UKPC appeal failed, POPLA next, please help!

Annie1960

bod1467 wrote: »

Please see my earlier reply, post #8.

Yes, I'm sure you're right, they may not have read it.

Annie1960

Coupon-mad wrote: »

'How to win at POPLA' is in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread, as a hyperlink, with examples to copy from.

I have followed this link, and maybe I'm just going cross-eyed but I cannot see a link that relates to UKPC - only one involving disabled parking, which does not apply to me.

Can you direct me to the best approach to take with UKPC? There are links for UKCPS, which I assume is a different company.

bod1467

Don't get too hung up on looking for specific UKPC examples. Almost any of the examples listed will do the job for you - e.g. the first two Parking Eye examples.

Annie1960

bod1467 wrote: »

Don't get too hung up on looking for specific UKPC examples. Almost any of the examples listed will do the job for you - e.g. the first two Parking Eye examples.

OK, I'll base it on these examples.

I've just scanned through the first one, and notice it mentions a POPLA form. I don't have a form - just a letter from UKPC and a POPLA reference number. Should there be a form, and if so where can I get one?

ampersand

No Annie,
You can submit your appeal online to POPLA, but may have to re-format, using word.
That verification code is your gateway to the online appeal form.
I always send hard copies of such docs as these, with FREE COP from post office, to have a proven paper trail.
Not everyone does.

bod1467

If sending by post all you need to do is make sure the POPLA code is on each page, and the pages are stapled together. And get a certificate of posting from the PO as said above.

zzzLazyDaisy

If sending the POPLA appeal online, do not simply cut and paste it into the box, because the permitted number of words is too small, so it cuts your appeal off - but they don't tell you this. So simply put something like 'please see attached appeal' in the box and then add the full text of appeal as an attachment.

Personally I prefer to send the whole document by post as well, with a free certificate of posting from the post office, to be on the safe side.

Daisy

Annie1960

Dear Sir/Madam

I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXX and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from UKPC.

Summary of appeal grounds
1. UKPC has not met their keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply.
2. The charge is a penalty and does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
3. Signage is unclear and not compliant with BPA code.
4. UKPC does not have authority or contract to issue these invoices.


1. UKPC has not met their keeper liability requirements under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, therefore keeper liability does not apply.

The reasons for this are that:

(a) a Notice to the Driver was placed on the windscreen. The subsequent Notice to Keeper which was sent to me as the registered keeper did not repeat all the information about how much needed to be paid and when. For example, it did not offer any discount for early payment, which was offered on the original notice to driver.
(b) The notice to keeper did not state the period during which the vehicle was parked. Any time period by definition must include two elements, namely a starting time and a finishing time. The only information on the Notice to Keeper was at specific time, (XXXX) which is not compliant with providing the time period.
(c) UKPC claims it has a contract with the land owner to issue PCNs. It has not identified the person legally entitled to the £90 charge, the creditor.


As UKPC has not complied with all the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, it can therefore only pursue the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As the parking company have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were I submit I am not liable to any charge.


2. The charge is a penalty and does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

It is unclear whether the £90 penalty is issued on the grounds of breach of contract (damages) or as a contractually agreed sum. I therefore appeal on both grounds.
The charge is £90 which is punitive, and does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. According to their own website, UKPC admit that they do not charge landowners for providing their Warden Patrol service. UKPC is a profit-making limited company, and its revenue stream derives from fines such as the £90 fine I am appealing. Therefore, by definition, the £90 must include paying UKPC’s staff costs, premises costs, management overheads, cost of notices, all other operating costs and overheads, along with an element of profit. It cannot therefore claim that the £90 represents liquidated damages or a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

If my vehicle had displayed the free ticket on that date, the amount payable would have been £0.00.

I have asked UKPC for a breakdown of its losses, and it refused to provide this information. Previous court decisions on this matter (for example Parking Eye v Smith, Manchester County Court) have proven that companies such as UKPC cannot include charges for such things as staff, notices, uniforms etc as these are normal business operating costs, and would be incurred regardless of whether or not the above vehicle had been parked in that space on that particular day. I put UKPC to proof to show exactly what losses have been incurred in the case of this PCN. My own estimate is that the loss is £0.00, as that is the amount that should have been paid for parking for up to one hour. Therefore the maximum amount they are entitled to charge for this PCN is £0.00. Any sum over this is a penalty, and as such it is not permitted under the BPA Code. Finally, if this charge does really represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and is not punitive, why is the charge fixed so that a vehicle parked for less than one hour is given exactly the same penalty as a vehicle parked for ten hours, or one incorrectly parked in a bay?

With reference to The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, I believe that the £90 is punitive and unreasonable, and I put UKPC to proof to show that it is not punitive and reasonable by providing a breakdown to show how they arrived at a sum of £90. They have refused to provide me with this information.


3. Signage is unclear and not compliant with BPA code, so there was no valid contract formed between UKPC and the driver.

There appears to be no signage whatsoever at the entrance to the car park. There is a sign several yards prior to the entrance to the car park, which is on a wall way over to the left, way above eye level for a driver, and as such I do not believe it is compliant with the BPA code. As there is no compliant signage at the entrance to the car park, UKPC has failed to establish the elements of a contract (consideration, offer and acceptance). Any alleged contract (denied in this case), could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It cannot be formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) UKPC has no signage showing full terms which could ever be readable at eye level for a driver. I put UKPC to proof that their signage is fully consistent with the BPA Code.

In addition, I believe UKPC has tried to mislead me in its letter dated X XXXXX, which states, ‘There is no requirement that entrances (sic) signs are erected until 1st October 2015.’ I have checked the current BPA Code of Practice dated 2012, and para 18.2, clearly states the requirement for entrance signs. I believe UKPC are trying to misrepresent the 2012 Code of Practice in their letter to me, as registered keeper, in order to terrorise me into paying their punitive charge.

4. UKPC does not have authority or contract to issue these invoices.

I have requested evidence in the form of the full contact between UKPC and the land owners. UKPC has refused to provide this.

As registered keeper, I have seen no evidence that UKPC has a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession giving them any right to offer parking spaces. This lack of title means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss or whatever (as the basis of their charge is unclear). I believe there is no contract with the land owner/ occupier that entitles UKPC to levy these charges and therefore they have no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). I put UKPC to proof that they have a valid contract, as they refused to provide me with any evidence of this when I asked them.


In my appeal letter to UKPC I made it clear that I would charge them at a rate of £30 per hour if they rejected my appeal. I shall be pursuing them for this following your decision in my favour.


Any comments on the above appeal to POPLA?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

bod1467

Why YET ANOTHER thread?

Annie1960

bod1467 wrote: »

Why YET ANOTHER thread?

You seem to think this is a problem. I don't see why I should not start a new thread for this. Please can you refer me to any guidance if such exists on any limits to the number of threads I may start.