UKPC weird situation...

Coupon-mad

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

Of course - that's because naïve people actually wrote about 'what happened' and the permit! You won't be appealing on that basis and in that case we win 100% of the time.

'How to win at POPLA' is a hyperlink in the NEWBIES sticky thread, post #3 and I already gave you a full pre-written paragraph about no GPEOL and 4Consumerrights gave you some more pointers, above. You will win too.

In fact if you search this forum for 'bargain £15' you should find a recent POPLA appeal v UKPC that I wrote for this EXACT situation - you can copy and amend to suit.

swifthit

Hello guys i have drafted a reply for my case can you check to ensure its fine. Im not too sure if i should mention that the permit is displayed or not, as it was partially covered. Also about the lighting of the signs on the parking as during evening or morning they are hard to see as they have no lighting above or under the sign.

UKPC CHARGE

---

CAR PARK 02/01/2014, VEHICLE REG:

---

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.


1. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.
2. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.
3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and here was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.


Here are the detailed appeal points.


1. The amount demanded is 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 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 £90 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 £90 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 £90. 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.“


As all parking spaces within the development are individually assigned and the vehicle was parked in the correct space at the time it was ticketed, there is no entitlement for any other vehicle to use the parking space in question and therefore no loss has or could have occurred. Also a valid permit was displayed in the windscreen, which showed sufficient evidence that a permit was held.

2. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.


It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.




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.


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 is entitled by law to peaceful enjoyment of the property under the terms of the AST.


3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.


Due to their high position, overall small size and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read, and do not provide any light. (see attached photo as provided by UKPC). I contend that the signs and any core parking terms the operator are relying upon were too small to see, read, understand or see during early hours or evenings.


I require that the Operator's provides documentary evidence and signage map/photos on this point, lighting at night, colours used in cases of driver colour blindness and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach.


This concludes my appeal.

The_Deep

Phew, what are you going to do for afters? Why not tell them that you are very sorry and will not do it again, and use that for Popla.

Coupon-mad

That's good! Leave in the stuff you added about the permit was displayed and the bit about unlit signage as it is all relevant. See if anyone adds anything else - the peaceful enjoyment part could perhaps be expanded a bit to state that you think the lease/agreement the resident has overrides any attempt at a contract foisted upon them by a non-owner third party, especially when the permit was displayed, there was no loss and the ticketer was being unreasonable.

swifthit

Hello guys just wanted to say i won the appeal! The win was only down to the pre-estimate of loss being unclear by UKPC which the assessor stated. They provided a breakdown of the loss incurred by sending us a excel spread sheet, however all the figures were blanked out. In response to this i sent another part of my appeal re-iterating that they still have not justified the cost, and that sending a blanked out spread sheet is not enough to prove the loss they incurred.


Just want to say thanks for the assistance with my case, your all awesome!:money::money::money:

Umkomaas

Thanks for coming back with your result (and well done!) as this feedback is useful to the forum and keeps us motivated to help.

A spreadsheet with the numbers blanked out :rotfl: you just can't make this stuff up! What were they expecting to achieve?

The_Deep

Another appeal where Popla duck the main issue, do they have a right to ticket occupiers legitimately parked in their own space, or are they trespassing or interfering with the occupiers lease/rental agreement rights.

We will have to wait for someone to appeal on these specific issues.

fisherjim

You mean the usual rubbish about: erecting signage, membership of BPA, uniforms etc with the costs blanked out.:rotfl:
They would be blanked out because they cannot attribute them to any loss you caused them.
Idiots, liars and scammers what else.

Well done!:T