Disabled Parking- UKPC

Martha19

Hi -

I would be so appreciative to anyone who can help.

I received a 'fine' from UKPC over christmas.

I had driven my very elderly grandad to the shops to finish his Christmas shopping. She brought her disabled badge and we set the time. Little did I know that he then proceeded to put her disabled badge back into her bag... Anyway we came back to the car to find the ticket and she was very upset.

I rung UKPC straight away to explain what had happened and ask whether we could appeal. The women was surprisingly helpful and explained how to appeal.

I came home and did this instantly, explaining exactly what had happened and sent them copies of my grandmothers disabled badge (in this I most likely admitted to driving not knowing this might be a catch). I have since had two letters from them saying my appeal is unsuccessful but they have reduced my 'fine' to £15 and sent me a POPLA form to fill out.

My grandma is really upset and wants to just pay the £15 but I feel really strongly that I do not wish to pay a company with such poor morals. I am also a student so wish to endure as little cost as possible. The letter states if I do nothing they may take court action.

I suppose, my main question is how do I proceed? How likely is it that it could result in court action? And should I complete the POPLA form anyway?

Any advice offered will be greatly received. Thank you

martmonk

'finish' christmas shopping where?

a complaint to the retailer/supermarket will be in order.

someone will be along to advise specifically on the Equality Act side of things but in the meantime you should read the NEWBIES thread and the POPLA one and begin to put together your POPLA appeal.

Post it in this thread and you'll get all the help you need to make it a winning one.

bod1467

The choice is yours - pay £15 to make it go away, or pay nothing and put in a POPLA appeal which will win.

PS - check out the POPLA code checker on Parking Cowboy's website, just to make sure it is valid and when it expires (28 days after it was issued).

Martha19

Thanks for the advice.

How do I make it a 'winning POPLA appeal'?/Can I be sure it would win?

martmonk - You recommended The Newbies and POPLA thread - Where do I find these? (Sorry I am not very good at all this!)

Thank you again.

PS I checked the POPLA number - I have 24 days (but I only received it today)

Redx

Martha19 wrote: »

Thanks for the advice.

How do I make it a 'winning POPLA appeal'?/Can I be sure it would win?

martmonk - You recommended The Newbies and POPLA thread - Where do I find these? (Sorry I am not very good at all this!)

Thank you again.

PS I checked the POPLA number - I have 24 days (but I only received it today)

its higher up the forum than this new thread of yours, I suggest you learn how to navigate the forum, but here is the first link https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

look for the other sticky thread near it

ezerscrooge

Something along these lines... someone else may also suggest adding at bit in about the Equality act AND that the PPC have offered to reduce the charge to £15 after being told about the legitimate use of the disabled bay.

[FONT=&quot]I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I'm writing this to appeal a charge sent to me by UKPC.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Unlawful penalty clause[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]No authority to levy charges[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Business Rates & Business Legitimacy[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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 states 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. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
The BPA Code of Practice states:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“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.“[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]and [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. “[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I put UKPC to 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 For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included in this pre-estimate of loss.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Unlawful penalty clause - revenue for UKPC[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This transparently punitive charge by UKPC is a revenue-raising exercise and is therefore unenforceable in law. UKPC's own website is damning in this regard. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So this is (as is proven by the Operator's own website) a revenue-raising scheme disguised as a 'parking ticket' - so in fact it is an unenforceable penalty.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]No authority to levy charges[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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 these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
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 contemporaneous and 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. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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, confirming that the signatory is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner, has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. Business Rates & Business Legitimacy[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As this car park is now being used for the purpose of running a business by UKPC, which is entirely separate from any other businesses the car park services, and generates revenue and profit for UKPC, I do not believe that UKPC has the necessary planning permission or have declared the running of their business venture at this location to the Local Valuation Office and Local Authority for the purpose of the payment of Business Rates.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I put UKPC to strict proof that the necessary planning permission is in place, and that they have registered the business they are operating at xxxxxxxxxx with the Valuation Office and to provide proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority, or to provide proof or explanation of their exemption from such Business Rates. Failure to do so indicates that they are not operating a legitimate business from the premises.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This concludes my appeal.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Kind regards[/FONT]

martmonk

Martha19 wrote: »

Thanks for the advice.

How do I make it a 'winning POPLA appeal'?/Can I be sure it would win?

martmonk - You recommended The Newbies and POPLA thread - Where do I find these? (Sorry I am not very good at all this!)

Thank you again.

PS I checked the POPLA number - I have 24 days (but I only received it today)

at this forum page http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163
which is where you see the list of all threads, there are 8 'sticky' ones - meaning they are always at the top of the page. One is titled 'NEWBIES.....' another is titled 'POPLA....', in that thread go to last page first and follow the links to some of the reported sucesses and you will see the POPLA appeals used by those individuals.

Coupon-mad

ezerscrooge wrote: »

Something along these lines... someone else may also suggest adding at bit in about the Equality act AND that the PPC have offered to reduce the charge to £15 after being told about the legitimate use of the disabled bay.

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I'm writing this to appeal a charge sent to me by UKPC.

I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:

• Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
• Unlawful penalty clause
• No authority to levy charges

1. Charge 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 states 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.

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

I put UKPC to 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 For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included in this pre-estimate of loss.

UKPC have helped prove my case by effectively confirming that their £100 charge cannot possibly represent a genuine pre-estimate of any loss caused by the parking event. The POPLA assessor will notice that in their rejection letter with the POPLA code, UKPC have varied their 'loss' claim massively, from £100 down to a desperate last-gasp 'bargain offer' of £15. I will be interested to see UKPC struggle to explain in their evidence for POPLA, how a loss amount apparently flowing from a specific parking incident can suddenly be slashed like it is some sort of January sale, then leap back to £100 for POPLA!

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.


2. 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 UKPC is a revenue-raising exercise and is therefore unenforceable in law. UKPC's own website is damning in this regard.

So this is (as is proven by the Operator's own website) a revenue-raising scheme disguised as a 'parking ticket' - so in fact it is an unenforceable penalty.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.



3. 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 these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.

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 contemporaneous and 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, confirming that the signatory is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner, has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

This concludes my appeal.

Kind regards

See above for an addition to tell POPLA in the 'no genuine pre-estimate of loss' (winning words paragraph!) about the magically changing amount of 'loss' slashed like a bargain offer, from £100, down to £15! I have added the bit that starts 'UKPC have helped prove my case...'