UKCPS back down!! PCN issued on a Business Park whilst football match was on

Jailhouse_John

Firstly let me apologise for starting a new thread but I have spent some days reading the advice on this Forum but cannot find a parallel situation.

For many years I have parked on a road in a Trading (not Retail) Estate near Elland Road, Leeds. 2 weeks ago, whilst at a night game, I received a PCN from UK CPS which I did not find on my windscreen until the following day. The PCN accuses me of "parking without a valid permit or authority".

Now on the face of it I am bang to rights as I did not see the huge amount of signage that has appeared following the last game when I parked there some weeks previously.

I have discovered the address of the owner of the site and will follow advise to write and complain on the basis that supporters have parked on the site for many years and the introduction of parking charges should have taken that into account with a warning prior to their introduction. In addition I will add that given that the vehicle was parked on wasteland (designated for future redevelopment on their website) then their costs/expenses associated with the drivers perceived trespass could not be substantiated.

I have not as yet responded to UKCPS so I assume I will be shortly receiving their next missive telling me I owe them £100 instead of the discounted £60 for early payment.

The PCN states that I should make any appeal in the first case to them following which I may appeal to POPLA although nowhere does it mention POPLA 2012.

As a footnote the irony of this is that my grandfather/father were the tenant farmers on this land for the vast majority of the 20th century - so it is like being charged for parking at home!!!!!!

I would appreciate some guidance as to my best way forward with this. (and not supporting LUFC would not be advice that would help!!!)

Many thanks in advance

rew37

They'll need to show a genuine pre estimate of loss equal to £100 at a County Court hearing to actually get any cash out of you - which they won't be able to do. My own option is to ignore these idiots as the chance of them doing court is still very low, but you should follow the advice of the regulars on here who I'm sure will guide you through the whole POPLA process to a very succesful non payment.

HO87

Hi and welcome to MSE

Despite what you think your situation is much like everyone else's. The thing to bend your mind around is not the individual circumstances in which you parked but the legal cracks through which companies like UKCPS worm their way - these are all the same and any appeal you make needs to concentrate on those issues not the situation you collected their invoice in.

Right, after that short intro to the topsy-turvy world of private parking, take yourself off to the Newbies thread and start to read. There is a lot of information there so - and no patronising intended - sit down with a notepad and pen and give it a read through. You might want to allow an hour or so at least but by working your way through it you'll better understand your position - which is perfectly good and one that you can walk away from (if you follow our advice) without having paid UKCPS a penny.

bod1467

Is it UKCPS that often has signage trying to infer a contractual charge rather than a breach of contract? (I ask this, as a POPLA appeal in such circumstances needs to be handled subtly differently).

HO87

bod1467 wrote: »

Is it UKCPS that often has signage trying to infer a contractual charge rather than a breach of contract? (I ask this, as a POPLA appeal in such circumstances needs to be handled subtly differently).

I'm suffering from brain fade today and can't recall. However a quick search of the successful appeal thread shows that on 1 March 2014 an appeal was won on the grounds of no GPEOL which would seem to negate contractual charge.

Coupon-mad

Now on the face of it I am bang to rights

No you are not - you'll win this easily! The only thing I would ask after you've sent off the template appeal in the NEWBIES thread, is please show us the sign that UKCPS are using here at this site. UKCPS sometimes use a sign that alleges a contractual fee even though it's not. Needs a stronger POPLA appeal wording than normal.

bod1467 wrote: »

Is it UKCPS that often has signage trying to infer a contractual charge rather than a breach of contract? (I ask this, as a POPLA appeal in such circumstances needs to be handled subtly differently).

Yes to the above - I have wording that will suit this person's POPLA appeal in due course, just to make sure they win.

Hot_Bring

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No you are not - you'll win this easily! The only thing I would ask after you've sent off the template appeal in the NEWBIES thread, is please show us the sign that UKCPS are suing here at this site. UKCPS sometimes use a sign that alleges a contractual fee even though it's not. Needs a stronger POPLA appeal wording than normal.



Yes to the above - I have wording that will suit this person's POPLA appeal in due course, just to make sure they win.

I'm rather surprised you didn't tell the OP he deserved the charge for being a Leeds fan ( or are you feeling kind because of todays events ? )

OP - Coupon Mad is the lady to listen to.

Jailhouse_John

I have followed advice on here and taken photos of all the signage they are using on this site and I can confirm that they are using the "WARNING Private Land Contractual Agreement" format. I will post up the actual photo in due course

Coupon-mad

Hot_Bring wrote: »

I'm rather surprised you didn't tell the OP he deserved the charge for being a Leeds fan ( or are you feeling kind because of todays events ? )

OP - Coupon Mad is the lady to listen to.

