UKPC - PCN in Permit Only Car Park

H_P_Lovecraft

Hi all,


I received a NtK a few weeks ago now - the justification on the notice is that the car was parked in a permit bay without permit.


Having read all the newbies stickies, and some of Coupon-mad/SchoolRunMum's posting on a similar case at Pepipoo, I sent a soft appeal through to UKPC. It's a modified version of the Stroma letter, and rejects the PCN on the following:


1) Non-compliant NtK (creditor not identified)
2) Non-compliant signage
3) GPEoL
4) No landowner contract


I've since had a delaying letter back rejecting all the points (although the creditor identification is tenuous), and they've asked that I provide a copy of a resident permit as the only way they will rule one way or another on the appeal.


I guess that as well as delaying, they are aiming for me to acknowledge I do not have a permit. My questions are-


1) Surely as the keeper the permit thing is irrelevant, it would have been up to the driver?
2) If I admit as keeper that I don't have a permit, might it go against me at the POPLA stage?
3) Should I just respond that I have said all I have to say, and either they issue a cancellation or a POPLA code?


4) Sorry for even more questions, but the site is riddled with double yellows, yet in the photos the car is clearly not in a "permit bay", not blocking a permit bay, nor is it on the double yellows. Would those of you with more experience say this was evidence of inconsistent signage?


I can post my soft appeal if you like.


Many thanks to all who have posted the info I relied on to get this far

da_rule

I would send them a letter stating that the driver may have had a permit however you, as the registered keeper, are not in possession of it. And that they either uphold your appeal or reject it and issue a POPLA code. Don't worry about the permit at POPLA, the other areas of appeal are strong enough to enable you to win.

If you decide to send by post then don't send recorded or signed for but get a free proof of postage from the Post Office.

ColliesCarer

Option 3)
Don't worry about the other circumstances on the day - you have appealed it on much higher legal grounds - even if you parked across 4 permit bays the charge is still ludicrous and they have no authority to be charging it.

H_P_Lovecraft

Hi guys, thanks for the useful info, and sorry for the slow response!


I sent off a reply to them at the end of last week that followed what you both said. If you are interested I can post the (redacted) letter I sent.


I guess none of this soft appeal correspondence matters as I'm just after the POPLA code, but will you be able to critique my hard appeal when that time comes?


Thanks again!

The_Deep

Is this a car park for residents of a block of flats? If so, why do you need a PPC permit? Surely your lease allow you the right to park there without the say so of some ex-clampers.

da_rule

Hi, no problem. When you have drafted your POPLA appeal (using the templates in the Newbies sticky thread) then post it up.

H_P_Lovecraft

Apologies that this case has crawled along, I am away frequently with work and never get the chance to chase this stuff.


So after your helpful replies I told UKPC to stop procrastinating and make a judgement on my soft appeal. Then I went away with work again. Beginning of last week I got another letter from UKPC last week -


"Dear sir


Thank you for you recent correspondence in relation to the above parking charge. On the date that the vehicle was parked in breach of the agreed terms and condition, you have told us that you were the registered keeper of the vehicle, but not the driver.


UKPC have not received full payment for this parking charge, so invite you to pay the unpaid charge, or if you were not the driver at the time, to notify us of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass all correspondence that we have sent relating to this charge to the driver.


If at the end of the period of 35 days from the date of this letter, the parking charge has not been paid in full or UKPC do not know the name of the driver and a current address for service of the driver, then subject to the applicable conditions of schedule 4 of the protection of freedoms act 2012, UKPC may have the right to recover the unpaid parking charge from you, the registered keeper.


The parking charge has been on hold whilst on appeal and may now be settled at the reduced rate of £xx provided payment is received by us within 35 days of the date of this letter.


Appeals department"


-No mention of a ruling either way
-No POPLA code
-A phishing exercise for the driver's name
-Last para possibly an implied rejection of the appeal?


Should I report this to DVLA and BPA? Also I'm worried that they are wasting the time allocated for me to submit a POPLA appeal, and that this letter is a subtle rejection of my appeal but without issuing of a POPLA code.


I guess I should just send yet another message demanding a judgement and a POPLA code.

What do you guys think?


Sorry for essay..

