UKPC weird situation...

swifthit

Hello guys
I have recently received a windscreen ticket from UKPC.
I was parked on my girlfriends parking space (we live together but shes rents the property, and the car is mine) with a UKPC permit in my windscreen, however it was partially blocked by the gate keycard.

I thought because we technically rent the space which they have planted a ticket on, we would not have to pay. My girlfriend sent an appeal to them via there website, and we got a letter back today.

They have said, they will reduce the fine to £15 but the ticket was issued correctly so it willnot be wavered, they also said if i choose to go to POPLA and fail i will have to pay £100 instead of the reduced £15.

Would it be better to just pay the £15? I find it really shocking that im being charged for parking on our parking space :S


Any help would be appreciated, thanks.

ledsons_teeth

Yes it would be easier to pay the £15. It would also be very,very stupid. As you say, you/your girlfriend rent the space. Why would they drop from £100 to £15 if they had a leg to stand on? Your permit was there. End of.... Take it to POPLA and cost them £27+ for their sheer effrontery. Trust the people here to help you through it. Write back demanding your POPLA code and they'll probably not even bother you again.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Have you got your popla code?

read here and learn what wins at popla

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

4consumerrights

swifthit wrote: »

Hello guys
I have recently received a windscreen ticket from UKPC.
I was parked on my girlfriends parking space (we live together but shes rents the property, and the car is mine) with a UKPC permit in my windscreen, however it was partially blocked by the gate keycard.

I thought because we technically rent the space which they have planted a ticket on, we would not have to pay. My girlfriend sent an appeal to them via there website, and we got a letter back today.

They have said, they will reduce the fine to £15 but the ticket was issued correctly so it willnot be wavered, they also said if i choose to go to POPLA and fail i will have to pay £100 instead of the reduced £15.

Would it be better to just pay the £15? I find it really shocking that im being charged for parking on our parking space :S


Any help would be appreciated, thanks.

It is not a fine and UKPC often reduce their parking charge to £15 when they do not have a leg to stand on (talking from personal experience here) - Do not accept their bribe of the £15 by not appealing to POPLA nonesense.

Did they provide the POPLA code - 10 digit number - use it and appeal. Post it up before submitting,

fisherjim

UKPC are just scammers, they will have realised their stupid attendant has basically messed up, and as you have appealed their ridiculous charge they are hoping you will fall for this further scam goodwill gesture!

Coupon-mad

We win at POPLA 100% of the time so this is a no-brainer - read the sticky thread and learn how to word a winning POPLA appeal copied from examples!

You just need the usual POPLA wording but in your no GPEOL paragraph (see the NEWBIES sticky thread) you can word it something like the following. Bear in mind this is NOT the whole POPLA appeal - it is just ONE point from the NEWBIES thread 'How to win at POPLA' hyperlink!:


NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS.
The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to any loss that could possibly have been suffered by the Landowner or the Operator. A UKPC sign 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.

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, wages, uniforms, signage, office costs) would still have been the same.

UKPC have helped prove my point by effectively confirming that their £100 charge cannot possibly represent a genuine pre-estimate of any loss caused by the parking event. In their rejection letter with the POPLA code, UKPC have varied their 'loss' claim massively, from £100 down to a 'bargain offer' of £15. UKPC must explain in their evidence for POPLA, how a loss amount apparently flowing from a specific parking incident can suddenly be slashed, then leap back to £100. I am also aware that UKPC's website recently removed a telling paragraph which stated 'we get all our revenue from our PCNs' as part of their marketing FAQs. However the truth of this 'revenue' statement will be shown in the unredacted contract with their client where it will show UKPC pay their clients a 'revenue share' of 10% (no loss there then!). I put UKPC to strict proof otherwise.

The Department for Transport guidelines state that: "Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver." In the Office of Fair Trading information to the BPA about parking charges: ''The OFT expressed the view that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable, simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists.” 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.“

swifthit

Thanks for the information guys. There is alot of information to take in from all these threads and posts. I noticed on the POPLA thread it gives me the popla's which have been allowed or refused, and parking on own land has been refused on both occasions? is it hard to win through popla for parking on my own space without fully visible permit?

As much as i want to fight this it seems really complicated to compile a document i dont even understand myself. I also have received a POPLA reference number from UKPC now. Do i need to change the grounds of which im appealing, for example do i need to target more around the cost of the ticket compared to the loss they really incurred?


