Vehicle owner/driver left site

Spartan1

Forgive me if my searches were not efficient enough, but I can't find any threads on this particular aspect of Fake PCN.

the driver of my car was parked in a business park controlled by UKPC. It was left outside a business unit previously occupied by Comet, which of course went out of business. There were non UKPC signs about the place saying "parking for customers only". There were a couple of other businesses functioning. The Notice to keeper states Vehicle owner/driver left site. They do not provide any evidence photographic or otherwise of this. I'm sending a Soft Appeal to the company appealing the usual non-representative costs and non land-owner as well as a failure under section 18 of the BPA Code because the signs weren't consistent across the site. There is a sign high up on the pedestrian exit with an "if you leave the car park" clause in small highlighted writing (which I wouldn't be able to read without my glasses). What I was wondering though is whether POPLA might expect them to provide evidence that the driver accepted the terms and conditions by leaving the car park - which she/he may or may not have done!

Thanks for any observations/comments

Stroma

You'll be appealing to popla on the following if they reject

1) Genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) no authority or contract to issue invoices
3) inadequate signage

Those in combination are winners

Coupon-mad

While you await the inevitable rejection letter & POPLA code, search the forum for the keywords 'UKPC left site' and change the default search to 'show posts'. Use the 'search this forum' heading on page one next to forum tools. LOADS of threads just like yours.

spikyone

Stroma wrote: »

You'll be appealing to popla on the following if they reject

1) Genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) no authority or contract to issue invoices
3) inadequate signage

Those in combination are winners

Not forgetting:

4) Failure to mitigate loss

Have a search for VCS vs Ibbotson and make sure you reference that in your POPLA appeal. The more points you raise, the better...

ezerscrooge

This one won for me at POPLA with UKCP. Edit the YYY to UKPC.

[FONT=&quot]Car Reg : xxxxx[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Location: : xxxxxx[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Date of PCN issue : xxxxxx [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]PCN Number : xxxxxx[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]POPLA Verification Code: xxxxx[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Dear POPLA Assessor,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I'm writing this to appeal a charge sent to me by YYY[/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 YYY 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. YYY 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 YYY to strict proof that that their charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss. To date YYY 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 YYY[/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 YYY is a revenue-raising exercise and is therefore unenforceable in law. YYY'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]YYY 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 YYY 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 YYY to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and I demand that the YYY produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and YYY. 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 YYY and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that YYY 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 YYY, which is entirely separate from any other businesses the car park services, and generates revenue and profit for YYY, I do not believe that YYY 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 YYY 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]

Spartan1

So I sent a soft appeal and got proof of postage. I haven't heared anything from UKPC, but they have instructed a debt recovery firm to demand even more from me. I guess I need to write to the debt people and say that the issue is under dispute. Is it worth being any firmer and threatening them with a claim for distress if they write to me again?

Thanks for any thoughts/advice

Redx

ignore DC as UKPC should reply within 35 days , or report UKPC to the BPA and DVLA for passing it to debt recovery without replying to your appeal