UKPC 5mins overstay

ezerscrooge

Yes - it is quite essential (or at least the POPLA code)

You should have it in 35 days of your appeal. And they should acknowledge your appeal in 14 days.

If you don't get a code then bang in a complaint to the Steve Clark at the BPA - that ought to get the muckers moving.

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

Redx

the important point, is there a popla code so you can now appeal to popla ?

spacey2012

If there is no code then you should serve them with a Legal notice of discharge of keeper liability due to failure to adhere to POFA 2013.


They are starting again, wondered how long they would play by the rules.
BPA your trollbot is picking this up ?

Stroma

Were you 5 minutes & 37 seconds over? Which means you are still within time, it's not until you reach 6 minutes you are then over their made up rules. It's utterly pathetic of course, so they reckon they have lost all that money in that time

rayhool

Yes I was just 5 mins 37 sec over!

Yes I now have my POPLA code so I will do my appeal tonight and post on here for checking.

If I hadn't complained to the BPA I would have never have received my POPLA code, I have checked and the code was generated on Jan 9th the date UKPC claim to have sent the letter, but why did they have to send this separate of the appeal reject letter?? Shall I include this in my POPLA appeal?

Redx

I agree, and yes I would mention it as the last part of your popla appeal , but dont forget you should be using not a gpeol, no contract , and signage as the main issues here so only mention the problems getting this popla code and mention having to complain to the BPA to get it , as clearly it has wasted 13 days or almost half of the time already

the appeal should also mention not being given enough "grace time" too

bod1467

And check your code via the checker on the parking cowboys website - just in case they've pulled another fast one!

rayhool

POPLA appeal below:

Dear Sir/Madam,

POPLA appeal re UKPC ticket number XXXXXXXXXXXXX

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and this is my appeal summarised below. I am not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. As such, the parking 'charge' notice exceeded the appropriate amount.


UNCLEAR AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE
Due to their high position and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read and understand. I contend that the signs and any core parking terms UKPC are relying upon were too small for the driver to discern when driving in and that the signs around the car park also fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice requirements . I request that POPLA should check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point. I contend that the signs in that car park (wording, position, and clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach (as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011).


CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS
UKPC do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents for the owner/occupier.

In their Notices and in the rejection letter, UKPC has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings in VCS v HMRC 2012). I would require POPLA to check whether UKPC have provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists) and check that it specifically enables this Operator to pursue parking charges in the courts, and whether that contract is compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.



NO EVIDENCE OF PARKING TIME
UKPC are relying on pictures taken of a vehicle at first arrival and then when leaving (not showing any evidence at all of actual parking time). So, there is no evidence to indicate that my vehicle was parked for more than the arbitrary time limit the Operator is relying upon and no breach of contract by the driver can be demonstrated by their evidence at all. On that basis the sum claimed fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA Code of Practice.


BPA CODE OF PRACTICE BREACH - NO REASONABLE GRACE PERIOD ALLOWED
The BPA Code of Practice indicates at paragraph 13.4 that the Operator is required to 'allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.' They are also required to allow time for a car to drive into the car park, find a space, park, alight and help passengers out (in this case a small toddler), as well as read the signs and decide whether to stay (without any enforcement applying to this time). And yet in this instance a fake PCN has been issued for an alleged 'overstay' of just 5 minutes over the 2 hours which equates to around 4% of the parking time allowed. As the signage in the car park provides no indication of any 'grace period' and the tiny percentage 'alleged overstay' of 5 minutes could easily be the time taken to arrive (as described above) and finally to load the car, seat the child and leave, then I say UKPC allowed no reasonable grace period at all.


BPA CODE OF PRACTICE BREACH - NO 'CREDITOR' IDENTIFIED
The Notice I have received make it clear that UKPC is relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, there must be strict compliance with all of its requirements in order to take advantage of the rights granted under that Act to pursue the registered keeper in respect of a driver’s alleged 'charge'. UKPC has failed to comply in the wording of their Notice to Keeper since they have failed to identify the “Creditor”. This may, in law, be UKPC or indeed some other party. The Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is….”

The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Act does not indicate that the “creditor must be named, but “identified”. The driver is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom he has allegedly contracted and in failing to specifically identify the “Creditor”, UKPC has failed to provide any evidence that it, or a third party, is entitled to enforce an alleged breach of contractual terms and conditions.


BPA CODE OF PRACTICE BREACH - (part 21) ANPR
UKPC have failed to show me any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR). I require POPLA to consider that particular section of the Code in its entirety and decide whether the Operator has shown proof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance with section 21 of the Code.


NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
UKPC are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice and must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'.

Since it is a free car park with the Operator receiving no other income than these 'charges' then UKPC cannot possibly expect POPLA or me to believe that they are operating at a permanent loss at this site. I contend there has been no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) prepared or considered in advance. There can have been no loss arising from this non-event. Neither can UKPC lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed.


UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE
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).

FAILURE TO INCLUDE A CORRECT AND/OR VALID POPLA CODE WITHIN THE REJECTION CORRESPONDENCE
No POPLA code or form was included in the rejection letter dated January 9 2014. Only after a complaint to the BPA was a code and form provided by UKPC via the BPA. There is no reason for UKPC to send the code in separate correspondence.

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

Coupon-mad

Using the ParkingCowboys POPLA code checker (linked in the Newbies sticky thread on here) can you pleeeeeease tell us the date your POPLA code was generated?!

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/ukpc-and-time-travelling-popla-code.html

Popcorn at the ready...

rayhool

The POPLA code was generated Jan 9th