Genuine pre-estimate of loss
#4 (refused), #5 (refused), #18 (allowed), #34 (allowed), #48 (allowed), #68 (allowed), #77 (allowed), #81 (allowed), #90 (allowed), #93 (allowed), #94 (refused) [note, report disputed], #118 (allowed), #121 allowed), #138 (allowed), #144 (allowed), #166 (allowed), #181 (allowed), #182 (allowed), #187 (allowed), #193 (allowed), #194 (allowed), #198 (allowed), #199 allowed), #206 (allowed), #207 (allowed), #208 (allowed), #209 (allowed), #210 (allowed), #187 (allowed), #193 (allowed), #194 (allowed), #229 (allowed), #235 (allowed), #236 (allowed), #237 (allowed), #240 (allowed), #243 (allowed), #255 (allowed), #262 (allowed), #263 (allowed), #272 (allowed), #275 (allowed), #285 (allowed), #288 (allowed), #291 (allowed), #296 (allowed), #298 (allowed), #299 (allowed), #309 (allowed), #317 (allowed), #321 (allowed), #326 (allowed), #332 (allowed), #336 (allowed), #341 (allowed),
Unclear signage
#14 (allowed), #133 (allowed), #178 (refused), #273 (allowed), #297 (allowed)

Double dip
#40 (allowed), #185 (refused), #245 (refused),

Short overstay
#44 (refused),

Parked in own space
#49 (refused), #58 (refused),

SevenTowers

Also have a read and listen to this, it will give you an idea of the complete lack of scrupples of the company you are dealing with.

http://www.tracykiss.com/product-reviews/my-ukpc-parking-charge/

Btw, there is nothing weird about your situation, UKPC try these tactics all the time, they will pull all sorts of sharp practice to get their hands on your money.

4consumerrights

UKPC are easy to beat at POPLA especially when they make mistakes with their photographs as in your case which you can also include as part of the appeal

Your POPLA appeal based on this:

Lack of proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner which enables UKPC as a creditor to pursue parking charges through to court - A full unredacted contract is therefore required to be shown which grants these rights between UKPC and the Landowner. The registered keeper lives at the property and therefore is entitled to park in the space and has paid for the parking space, under the terms of the AST and is entitled by law to peaceful enjoyment of the property.

The amount charged is disproportionate and punitive and does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss for any alleged breach and thus constitutes an unlawful penalty. UKPC raise all their revenue from the collection of parking charges and offer their services free to clients, with a 10% rebate on all parking charges collected. A full breakdown of costs is therefore required to show that this is indeed a genuine pre-estimate of loss calculated as flowing from the breach of this particular allegation that the parking contravention occurred. The Office of Fair Trading has also confirmed that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists.


The signage is non-compliant with BPA COP and as a permit (which was displayed - see photo attached) is included in the terms of the tenancy agreement, there was no loss incurred and no terms were breached. UKPC rejected my initial claim and offered a reduced settlement offer should this appeal not go forward to POPLA. This therefore further demonstrates that their charges do not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss and that this indeed constitutes an unlawful penalty


The registered keeper further contends that the notice is not compliant under POFA and that as the above points all indicate UKPC have breached their AOS status by breaching the Code of Practice set out by the BPA - it is further contended that the registered keeper details were unlawfully obtained as there was no reasonable cause. This is a direct contravention with the contract UKPC hold with the DVLA.

swifthit

4consumerrights wrote: »

UKPC are easy to beat at POPLA especially when they make mistakes with their photographs as in your case which you can also include as part of the appeal

Your POPLA appeal based on this:

Lack of proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner which enables UKPC as a creditor to pursue parking charges through to court - A full unredacted contract is therefore required to be shown which grants these rights between UKPC and the Landowner. The registered keeper lives at the property and therefore is entitled to park in the space and has paid for the parking space, under the terms of the AST and is entitled by law to peaceful enjoyment of the property.

The amount charged is disproportionate and punitive and does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss for any alleged breach and thus constitutes an unlawful penalty. UKPC raise all their revenue from the collection of parking charges and offer their services free to clients, with a 10% rebate on all parking charges collected. A full breakdown of costs is therefore required to show that this is indeed a genuine pre-estimate of loss calculated as flowing from the breach of this particular allegation that the parking contravention occurred. The Office of Fair Trading has also confirmed that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists.


The signage is non-compliant with BPA COP and as a permit (which was displayed - see photo attached) is included in the terms of the tenancy agreement, there was no loss incurred and no terms were breached. UKPC rejected my initial claim and offered a reduced settlement offer should this appeal not go forward to POPLA. This therefore further demonstrates that their charges do not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss and that this indeed constitutes an unlawful penalty


The registered keeper further contends that the notice is not compliant under POFA and that as the above points all indicate UKPC have breached their AOS status by breaching the Code of Practice set out by the BPA - it is further contended that the registered keeper details were unlawfully obtained as there was no reasonable cause. This is a direct contravention with the contract UKPC hold with the DVLA.

Wow thats amazing, thank you very much for the help! I will sent that to Popla tomorow, and cross my fingers ! :money:

4consumerrights

@Swifthit - don't just copy and paste the above - you will have to change the wording and you will need to start off by saying

"I am the registered keeper etc......

and the genuine pre-estimate of loss part can be expanded using coupon mad's wording above.


Also you should be looking at the tenancy terms in your contract and what is says about parking - does it include permits etc - as if it doesn't then in all likelihood your landlord may be unaware of the situation also. Your local rent officer at the council could also be involved as this could be deemed as harassment for which there are specific laws regarding peaceful enjoyment of the property. You are paying for the property and associated parking space.