Yet another fake UKPC ticket on my own parking space

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Yes just include them

grinderx

OK, in the following link (just copy/paste to your browser ) I 've uploaded the Notice to Keeper letters I received from UKPC

postimg.org/gallery/26ik6ygu/66f67e51/

Umkomaas

In their NtK they state 'recorded on our client's private property', which surely must belong to the landowner.

If they are working for a management company then the above statement is false!

Can you get the landowner to confirm in writing that he has NOT employed UKPC, then you can include that in your appeal. If you can't get it in time for your appeal to UKPC, then it can be included in a POPLA appeal.

They've got no chance against that.

grinderx

Thanks Umkomaas. No I can't get it in time now, but I can get it later need be. But just to clarify, landowner you mean my landlord/estate agent and not the management company, right? Also what do you think about Points 4 and 5 of the appeal I compiled above?

Umkomaas

grinderx wrote: »

Thanks Umkomaas. No I can't get it in time now, but I can get it later need be. But just to clarify, landowner you mean my landlord/estate agent and not the management company, right? Also what do you think about Points 4 and 5 of the appeal I compiled above?

I mean the person who owns the property ('our client's private property', it doesn't say 'the private property managed by our client').

Point 4 is very apposite to this issue. Point 5 I can't get overly excited about as I've never seen POPLA decide an appeal turning on that one point. But as KIFL says leave it in, it's a further indication and example of UKPC's non compliance with the CoP.

grinderx

I understand. I should clarify again that the above appeal is the first soft appeal that I have the right to submit within 28 days hence the question if I need to include all of the above arguments or if it's better to leave them for the POPLA stage. If I 'm not mistaken PPCs can come back with a new Notice to Keeper PoFA compliant letter within 56 days? Or am I wrong on this?

Umkomaas

grinderx wrote: »

I understand. I should clarify again that the above appeal is the first soft appeal that I have the right to submit within 28 days hence the question if I need to include all of the above arguments or if it's better to leave them for the POPLA stage. If I 'm not mistaken PPCs can come back with a new Notice to Keeper PoFA compliant letter within 56 days? Or am I wrong on this?

I understand it's your initial (soft) appeal to the PPC. No matter what you put in it (short and sweet is the norm) it's highly unlikely to deliver a cancellation. What you're aiming for is a POPLA code, where you will win, with forum advice.

I've never seen a case of a PPC coming back with a revised, PoFA compliant NtK, you're reading too much into how 'personalised' this stuff is. You're on a conveyor belt of NtKs spewing off the end of a daily print run - they ain't gonna start rewriting anything specially for your case. And even if they did make it PoFA compliant, it's not the appeal point you're going to win on at POPLA when you've got GPEOL in your submission.

So, stop dissecting everything and get your appeal off to UKPC. They've got 14 days to acknowledge and 35 days to decide and notify you of cancellation or rejection (with accompanying POPLA code).

Time to go for it!

grinderx

Thanks Umkomaas et all. I submitted the appeal online. I had to heavily edit it though, due to the stupid 1000 characters limit on UKPC's appeal website Will go to the post office tomorrow as well.

grinderx

Hello again. UKPC rejected my appeal. I have now a POPLA ref number. After yet again some reading, copying/pasting and editing here is my appeal to POPLA:

Dear POPLA Assessor,

Re: POPLA appeals reference xxxxxxxxxx
UKPC PCN: xxxxxxxx



I am the registered keeper of vehicle reg. xxxxxxxx and contend that I am not liable for the parking charge. I wish to appeal against the PCN notice from UKPC relating to the xxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxx car park for the reasons set-out below.

1. As the registered keeper, I submit that the signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18.2and appendix B. In particular, there is no sign in the eye-line of drivers approaching the xxxxxxxx xxxx entrance to the car park.
2. In the Notice to Keeper letter UKPC failed to identify the creditor who is legally entitled to recover the Parking Charge as highlighted in Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA (Protection of Freedom Acts) 2012. This means that UKPC has failed to establish keeper liability.
3. As the registered keeper and legal tenant of xxxx xxxx street, I do not believe that UKPC has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give them any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, UKPC lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I also believe that there is no contract with the landowner and/or myself as the legal tenant that entitles UKPC to levy these charges and therefore UKPC has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). UKPC must prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code.
4. The charge is a penalty and not 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. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event
   .
   The £100 charge asked for cannot be for any losses caused to the landowner and/or myself as the legal tenant as neither of us charge to park vehicles in the assigned bays. The charge must relate to genuine losses and not general running costs which would have been incurred in any case. Furthermore, a reduced charge of £15 offered by UKPC in its rejection letter following my initial appeal to the company would also seem to prove that the £100 charge cannot be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

For all of the above reasons, I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to order UKPC to cancel the PCN.

Yours sincerely,

I 'm not so sure about point 1 though. The BPA Code of Practice states that a standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance to the parking area, but one of the reasons where this may be impractical is at parking areas where general parking is not permitted. I guess this is the case here (residential car park), right?

Other than that what do you think of the above POPLA appeal?

Thanks again for your help

Coupon-mad

That's fine.

As regards point #1 I would leave it in anyway (don't write off an appeal point, leave it up to them to disprove each point!). I would however turn the signage point towards contract law (because a mere BPA CoP breach alone isn't something POPLA can consider, but a 'no contract with driver' point is:


As the registered keeper, I submit that the signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18.2 and appendix B. In particular, there is no sign in the eye-line of drivers approaching the xxxxxxxx xxxx entrance to the car park. The driver did not see any sign and UKPC offered nothing by way of consideration as this is a free car park for residents (and the car belongs to a resident). Without any element of consideration and without acceptance of clear terms, there is no contract formed with a driver.