Help with UKPC

MERCEDES_2

Hi 1ST TIME I HAVE USED THIS !!!
Whilst parking at Aldi parking ticket blew off dashboard in the stormy weather got £90 ticket. appealed with ticket,receipt of shopping and fine telling what happened,As no payment needed for car park felt not right.UKPC have rejected and offered £15 fine now or appeal to POPLA with 10 fig ref,
Iam confused on what grounds having read all the posts please can someone help me.if i dont pay £15 will go up to £90 and then £150.
what grounds do i appeal as it says dont give excuses such as ticket on floor !!!
Thank you

bod1467

UKPC are in Aldi car parks? Are you sure it wasn't Parking Eye?

It is not a fine. It WILL NOT go up. You DO NOT have to pay them anything.

Read the NEWBIES sticky thread - it explains everything.

MERCEDES_2

It is UKPC have the letter here. Did read the threads but got confused as law changed. Did appeal to ukpc but they sent out reply i was in fault not showing ticket !!!!so told to appeal to popla but on what grounds ? as the posts say no excuses such as ticket blew on floor.

bod1467

So you haven't actually read the NEWBIES sticky then. You may have skimmed over it, but if you'd actually read it you wouldn't have posted the above.

POPLA appeals are NEVER based on mitigating circumstances. Such appeals ALWAYS lose. So you appeal on points of law - which are all explained in the NEWBIES sticky and linked threads.

Coupon-mad

MERCEDES wrote: »

It is UKPC have the letter here. Did read the threads but got confused as law changed. Did appeal to ukpc but they sent out reply i was in fault not showing ticket !!!!so told to appeal to popla but on what grounds ? as the posts say no excuses such as ticket blew on floor.

Same legal grounds as the examples show in the NEWBIES thread (post #3 of it has a hyperlink 'How to win at POPLA'). That's why you won't find an examples there in the hyperlink, talking about a ticket falling on the floor, of course, because that is NOT how to write a winning POPLA appeal.

We win every time v UKPC. EASY.

ezerscrooge

Give this a crack for a starters... it is quite standard, but do post your draft appeal on here before you send it.

Reading the other threads will put your mind at rest as well - you'll see just how easy it can be to beat these companies.

---

[FONT=&quot]Car Reg : xxxxx[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Location: : xxxxxx[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Date of PCN issue : xxxxxx [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]PCN Number : xxxxxx[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]POPLA Verification Code: xxxxx[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Dear POPLA Assessor,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I'm writing this to appeal a charge sent to me by YYY[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Unlawful penalty clause[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]No authority to levy charges[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Business Rates & Business Legitimacy[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The YYY signs 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. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Accordingly, the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. YYY 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. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
The BPA Code of Practice states:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“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.“[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]and [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. “[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I put YYY to strict proof that that their charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss. To date YYY 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, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included in this pre-estimate of loss.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Unlawful penalty clause - revenue for YYY[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), in Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This transparently punitive charge by YYY is a revenue-raising exercise and is therefore unenforceable in law. YYY's own website is damning in this regard. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So this is (as is proven by the Operator's own website) a revenue-raising scheme disguised as a 'parking ticket' - so in fact it is an unenforceable penalty.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]No authority to levy charges[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]YYY must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner, or a contract that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location. I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles YYY to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I put YYY to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and I demand that the YYY produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and YYY. 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 YYY and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that YYY can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This concludes my appeal.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Kind regards[/FONT]

_______________