Ukcps ntk

stevew48

Coupon-mad wrote: »

http://s853.photobucket.com/user/stevew48/media/stevesphonemar141170_zpsb0e25ead.jpg.html

I think I cold see all of them there by clicking on 'next' each time.

What fun! One of the signs says there will be a 'penalty' notice issued and the machine says the fake PCN would be for 'contravening' the terms.

So send the template first appeal I wrote in the NEWBIES thread - no need to adapt it unless you want to add a point #4 to point out the use of the word 'penalty' and state this proves this is not a contractual fee nor a genuine pre-estimate of any loss at all - and see what drivel they send back.

Hi I have now received a further letter from ukcps saying that my appeal was rejected and I should now pay the standard rate and if not received within 14 days I would have to pay £100. I didn't appeal as it was the template letter mentioned above. Today I also received photographs showing the car with a PCN attached to the windscreen. However, when I returned to my car there was nothing on my windscreen !!!. Their picture also shows a white piece of paper on the passenger dashboard in the corner. I believe this was my parking ticket as my daughter was sat there and she got the ticket. They have sent a POPLA code and I have entered it using the link in the NEWBIES thread and it is a genuine code.
Can you please check my draft POPLA letter to see what needs ammending based on your knowledge and the photo link already uploaded in the quote above.

PCN No: xxxxxx

POPLA Code: xxxxxxxxxx

Todays Date

I am the registered keeper of vehicle reg xxx xxxx and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. I wish to appeal against the notice on the following grounds.

1) Lack of BPA compliant signage
The driver entered the car park, the entrance to which had absolutely no signs to indicate that any restrictions applied, as required by the BPA Code of Practice paragraph 18.2 and Appendix B.

2) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The charge demanded far exceeds any loss to the landowner. If it exceeds any loss, it becomes a penalty.

In the appeal, UKCPS did not address this issue, and has not explained whether their charge is relating to a breach of terms, or trespass, or contract (all of which are denied).

3) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner
UKCPS' lack of title or assigned interest in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. Nor do they have the legal status at that site, which would give them any right to offer parking spaces on a contractual basis, as they are not the landowner and I have seen no evidence of a compliant contract with the landowner.

I put UKCPS to strict proof that they have a relevant, contemporaneous contract with the landowner that entitles them to pursue these charges in the courts in their own name as creditor (a requirement of the BPA Code of Practice). Any breach of the BPA Code of Practice means that 'registered keeper liability' has not been established, since full compliance is a pre-requisite of POFA 2012.

4) The Notice to Keeper was not properly issued
The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with POFA 2012 on one count.
- That, it fails to inform the keeper of the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available: paragraph 8(2)(g). This must include:
(a)any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and
(b)any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration.




5) Business Rates and VAT would apply if the charges are contractual agreements for the provision of a service
UKCPS run a business in this car park for revenue and profit, and (although no signs were seen by the driver at all) I now notice that their signage appears to try to create a contractual agreement for 'services'. I put UKCPS to strict proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority Valuation Office in respect of this 'contractual parking service' business, and that they are paying VAT to HM Revenue & Customs.

I respectfully ask the POPLA assessor to consider my points and order that this charge be cancelled.

yours faithfully,



Many thanks

Stevew

Coupon-mad

I would get rid of business rates altogether as an appeal point, personally. And would certainly delete this sentence as it's not true (was on an old POPLA template appeal): 'Any breach of the BPA Code of Practice means that 'registered keeper liability' has not been established, since full compliance is a pre-requisite of POFA 2012.'

And I would suggest this should be:


1) Lack of BPA compliant signage - no contract formed with driver.


...but all the rest is great - very succinct! Oh, can you get this point added in there too, or words to this effect? ''One of the signs and the pay and display machine says there will be a 'penalty' notice issued. Such wording ('penalty') is not only a specific breach of the BPA CoP but also shows the purpose of the charge is to deter and penalise - which is not a recoverable sum in law.''

stevew48

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I would get rid of business rates altogether as an appeal point, personally. And would certainly delete this sentence as it's not true (was on an old POPLA template appeal): 'Any breach of the BPA Code of Practice means that 'registered keeper liability' has not been established, since full compliance is a pre-requisite of POFA 2012.'

