UKCPS Popla

matzooi

As the registered keeper of a vehicle which allegedly parked outside of a marked bay, I appealed after receiving the NTK, UKCPS rejected my initial appeal with the standard 'UKCPS can only address the factual issues…' statement.

I've slightly modified a POPLA appeal i found on Pepipoo, how does it look?

As the registered keeper, I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:

1. The charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. UKCPS Ltd has no authority to levy charges
3. Signage
4. Unlawful Penalty Charge
5. Summary

1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

The demand for a payment of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The keeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.

The BPA code of practice states: 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.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.

As UKCPS Ltd claim that I am in breach of a parking contract I therefore put UKCPS Ltd to strict proof to POPLA that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss that they have suffered by providing a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business (such as the erection of signage, the provision of back office services, the maintenance of ANPR cameras, cost of membership of the BPA Ltd etc.) may not be included in this genuine pre-estimate of loss.

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


2. 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.

I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles UKCPS ltd to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as a creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.

I put UKCPS Ltd to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and I demand that UKCPS Ltd produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and UKCPS Ltd.

Please note that 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 UKCPS Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that UKCPS Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

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

3. Signage



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

4. Unlawful Penalty Charge

Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this “charge” is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge in lieu of a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012). The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “PARKING CHARGE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to ones issued by the Police or Council Wardens.

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

5. Summary

On the basis of all the points I have raised, this “charge” fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with basic contract law.

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



Thanks for your help!

4consumerrights

Not bad for a first attempt - was this an ANPR site if so additional points regarding this could be included.

The point regarding signage needs rewording completely and include in this that no contract was made with the driver on the day: such as

The registered keeper has revisited the site in question and it can be proven that the signage does not comply with the BPA's COP appendix B in that the entrance sign was obscure so the driver on the day did not enter any contract with you..... etc

And edit your post - don't help them with suggested signage improvements!

So do some more research - look in the newbie thread and follow links how to win at POPLA . UKCPS delude themselves that they operate contractual charges/ - so check out some successful appeals

Coupon-mad

You have nothing written under signage yet and those other paragraphs can also be improved. Please look at the hyperlink 'How to win at POPLA' in post #3 of the 'NEWBIES please read these FAQs first' sticky thread an find some good ones to copy and adapt a bit more.

That's a good start. But watch out for stuff like 'As UKCPS Ltd claim that I am in breach of a parking contract' which should be 'the driver' and in fact you do not need to refer to 'the keeper' in the third person because that IS you!