Umkomaas

Respond to them quoting this:

BPA note to PPCs:

“the following practices may be considered as Code breaches and must not be continued:
• Asking the motorist to enter into additional correspondence to obtain a POPLA code
• Failing to include a correct and/or valid POPLA Code within the Rejection correspondence
• Issuing a POPLA Code with a date identifier which is significantly different from the date of rejection
• Appearing to indicate that the issue of a POPLA Code is conditional on driver details being supplied “

Report them to the BPA and the DVLA. Send the jokers a copy of your complaints to BPA/DVLA to show them you're not to be messed with and you mean business!

H_P_Lovecraft

Hi all. So you probably forgot about this, but after 11 letters and a complaint to the BPA I finally managed to get UKPC to send me a POPLA code!


I thought the regulars on the site might be interested to know that the BPA raised a complaint on my behalf against UKPC for trying to get me to hand over driver details once at the NtK stage.


The BPA ordered UKPC to send out a POPLA code, but when I asked them what measures would be taken against UKPC I was told that "any action taken against our member is between the BPA and the operator"


I have the details if anyone wants a PM.


Anyway, I'm drafting a POPLA appeal from the sticky and will post up if anyone wishes to critique.


Thanks again.

Umkomaas

Good interim 'result'. The BPA is never going to give anything away concerning their own paymasters - the PPC network! There needs to be a far more powerful and impartial regulatory body, especially as a significant number of PPCs seem to ignore any of the (spurious) rules of this game.

Get your POPLA appeal together and we will provide a fine tuning critique when ready.

Two things:

1. Check your POPLA code against the Parking Cowboys POPLA code checker to ensure it is current (Google will find it for you).

2. Don't miss the POPLA deadline - the easiest opportunity to whack this into the weeds.

H_P_Lovecraft

Hi Umkomaas, I checked out the POPLA code as soon as I got it, it was actually only issued a few days before the letter was sent - not bad really. I've just spent the evening going through the stickies and drafting this. It's roughly a copy of the newest POPLA winning appeal. Really grateful for your thoughts.

POPLA Reference Number: xxxx
PCN Ref: UKPC xxxx
Vehicle Registration: xxxx

As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I received an invoice from UKPC Ltd requiring payment of a charge of £100 for the alleged contravention of parking in a permit space without displaying a permit. The issue date on the invoice is xxxx.

As the registered keeper, I wish to appeal this Notice on the following grounds:

1) THE CHARGE IS A PENALTY AND NOT A GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
The car park is not a commercial car park, it is residential. There are no fees for use of the car park. The car was parked in such a way as to cause no damage or obstruction. For all the above reasons no loss arose from this incident.

In their response to my appeal UKPC did not address this issue, and have not stated why they feel a £100 charge is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss.

For this charge to be justified, a full breakdown of the costs UKPC has suffered as a result of the car being parked at the car park is required. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, parking enforcement or signage erection) should not be included in the breakdown, as these operational costs would have been suffered irrespective of the car being parked at that car park.


The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA that a parking charge is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. Secondly the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event.


2) UNCLEAR, INADEQUATE AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE
Due to their high position, overall small size and the barely legible size of the small print, I believe that the signs and any core parking terms the operator are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand. I contend that the signs on this land (wording, position, clarity) do not comply with guidelines and fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. I also believe that in their illegible state it is not possible to establish the elements of a contract. Any alleged contract could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late.

3) LACK OF PROPRIETARY INTEREST & NON-COMPLIANT CONTRACT WITH LANDOWNER
UKPC's 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. Without this un-redacted evidence I contend I have no liability to UKPC for the PCN. It should also be clear that a landowner witness statement will not suffice as evidence, considering their failure to be accepted in court.

4) THE NOTICE TO KEEPER WAS NOT PROPERLY ISSUED
Failing to include specific identification as to who “the Creditor” may be is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to UKPC Ltd., there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law be UKPC Ltd, or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Appellant to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is…” and the Notice does not.

5) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH INITIAL REQUEST FOR A POPLA CODE
I contacted UKPC following the Notice to Keeper and clearly stated that I denied all liability to their company and required a POPLA verification code for me to appeal independently. UKPC ignored this requirement. I was only able to elicit a POPLA code by registering a complaint with the BPA (ref xxxx)

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