UKPC Parking Charge..issued in Burnley (but Postcode is Blackburn)

vivvov

Hello All

Still fairly new to posting...Showing due diligence and starting my own thread as directed.

My partner has received a Parking Charge from UKPC for late feb..so time to appeal. She has passed it onto me. She is the registered keeper but she was not the driver at the time of the issuing of the Penalty Charge.
I had heard from a friend "Do not pay anything if this happens..it's a scam" so came onto the forum and searched UKPC and lo and behold..so much info! I'm wading through all the Newbie info but it is slightly overwhelming.

I thought I'd provide pertinent info as set out of the letter so as expert advice can be provided (many thanks in advance)... this forum: info at fingertips and learn something every time.

The layout of the letter received from UKPC:

Page 1:
Has a Penalty Charge Ref Number top right..plus date and vehicle details.

It was issued late Feb..so Partner has plenty of time to lodge an appeal (states 28 days).
No actual ticket was issued and left with the vehicle (that anyone is aware of).

Interesting thing is that it states" vehicle recorded parked on our client's private property at Burnley Retail Park, BB11 2DL from entry time to exit time....".(this postcode is not a Burnley Postcode it is a Blackburn Postcode)...I google-mapped "Burnley Retail Park" and it came up Aldi carpark. I checked the car park and signs state £70 fine (NOT £100 generously reduced to £60 for early coughing up, as stated on the letter received from UKPC).
There are photographs of the vehicle(...somewhere in England!!) and times of entry/exit. (Possible double stay/double shop..unfortunately no shopping receipts).

The letter states "checked DVLA and Partner is Keeper..Driver to required to pay the outstanding charge..UKPC invite Keeper to provide Driver name/address"..if 28 days lapses then Keeper, under Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedom Act 2012..keeper liable..
Payment not received in 28 days..further debt recovery costs..
In bold..fail either to notify us of driver or to pay amount, will have legal right to recovery full amount from Keeper.

Page 2.
Headed Sections:

Late Payment ..States Parking Charge lawfully issued and collection process will be carried out in accordance with Administration of Justice Act 1970...may lead to Court proceedings..failure to pay..forwarding to a debt recovery agency..with additional £60 added.

Contesting this Parking Charge..for review, write within 28 days..
If we reject your challenge.. you will be given opportunity to request independent arbitration with POPLA independent appeals service.

Data Protection...blah,blah.

I guess my question is at what part of the process am I at with regards to telling them to" leave it out"?

I feel i owe it to myself to make sure I correctly put this issue to bed. Also my my parents (who are OAP and would pay as soon as see this letter) often use the Aldi's car park to shop at Aldi and then pop into town.. so could also be caught out by this scam.

Thanks all in advance for good advice.

Vivvov

Coupon-mad

The layout of the letter received from UKPC:

Page 1:
Has a Penalty Charge Ref Number top right..plus date and vehicle details.

It was issued late Feb..so Partner has plenty of time to lodge an appeal (states 28 days).

Easy. The keeper sends the template 'first appeal' I have written in the NEWBIES thread. Then you get a rejection & POPLA code and then you go back to the NEWBIES thread and read post #3 'How to win at POPLA'. And if you want more help then you can show us your POPLA draft (no need to share your first appeal draft as you can use the template 'one size fits all' in the NEWBIEs thread).

4consumerrights

And it is NOT a PENALTY charge - but a speculative invoice.

Interesting though a mistake with postcode - they are pretty useless though UKPC with stuff like that and photos.

and varying amount of parking charge - will be good for addional points for the POPLA appeal if needed.

da_rule

The wrong address is going to mean that you can use a further appeal point of the PCN (Parking Charge Notice) being incorrectly issued. Something which I recently won a POPLA appeal on.

The fact that that signage and the PCN you received have different values on them is also good. As I'm sure you are aware, these issues are basically contractual disputes, with the 'fines' actually being penalty clauses. The fact that they are different means that they are in breach of the contract themselves, thus making it unenforceable. I would recommend you go and photograph the signage as soon as possible (especially as you've given the address in the forum and the parking companies monitor this forum).

vivvov

Appreciate the help.

I'll get my Partner onto it.
Got the photo of the signage: It may or may not be the car park!!..there are a number of Burnley retail parks.... I guessed it may be the Aldi carpark due to it being the first one Google threw up.
Thanks All

vivvov

Also just realised the postcode is a legitimate one in Burnley..must have fat fingered the postcode first time round! Still will do as directed.
Thanks All

Burnley_Lad

The post code is definitely a Burnley postcode (BB11), and Burnley Retail Park is the car park where Poundstretcher and TK Maxx is - opposite St Peter's Centre.

vivvov

Hello All
(Thanks Burnley_Lad..been and got photos..just didn't see the signs first time round).

Received the UKPC response with POPLA Ref No.
Will read Newbie Post 3 "How to win at Popla" and be back soon with a draft.

vivvov

Hi All

Got the POPLA number and was about to send an email to POPLA similar to Coupon-mad on 28-01-2014, 9:56 PM or
Skalaberg 7/12/13
Also including ''In certain situations, such as where the breach involves a failure to pay a tariff, this initial loss will be obvious. Where it is not obvious, it is for the Operator to demonstrate this initial loss when providing its pre-estimate of loss.''..
Coupon-mad 04-04-2014, 5:20 PM as the The first two hours were free parking..overstayed 35 min.

but thought I'd double check..mainly because they state it's not a penalty (but liquidated damages) and is justified as GPEOL.


