UKPC fine (invoice)

jhardesty

Hi all.

The property where I live has the parking controlled by UKPC. I was told by my land lady and the estate agent that the associated parking space is private property although I do display the permit supplied.

I received two fines back in early February which I appealed unsuccessfully and have been asked to pay the reduced rate of £15 each.

Do I pay it and be done or run the risk of appealing further to POPLA and possibly pay £200.

I have photos from them and photos I've taken but cant upload them using the tab above???

Any advice will be really appreciated

anotherbaldrick

Why were you fined if you have a permit ??

da_rule

If you still have time to appeal to POPLA then do it. Use the template appeals in post 3 of the newbies sticky thread. These templates have a 100% success rate at POPLA. You will need to submit 2 appeal (on for each PCN). Post your letter on here before you send it so we can check it for you.

The_Deep

This is UKPC, they specialize in harassing owners/tenants properly parking in their own spaces, you can appeal to Popla and cost them money, you can safely ignore them, they will avoid court like the plague, and you can make life difficuty for them, the managing agents, and the landlord.

See what one victim did.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**

pogofish

anotherbaldrick wrote: »

Why were you fined if you have a permit ??

It is not a fine!

fisherjim

UKPC are scammers they do not manage parking they only want money!
They know they will lose a properly worded POPLA appeal and it will cost them money.
This 'kind offer' of a reduced amount is just their way of conning you into thinking I'll go for that to save money. In reality they are just trying it on the same as they do with all their nasty threats!
It's really your decision but why legitimise their phoney practices by paying up, and letting them know they have another sucker to target next time?

jhardesty

da_rule wrote: »

If you still have time to appeal to POPLA then do it. Use the template appeals in post 3 of the newbies sticky thread. These templates have a 100% success rate at POPLA. You will need to submit 2 appeal (on for each PCN). Post your letter on here before you send it so we can check it for you.

Hate to sound the idiot but checked post #3 in the newbies and couldn't see a template?

da_rule

Sorry my fault. In post number three there is a link which is called 'how to win at POPLA' click this and it brings up a list of templates.

jhardesty

(THIS TEMPLATE???)


Dear POPLA adjudicator,

POPLA appeal re UKPC charge (POPLA code xxxxxxxxxx)

I am writing on as the driver of this car (already admitted) who is not liable for the parking charge for several reasons, not least that to uphold it would constitute disability discrimination. In addition, the vehicle was not improperly parked and the parking 'charge' notice was nothing but a penalty and exceeded the appropriate amount.

SUMMARY OF MY LEGAL RIGHT TO USE THE DISABLED PARKING BAY
The situation is that I went to collect an injured relative from hospital and collected a ticket from the machine as I drove in, which was duly validated by the Hospital (see copy attached).

I am 80 years old and unable to walk any distance due to a recent knee replacement operation; I have a genuine long-term chronic mobility problem but no Blue Badge at present. I appealed against the Parking Charge but UKPC have rejected it and in doing so they have breached UK disability law. This 'charge' cannot be upheld by POPLA as it breaches the applicable primary law.


BREACH OF STATUTE, NAMELY THE EQUALITY ACT 2010 AND THE EHRC 'CODE OF PRACTICE ON SERVICES, PUBLIC FUNCTIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS' (Chapter 5 Indirect Discrimination) WHICH BECAME LAW ON 6TH APRIL 2011

The Operator and Hospital are service-providers who are relying on unenforceable terms which purport to create an inflexible contractual term 'requiring' disabled people to display a Council (on-street only) Blue Badge in order to use a disabled bay. In fact, the Blue Badge scheme does not even lawfully apply in private car parks - as is shown in the Blue Badge booklet and on the Government website. Companies such as UKPC might choose to mention the Badge on their signs but they cannot legally rely on it in isolation as the only indicator of disability need.

The EA takes precedence over any 'contractual' terms and a blanket term to display a Blue Badge is specifically an 'unenforceable term' as defined in the EA. It is an example of a blanket policy which seeks to limit the provision of the disabled bays to 'badge-display only' and thereby causes disadvantage to other people who have certain protected characteristics (which I do, on disability grounds).