LOL! I was at work and skim-read over the Leeds fan bit. The only poster I ever refused to help was a Palace fan, for obvious reasons.

Jailhouse_John

Coupon-mad wrote: »

LOL! I was at work and skim-read over the Leeds fan bit. The only poster I ever refused to help was a Palace fan, for obvious reasons.

So am I a LUFC filling in a Seagull/Eagle sandwich then???

Coupon-mad UKCPS have used the same sign in my case as the one you have commented on a 'previous clients' case on here.

Unfortunately I am not allowed to post the link to their photo as I am regarded as a "new user" on here. However the thread is one posted by Gr3gftw who has had is Appeal against UKCPS upheld


The only exception is that their sign in Leeds refers to 'This Land' as opposed to parking in bays. The rest is word for word.

Coupon-mad

OK so when you are at POPLA stage this is the sort of appeal you can send - or adapt it first, if needed, to tweak it for factual accuracy (e.g. does the sign say 'do not park HERE' like the one below did?:




Dear POPLA,

POPLA CODE:

As the registered keeper, this is my appeal:

1. Lack of signs - no Contract with Driver
The driver has parked on this site for many years and had no idea the terms had changed. The introduction of parking charges at a site where there were none previously, requires particularly clear signage to draw this to the attention of the public who will not otherwise know of any change. No clear, lit signage was in evidence and it was at night. This site is wasteland, not a lit car park, and any signs were unreflective and on walls where a driver would not see them unless there had been lit signs facing a driver's line of vision at the entrance. This is specific breach of the BPA Code of Practice as regards signage at the entrance being visible from a driver's point of view on arrival, before parking, and the rules about lit/reflective signs.

I have been back in daylight and saw some new, unlit signs which say '...you are agreeing to the following:' & the words that follow are: 'which may be enforced at all times. Disabled Badge holders and motorbikes not exempt'. This was neither a motorbike nor a disabled vehicle. A lower paragraph in small, cluttered font, mentions 'a parking charge...' but this does not follow the sentence about 'agreeing'; nor does it say that a driver 'agrees to pay' anything.

It also says 'do not park HERE unless you agree' but nowhere does the sign define 'here' which to any reasonable person, must be taken to be the place by the sign only, seeing as there are no UKCPS signs at the entrance and it is wasteland with no defined 'site boundary' on any sign.

The driver did not see any UKCPS signs, nor did they accept any offer from UKCPS nor was any consideration exchanged, so the elements of a contract are not established. The driver did not 'agree to pay' £100.

A contractual agreement is not made merely by adding the words 'contractual agreement' on a sign deterring breaches. UKCPS now say by issuing a PCN out of the blue, that parking is for permit holders only with a permit in the windscreen - i.e. otherwise it is not permitted. You cannot enter into a contract to do something that is not permitted; parking is not offered in these circumstances. Any allegation of a lack of permit can only be a matter of breach, for which an operator must demonstrate loss.

2. This PCN is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
There was no £100 loss flowing from this parking event. UKCPS must provide a breakdown of their liquidated damages which cannot include operational costs. Were no breaches to occur then the cost of operating would be the same.

3. UKCPS has no Locus Standi
UKCPS have no standing nor landowner contract which assigns them the specific rights to pursue charges in their own name in the courts nor to form contracts with drivers. A ''site agreement'' or redacted contract will not be sufficient if it shows no terms/rights/charges. I put UKCPS to strict proof of their standing. POPLA please note I am not merely challenging their authority to 'issue PCNs'.

4. The PCN does not comply with POFA2012.
The NTK fails to identify the 'creditor'. Schedule 4 of POFA2012: The notice must—
(h) identify the creditor...
This is a fundamental flaw; there is no 'keeper liability' unless POFA2012 is followed. I am appealing as the registered keeper.

5. Unfair terms - Unrecoverable Penalty
This 'charge' is not a 'contractual fee' as there is no time limit nor payment mechanism - and parking without a permit is not 'allowed'. So, it is a disguised penalty on a badly-worded and unlit sign. It is defined as unfair in the UTTCRs 1999 for a third party to make a consumer pay excessively for an event that would normally be 'breach of contract':

Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens
'18.1.3 'transparency is not necessarily enough on its own to make a term fair...a term may be clear as to what the consumer has to pay, but yet be unfair if it amounts to a 'disguised penalty', that is, a term calculated to make consumers pay excessively for doing something that would normally be a breach of contract.

In addition, it is a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (misleading terms) for a firm to state it is signed up to a Trade Code of Practice or regulation and not adhere to those code rules. Misleading terms render any contract unenforceable under UK and European law.

I request that the PCN is cancelled by POPLA.