The letter from UKPC that came with the POPLA ref number states that:

..enforcing clients terms and conditions of parking.

..sufficient warning.

..PC not punitive, unfair , unreasonable in amount..in line with BPA guidelines..laccepted by Court legally permissable to claim.See Parking Eye v Somerfield Stores(2011), Combined Parking Solutions v Dorrington (2012), CP Sol v Blackburn (2007).

..Taken legal advise ..not only PCs justified on the basis of GPEOL but likely to amount to "liquidated damages". This is because Court's position is that where parties to a contract agree to fix the amount which is to be paid by way of damages in the event of a breach of contract-which is the basis of contract detailed on our signage- a sum stipulated in this way..is likely to be classed as liquidated damages. Either way, our PCs are enforcable and do not amount to "penalty"..Robophone Facilities v Blank the onus of proving penalty rather than liquidated damages is upon you.

..Not necessary to provide you with breakdown of PC at this time..confidential info..available in redacted form when we proceed to independent assessors stage.

..Secondly statement that signage not compliant to BPA is illogical because approved BPA logo clearly displayed (guess my "gaff" in first letter).

..Lastly contract UKPC has with owner or occupier contains a confidentiality clause and not in position to provide the contract to you.

..As member of Approved Operator Scheme, UKPC audited by independent assessor on behalf of BPA to ensure we have all relevant contracts in place. UKPC will provide the court with copy ..also happy to provide confirmation to independent assessor that we are authorised to mnage parking..

Letter ends with 3 options..


So would the POPLA appeal letters (provided by Coupon Mad and/or Skalaberg above) do the job?? Hate to let the side down and lose.

Thanks in advance.

vivvov

Second post of the day on this thread..hope I'm posting in the right place/right thread.

Okay, created this appeal draft to send to POPLA (mainly from a draft by yy2uk 22-11-2013, 5:39 PM, as it seemed to fit my situation but also added a section similar to Danny 27 submitted as his sitution..my overstay of an half hour occurred after 5.30pm therefore retail properties were closed, so no loss of income to shops).


Appeal RE UKPC
I, as the registered keeper received a parking charge penalty for allegedly overstaying in Retail Area parking for 41 minutes. My appeal was refused by UKPC because I had not provided sufficient evidence to show that the driver did not break the terms and conditions on the signage.

I am appealing this penalty on the following points.

1. The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
2. No contract with the Landowner
3. Signage
4. ANPR Accuracy

1. The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss: The Department for Transport guidelines state, in Section 16 Frequently Asked Questions, 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. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not beset at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver."

Considering the alleged 41 minute overstay I contest that £100 is not a reasonable or genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Additionally, As this is a free car park and the stores on site were closed at the time of alleged overstay,there can be no losses incurred from onsite parking charges or retail revenue.

The parking company submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location.
The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I require the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach.

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.

It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.

Additionally the car par is a free car park (with no way of paying to park) and therefore there is no initial loss (e.g. a parking fee outstanding) then there's no loss at all that can be recovered.
Therefore As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication: “In certain situations, such as where the breach involves a failure to pay a tariff, this initial loss will be obvious. However where it is not obvious, it is for the Operator to demonstrate this initial loss when providing its pre-estimate of loss.''

2. No contract with the Landowner: UKPC does not own the car park and I dispute that they have the authority to enter into contracts regarding the land or to pursue charges allegedly arising.
UKPC has also not provided any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver or keeper. They do not own nor have any proprietary or agency rights or assignment of title or share of the land in question. I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park they do not own, or indeed the lawful status to allege a breach of contract in their name.

UKPC must provide the POPLA Adjudicator with documentary evidence in the form of a copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier. Specifically, to comply with the Code of Practice, the contract needs to specifically grant UKPC the right to pursue parking charges in the courts in their own name, as creditor. Please note that a 'Witness Statement' to the effect that a contract is in place between UKPC and the landowner will be insufficient to provide all the required information, and will therefore be unsatisfactory.

3. Signage: I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company are relying upon were too far out of driver’s vision, too high and too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into this car park. UKPC needs to show evidence and signage map/photos on this point - specifically showing the height of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. Any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance. I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B. I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine if said machine was situated on site.

The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.


I put UKPC to strict proof to provide evidence of date of erection of all signage and proof of compliance of that signage with the standards laid down in the TSRGD 2002 and with BPA Code of Practice and BSI Standards.

As Parking Eye are arguing the driver entered into a legal contract with them based ENTIRELY on signage. I put Parking Eye to strict proof to provide POPLA with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of their evidence that each sign was illuminated for the purpose of 'after dark' reading and to provide mapping of the signage.





4. ANPR Accuracy
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require the Operator in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the Parking Eye system and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

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 to impersonate 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 “CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.



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

Kind Regards


Many Thanks

ColliesCarer

Hi Vivvov,

You might be interested if you don't already know that the POPLA appeal submitted by OP Newlook on page 2 of the link below was for UKPC at same postcode as your charge

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4897845

And it recently won on I think no GPEOL - Op has told forum about the win on 10/4/14 - but we don't have the assessors wording - might be worth pm-ing the OP for that and you could include a quote in your appeal from an assessors ruling on the same PPC at same location - slam dunk!!!!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4944388