''EQUALITY ACT 2010
142(1) Unenforceable terms
A term of a contract is unenforceable against a person in so far as it constitutes, promotes or provides for treatment of that or another person that is of a description prohibited by this Act.
144(1) A term of a contract is unenforceable by a person in whose favour it would operate in so far as it purports to exclude or limit a provision of or made under this Act.

29 Provision of services
(1) A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

(2) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, discriminate against a person (B)—
(a)as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;
(b)by terminating the provision of the service to B;
©by subjecting B to any other detriment.

(3) A service-provider must not, in relation to the provision of the service, harass—
(a)a person requiring the service, or
(b)a person to whom the service-provider provides the service.

(4) A service-provider must not victimise a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

(5) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, victimise a person (B)—
(a)as to the terms on which A provides the service to B; ''


Any term that UKPC may have on their signs to the effect 'Blue Badges only' is null and void if the effect is to deny a disabled person the statutory right to use a reasonable adjustment without penalty. This term unlawfully limits the disabled bay provision and UKPC have subjected me to 'detriment' and harassment.

The unenforceable term requiring all disabled people in those bays to show a Blue Badge may be the result of an ill-conceived attempt to ostensibly comply with the EA in order to convince the Hospital that UKPC follow it. Indeed, it appears to be based on private parking industry-wide misconceptions about disability law. But as it specifically says in the EA, ignorance of disability law and lack of intention to discriminate is no defence for breach and I say that UKPC have shown no regard for the EA nor for the EHRC Statutory 'Equality Act - Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations'.

This parking charge issued as a result of an unenforceable term has created indirect disability discrimination and as such, it is a breach of the EA. It is also a breach of the statutory EHRC 'Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations' (Chapter 5 Indirect Discrimination) which became law on 6 April 2011:

''5.4 What does the Act say?
Indirect discrimination may occur when a service provider applies an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice which puts persons sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage.''

POPLA assessors have completely missed this legal requirement before and I would specifically cite the disabled driver's appeal in the case of Excel v Greenwood which was rejected by POPLA but won by the motorist in court. On 10th April 2013, a POPLA assessor, Shona Watson, erroneously decided in that case, that an Operator's terms & conditions to display a Blue Badge could circumvent the Equality Act 2010. Mr Greenwood subsequently faced Excel in Court on 4th October 2013, and in 3QT60496 the judge decided that the Operator had a legal duty to make a 'reasonable adjustment' for a genuine disabled person.

The Operator's case was lost in court, showing that POPLA was wrong to allow t&cs over disability law - and my case is the same as Excel v Greenwood.


OTHER POINTS OF APPEAL AGAINST THIS CHARGE

UNCLEAR AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE
It is a specific requirement of the BPA Code of Practice paragraph B(18.9) that there must be very clear terms & conditions signage at a height where a disabled driver could have read them when actually parking in a disabled bay - indeed without even needing to get out of the car.

But in fact no such signs with full terms are visible at these disabled bays, only the discriminatory/misleading 'Blue Badge only' sign. I say that the signs in that car park do not comply with the BPA Code of Practice requirements and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach (as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011).

CONTRACT WITH LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS
UKPC do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents for the Hospital. UKPC has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to offer parking spaces, allege breach of contract or enforce parking charges (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings in VCS v HMRC 2012). UKPC has no proprietary interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

I require UKPC to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner (not just a signed slip of paper from someone at the Hospital) because even if one exists, I say it does not specifically enable UKPC to pursue parking charges in the courts. This would not be compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
UKPC are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice and must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'.

UKPC have not shown a breakdown of their alleged 'loss' - which cannot include their operational day-to-day running costs. No claim for loss for a 'breach of terms' can possibly apply to a disabled driver needing and using a 'reasonable adjustment' provision which is directly already provided by the Hospital. Since I obtained a ticket and duly had it validated in the Hospital, there can have been no loss arising from this incident and the only elements of a contract I agreed to were between myself and the Hospital alone. This parking space cannot somehow have been offered again - on more restrictive limited and discriminatory terms - by a mere agent, UKPC.

UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket. This was the case in several compelling and comparable Court decisions such as UKCPS v Murphy April 2012 (a case involving a disabled bay and no Blue Badge, where the 'Parking Charge' was found to be a penalty). Also Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011) and in Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011).

The BPA Ltd (seeking advice on behalf of all AOS members, including UKPC) was warned about such charges being unenforceable by the Office of Fair Trading in 2013. The information that the Office of Fair Trading gave to the BPA Ltd on parking charges expressed the view that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable, simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists. It will not be recoverable if the court finds that it is being imposed as a penalty. If a parking charge is imposed for {breach} under a contract, in order for it to be recoverable as liquidated damages, the court will need to be satisfied of a number of matters, including that it represents a genuine pre-estimate of the loss incurred and that it meets the requirements of applicable consumer protection legislation, for example the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT also expressed the view that the court will also need to be satisfied about who the consumer was contracting with and that this is the party bringing proceedings.

This transparently punitive charge by UKPC is therefore unenforceable.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
I ask that this appeal be allowed and respectfully request POPLA consider the disability protection aspects of the EA in all future cases whether or not the appellant knows to raise it as an issue, as I have done here. A disabled person does not have to raise the Equality Act by name to be protected by its provisions and POPLA has stated that it will consider all applicable laws when making their decisions.

The EA and the EHRC Code of Practice I have referred to is statutory disability legislation which renders any parking contract term null and void if the effect is to deny a protected motorist or passenger their rights (whether it be the right to use a disabled bay unharassed or the right to be allowed an extension on any arbitrary time limit for their visit).

POPLA must surely now order the Operator to cancel this fake PCN. I firmly believe that failure to do so could even leave POPLA exposed to a claim for disability discrimination because POPLA are also a service provider (with the same legal duties under the EA) and the Act is unequivocal.


Signed: {your Dad's name}

Dated:

da_rule

Yes, but get rid of all of the stuff about disability as it doesn't apply to you. Also, consider using this as a template: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4817000 specially posts 37 and 38.

jhardesty

Very quickly done probably left lots in or out??

Dear POPLA Assessor,

Re: UKPC PCN, Reference No:

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from UKPC. UKPC claim to manage the private car parking which the vehicle was recorded in that belongs to the owner of the flat to which I am a tenant. The tenancy agreement for the flat makes no mention to UKPC or any specific requirement for the properties allotted parking space. The space provided is private property for my sole use and is listed in the tenancy I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The parking space the vehicle was parked in belongs to the tenants of the flat. There is no requirement in the tenancy agreement that requires a parking permit be bought to use this space. There was no damage nor obstruction caused so there can be no loss arising from the incident. UKPC notices allege 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event. Given that UKPC offer to reduce the charge from £60 to £15 if the PCN is settled before appealing to POPLA, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging, or trifling as in my case), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The charge from UKPC as a third party business agent is an unenforceable penalty. They have failed to provide proof of any agreement in place between themselves and the landlord of the property who also owns the parking space they claim to manage. No genuine loss has been incurred and permission was granted by the tenants for the parking space to be used.
The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd 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. And 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.

UKPC and POPLA will be familiar with the well-known case on whether a sum is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or a penalty: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v New Garage and Motor Company [1915] AC 79. Indeed I expect ParkingEye might cite it. However, therein is the classic statement, in the speech of Lord Dunedin, that a stipulation: “… will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach.'' There is a presumption... that it is penalty when "a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation, on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage".

2) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
UKPC do not own the land mentioned in their Notice to Keeper and have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. Even if a contract is shown to POPLA, I assert that there are persuasive recent court decisions against UKPC which establish that a mere parking agent has no legal standing nor authority which could impact on visiting drivers.

3) The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there was no valid contract formed between UKPC and the driver.
I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. Further, because UKPC are a mere agent and place their signs so high, they have 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 is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) UKPC have no signage with full terms which could ever be readable at eye level.

4) A valid permit was displayed at the time of issue and evidence has be disregarded by UKPC

I look forward to your response.

Yours Sincerely,