivers or keepers whose tenancy grants them the overriding legal right to peaceful enjoyment of their property (including parking spaces).

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided photocopied “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. These highly questionable documents from parking operators have been exposed in the public domain as sometimes having had the date added after 'witness signature' by another person, adding a random date to suit a court or POPLA case. These witness statements are therefore not relevant to a specific event and the details are far too unreliable to confirm compliance of the contract as defined in the BPA CoP and would fail to meet the level of certainty required for a POPLA or court decision. If UKCPS produce a 'witness statement' I contend that 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 instead of the landowner contract itself, that this is disregarded and that the Chief Adjudicator is required to investigate this issue and consider carefully the serious irregularities known about these documents if the assessor in my case is minded to consider one as evidence.

4. The driver of the vehicle at the time did not see a PCN notice attached to the windscreen of the vehicle as alleged by UKCPS. I would therefore put UKCPS to prove that the ticket was in fact attached to the windscreen as stated by photographic evidence.

Finally, a third party agent cannot pursue such a charge anyway, as was found in ParkingEye v Sharma: Case No. 3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court23/10/2013. District Judge Jenkins dismissed the case on the grounds that the parking contract was a commercial matter between Parking Eye and the landowner, and didn’t create any contractual relationship with motorists who used the car park. I submit that this applies in this case as well.

Yours,