And I would suggest this should be:


1) Lack of BPA compliant signage - no contract formed with driver.


...but all the rest is great - very succinct! Oh, can you get this point added in there too, or words to this effect? ''One of the signs and the pay and display machine says there will be a 'penalty' notice issued. Such wording ('penalty') is not only a specific breach of the BPA CoP but also shows the purpose of the charge is to deter and penalise - which is not a recoverable sum in law.''

[FONT=&quot]
Many thanks Coupon Mad. I have ammended it below. Sould I also send the photo of the pay & display machine with the wording in para 3 shown ?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]PCN No: xxxxxx [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]POPLA Code: xxxxxxxxxx [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Todays Date[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I am the registered keeper of vehicle reg xxx xxxx and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. I wish to appeal against the notice on the following grounds.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1) Lack of BPA compliant signage[/FONT] – [FONT=&quot]no contract with driver[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The charge demanded far exceeds any loss to the landowner. If it exceeds any loss, it becomes a penalty.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In the appeal, UKCPS did not address this issue, and has not explained whether their charge is relating to a breach of terms, or trespass, or contract (all of which are denied). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3) One of the signs and the pay and display machine says there will be a 'penalty' notice issued. Such wording ('penalty') is not only a specific breach of the BPA CoP but also shows the purpose of the charge is to deter and penalise - which is not a recoverable sum in law.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]UKCPS' lack of title or assigned interest in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. Nor do they have the legal status at that site, which would give them any right to offer parking spaces on a contractual basis, as they are not the landowner and I have seen no evidence of a compliant contract with the landowner.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I put UKCPS to strict proof that they have a relevant, contemporaneous contract with the landowner that entitles them to pursue these charges in the courts in their own name as creditor (a requirement of the BPA Code of Practice). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]5) The Notice to Keeper was not properly issued[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with POFA 2012 on one count. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]- That, it fails to inform the keeper of the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available: paragraph 8(2)(g). This must include:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot](a)any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot](b)any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I respectfully ask the POPLA assessor to consider my points and order that this charge be cancelled.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Yours faithfully,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Yes I would include photos as evidence for POPLA - there were two 'penalty' words I think, one was on a blue sign?

Re these points I would add a little more, I have added back in your words & more:


1) Lack of BPA compliant signage - no contract formed with driver.
The driver entered the car park, the entrance to which had absolutely no signs to indicate that any restrictions applied, as required by the BPA Code of Practice paragraph 18.2 and Appendix B. No signs were seen at all which would have communicated anything about the risk of a charge over and above the Pay and Display fee. As such, no contract was formed with the driver except the matter of paying the valid P&D fee at the machine, which was the case. No other offer, consideration or acceptance of further terms flowed between the parties.

2) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The charge demanded far exceeds any loss to the landowner. If it exceeds any loss, it becomes a penalty. UKCPS did not address this issue, and has not explained whether their charge is relating to a breach of terms, or trespass, or contract (all of which are denied). Since the driver paid the correct fee and obtained & displayed a ticket enabling the car to park for 24 hours, there was no initial loss. An initial loss is fundamental to the charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by an appellant’s alleged breach. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued and have failed to demonstrate any initial, or consequential loss flowing from this parking event.

stevew48

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes I would include photos as evidence for POPLA - there were two 'penalty' words I think, one was on a blue sign?

Re these points I would add a little more, I have added back in your words & more:


1) Lack of BPA compliant signage - no contract formed with driver.
The driver entered the car park, the entrance to which had absolutely no signs to indicate that any restrictions applied, as required by the BPA Code of Practice paragraph 18.2 and Appendix B. No signs were seen at all which would have communicated anything about the risk of a charge over and above the Pay and Display fee. As such, no contract was formed with the driver except the matter of paying the valid P&D fee at the machine, which was the case. No other offer, consideration or acceptance of further terms flowed between the parties.

2) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The charge demanded far exceeds any loss to the landowner. If it exceeds any loss, it becomes a penalty. UKCPS did not address this issue, and has not explained whether their charge is relating to a breach of terms, or trespass, or contract (all of which are denied). Since the driver paid the correct fee and obtained & displayed a ticket enabling the car to park for 24 hours, there was no initial loss. An initial loss is fundamental to the charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by an appellant’s alleged breach. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued and have failed to demonstrate any initial, or consequential loss flowing from this parking event.

Many thanks Coupon-Mad,

I have ammended the letter

[FONT=&quot]PCN No: xxxxxx

POPLA Code: xxxxxxxxxx

Todays Date

I am the registered keeper of vehicle reg xxx xxxx and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. I wish to appeal against the notice on the following grounds.

1) Lack of BPA compliant signage - no contract formed with driver.
The driver entered the car park, the entrance to which had absolutely no signs to indicate that any restrictions applied, as required by the BPA Code of Practice paragraph 18.2 and Appendix B. No signs were seen at all which would have communicated anything about the risk of a charge over and above the Pay and Display fee. As such, no contract was formed with the driver except the matter of paying the valid P&D fee at the machine, which was the case. No other offer, consideration or acceptance of further terms flowed between the parties.

2) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The charge demanded far exceeds any loss to the landowner. If it exceeds any loss, it becomes a penalty. UKCPS did not address this issue, and has not explained whether their charge is relating to a breach of terms, or trespass, or contract (all of which are denied). Since the driver paid the correct fee and obtained & displayed a ticket enabling the car to park for 24 hours, there was no initial loss. An initial loss is fundamental to the charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by an appellant’s alleged breach. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued and have failed to demonstrate any initial, or consequential loss flowing from this parking event.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3) One of the signs and the pay and display machine says there will be a 'penalty' notice issued. Such wording ('penalty') is not only a specific breach of the BPA CoP but also shows the purpose of the charge is to deter and penalise - which is not a recoverable sum in law.

4) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner
UKCPS' lack of title or assigned interest in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. Nor do they have the legal status at that site, which would give them any right to offer parking spaces on a contractual basis, as they are not the landowner and I have seen no evidence of a compliant contract with the landowner.
I put UKCPS to strict proof that they have a relevant, contemporaneous contract with the landowner that entitles them to pursue these charges in the courts in their own name as creditor (a requirement of the BPA Code of Practice). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5) The Notice to Keeper was not properly issued
The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with POFA 2012 on one count.
- That, it fails to inform the keeper of the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available: paragraph 8(2)(g). This must include:
(a)any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and
(b)any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration.

I respectfully ask the POPLA assessor to consider my points and order that this charge be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,


Hopefully these are the links to the photographs I attend attacheing, the first is the picture they took of an apparent empty dashboard and the second showes the PCN attached to the windscreen where you can make out the shadow of the person taking the photograph. Another link shows a closer view with what i believe is my parking ticket on the dashboard (white phttp://s853.photobucket.com/user/stevew48/media/stevesphonemar141169_zpse934f8b8.jpg.html?filters[user]=139631016&filters[aper). However, the writing is obscured by Ford wr[/FONT]iting etched onto the windscreen.
Are these worth sending ?
http://s853.photobucket.com/user/stevew48/media/IMG-Copy2-Copy_zpsa11c8911.jpg.html
http://s853.photobucket.com/user/stevew48/media/IMG_00012_zps5b5e7611.jpg.html?filters[user]=139631016&filters[recent]=1&sort=1
http://s853.photobucket.com/user/stevew48/media/IMG_0001-Copy2_zpsd121b6ed.jpg.html?filters[us
http://s853.photobucket.com/user/stevew48/media/stevesphonemar141165_zps5f4a1d1f.jpg.html?filters[user]=139631016&filters[
http://s853.photobucket.com/user/stevew48/media/IMG_0001-Copy-Copy_zps5519f044.jpg.html?filters[

sorry for the extras in the links

Steve w

ColliesCarer

I would say yes include them.

I think there may be a limit of 5 files you can attach as evidence so would suggest trying to combine them into one pdf or similar so you can send as one file if there's anything else you also want to send.

POPLA also accept CD/DVD evidence sent in the post but not memory sticks.