UKPC parking invoice resident's parking space

Sakura-chan

Hi all

I recently found an invoice for £90 issued by UKPC attached to my car, which was parked in the allocated parking space that belongs to the flat I rent. The ticket states "parked in a permit space without displaying a valid permit".

As a valid permit was displayed, though maybe not very clearly in the deposit area in the mid section of the dashboard, I immediately challenged the parking charge online at UKPC's website the same day. I attached photos of my permit and the location where it was displayed to my appeal. The permit was displayed this way for the last 8 months without any problems. UKPC provided photos of my car where the permit is not visible because it is dark and they took photos mainly from the front and driver's side. I think they would have seen the permit if they looked through the window on the passenger's side.

I now received a letter from UKPC informing me about their final decision not to waive the parking charge but offering a reduced payment of £15. They also provide a POPLA code, which I cheked is valid.

I spent some time browsing through the forum today, so I think I will now have the pleasure to put a POPLA appeal together with the help of the templates. However, I have some questions/issues yet, and I'm not sure if they can impact the appeal.

1) There are some mistakes in the ticket. The make is wrong (colour and registration are correct) and the location contains mistakes, i.e. the postcode. I was wondering if the parking attendant is competent in identifying my permit if he cannot even get the make right .

2) I only received a letter with the refusal of my appeal so far. I have read about a NtK letter somewhere in the forum. Do they have to send me one, and do I need to wait with the appeal until I got that? Or did I admit any liability by already appealing to UKPC?

I appreciate any help and advice on this matter. In the meantime I will try to put a draft appeal together.

Best regards
Sakura

SevenTowers

Sakura-chan wrote: »

Hi all

1) There are some mistakes in the ticket. The make is wrong (colour and registration are correct) and the location contains mistakes, i.e. the postcode. I was wondering if the parking attendant is competent in identifying my permit if he cannot even get the make right .

This is a very common tactic for UKPC, the unitiated often think this will be grounds for getting the ticket cancelled, as it would be for a real PCN, and so encourages people to appeal direct to UKPC, thus revealing their identity without the need for UKPC to pay the DVLA £2.50.

Sakura-chan wrote: »

2) I only received a letter with the refusal of my appeal so far. I have read about a NtK letter somewhere in the forum. Do they have to send me one, and do I need to wait with the appeal until I got that? Or did I admit any liability by already appealing to UKPC?

Sakura

It sounds like you appealed after getting the notice to driver on your windscreen, so they didn't need to send a NtK.

It would have been better if you had waited for the NtK as you have now outed yourself as the driver, however it's not fatal as they are easily defeated at POPLA. It sounds that you now know what to do, post your POPLA appeal on here before submitting it to UKPC, the regulars will advise if it is a winning appeal.

The_Slithy_Tove

Sakura-chan wrote: »

1) There are some mistakes in the ticket. The make is wrong (colour and registration are correct) and the location contains mistakes, i.e. the postcode. I was wondering if the parking attendant is competent in identifying my permit if he cannot even get the make right .

Completely irrelevant to your appeal. Concentrate on the important, winning points.

Sakura-chan wrote: »

2) I only received a letter with the refusal of my appeal so far. I have read about a NtK letter somewhere in the forum. Do they have to send me one, and do I need to wait with the appeal until I got that?

A NtK is only sent when they don't get a response from the ticket on the car. As you appealed that, there is no NtK.


I hope you realise their claim is utterly invalid, as they have no contract with the landowner (your landlord). Maybe you should sue them for trespass: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKCPS-liable-for-trespass-

Sakura-chan

Hi all

Thanks for replying so quickly.

I have now drafted an appeal and welcome any advise. Are the three points sufficient or am I missing other important points?

I must admit I got a bit lost when reading through all the other appeals here, so I hope I chose the right points for my case.

"APPEAL RE: UKPC CHARGE ******/******,*********
CAR PARK **/**/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 there 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 £90 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 UKPCdid not 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.

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. Based on the photographs provided by UKPC, I contend that the signs and any core parking terms the operator is relying upon were too small to see, read or understand.

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.

Regards
Sakura

SevenTowers

It looks like a winning appeal to me, but I'll let some of the more POPLA savvy posters confirm.

Guys_Dad

Looks good. But why not add that the permit was on display as per your original post and say that the operative purposely took a picture from a bad angle. Add your photos.

Sakura-chan

Thanks for the suggestions, I added them to the appeal (marked up in red).

Another thing:
I checked my tenancy agreement, and there is no mention about parking at all. I got the permit together with the keys from the letting agent that advertised the flat.
As I still have some time to submit my appeal, would it make sense to check back with my landlord, also regarding who actually owns the parking space / has the contract with UKPC?
Maybe this would be a good opportunity to complain about UKPC's business practice as well.

APPEAL RE: UKPC CHARGE ******/******,*********
CAR PARK **/**/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 £90 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. Besides, a valid permit was displayed (in the same way as shown on the photo as provided by the registered keeper, and in the same way ever since DD MM YYYY), however, UKPC provided photos taken from a bad angle and distance as well as under bad illumination (see attached), where the permit is not visible.


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 (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 or understand.


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.

Coupon-mad

I checked my tenancy agreement, and there is no mention about parking at all. I got the permit together with the keys from the letting agent that advertised the flat.
As I still have some time to submit my appeal, would it make sense to check back with my landlord, also regarding who actually owns the parking space / has the contract with UKPC?
Maybe this would be a good opportunity to complain about UKPC's business practice as well.

Yep as you have time, you could check with the leasehold owner whether their lease actually includes ownership of that space - in which case UKPC are quite possibly trespassing by going into that space.

For the sake of a keyword search of this forum you could find LOADs of threads like yours (search 'UKPC own space' for example). Here's just one, FunnyMunny's thread which is well worth reading, which also links to a letter I wrote for 'tospig' to send out to the managing agents and UKPC to tell them to get lost:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4818110

HTH

Sakura-chan

I have been out on business travel for a while, so couldn't post back earlier, but in the meantime my landlord replied to my request for more information on the parking arrangements in my apartment house. I will just quote:

So sorry to hear you have received a parking ticket, this should not have happened. Your parking permit is no.12345 issued by XY Property Management on 25th April 2013 and I have a letter from Jane Doe, Customer Service Coordinator, for this. It does say in her letter that 'XY Property Management will not become involved in any parking disputes' which is very disappointing but typical of that company! If you need to contact them their e-mail is customercare@xypropertymanagement.co.uk
I have no doubt that you displayed the parking ticket and if it were me I would challenge them further and tell them you will see them in Court before you pay!
The freeholders are ABC Ltd. through XY Property Management and Jennifer Doe (my landlady) is the leasehold owner. UKPC do not own anything here they are merely paid to control the parking and are a very heavy-handed bunch of b******s. Like most parking companies they back down if seriously challenged. Please let me know if I can help further.

Seems that my landlord & landlady are well informed about the business practices of certain private parking and property management companies .

UKPC appear to be in desperate need for money. I saw several neighbours or their visitors getting tickets as well since last weekend.

In addition to my POPLA appeal I will also send a letter of complaint to the property management, using one of the templates in this forum. And I will recommend this to all my neighbours.

Coupon-mad

And even though it's about a different PPC (they are all alike!) Cheeseboard12's thread looks like it might end up with an interesting update in the end!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4906487

Similar situation but with the leaseholders threatening to sue the freeholder over the parking oppression.

Sakura-chan

Thank you for the link, that looks indeed interesting.

I have just submitted my appeal to POPLA and will now prepare a letter of complaint to the property management company.

I hope that I can add to the POPLA success thread soon.