Newcastle Airport £60 charge from UK Parking patrol

Jessietodd

I've taken on board what you guys say and cut those comments out, so will this be enough?


To whom it may concern:
POPLA

Re verification code xxxxxxxxxx

I wish to appeal against UK PARKING PATROL and their alleged incidentxxxxx,based upon consideration of the following:

1)The amount demanded is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate ofloss.
2) This was not Relevant Land as defined under POFA 2012; no registeredkeeperliability.
3) UK PARKING PATROL are not the landowner and do not have the standing tooffercontracts nor to bring a claim for trespass.
4) No contract with driver




1) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and thereforeis unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations1999.Parking charges cannot include business costs which would occur whether or notthe alleged contravention took place. The amount claimed is excessive and isbeing enforced as a penalty for allegedly dropping off / picking up in arestricted area.

The BPA Code of Practice states:

“19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breachof contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimateof loss that you suffer.

19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum,that chargecannot be punitive or unreasonable."

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge mustbe a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example,wereno breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement,suchaserecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based uponloss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there wasno such loss. As UK PARKING PATROL are alleging a 'failure to comply'yet cannotshow this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the BPA Code ofPractice, which renders this charge excessive and unenforceable.

2) This was not Relevant Land as defined under POFA 2012; no registered keeperliability.
The driver has not been identified, yet UK PARKING PATROL are claiming POFA2012registered keeper liability for this charge. The registered keeper is not liablefor this charge as Newcastle Airport is designated as an airport by the Secretaryof State and therefore roads within the airport are subject to airport bylaws and soPOFA 2012 does not apply. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if theydisagree with this point and would require them to show evidence includingdocumentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not alreadycovered by bylaws.

3) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts orchargedrivers
UK PARKING PATROL are not the owners of this land and as such they cannot forma contract with the driver, I wish UK PARKING PATROL to provide me with a fullun-redacted copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to formsuch a contract. A witness statement as to the existence of such a contract isnot sufficient. I believe there is no contract with the land ownerthat gives UKPARKING PATROL the legal standing to levy these charges nor pursue them in thecourts in their own name as creditor.
4) No contract with driver.
If a contract is to be formed, upon entering the site a driver must be ableto read, understand and agree to the terms and conditions. A driver could not stopin order to read the signs as they enter the road as then by doing so they wouldblock the junction. In any case, as UK PARKING PATROL are only an agent workingfor the owner, mere signs do not help them to form a contract

Coupon-mad

I would quote POPLA 6060344057 as stated by Benefit Master above, in the 'not relevant land' bit, and add a link to the byelaws for that site (YOUR one).

You would probably win with the above, but there are stronger Airport POPLA appeals than that one you've drafted, talking about secret camera cars and no stopping zones, quoting from the POPLA annual report. Have you don't some forum searches, using 'Newcastle Airport POPLA' or 'Airport no stopping zones' as keywords?

Jessietodd

Sorry Coupon- mad for the lack of knowledge on my behalf -I've googled "POPLA 6060344057 " and no hits - can you advise further please.

bod1467

Did you follow the link in BM's post and read the blog?

6060344057 was the POPLA reference for the blog post in question.

geoffken

Would it not have been cheaper and a lot less hassle to have simply paid £1 and had 10 mins parking.
Disregarding the security issue (REMEMBER GLASGOW!!!?) it has cost you a lot of time and no doubt £s in postage to try to be smart.

BenefitMaster

Do you believe in paying money to people who aren't entitled to it?

If so, I'll give you an address to send your spare £50 notes to - I can certainly use them...

fisherjim

geoffken wrote: »

Would it not have been cheaper and a lot less hassle to have simply paid £1 and had 10 mins parking.
Disregarding the security issue (REMEMBER GLASGOW!!!?) it has cost you a lot of time and no doubt £s in postage to try to be smart.

Of course sending the Glasgow bombers a parking charge notice a couple of weeks after the event would have solved everything!

geoffken

fisherjim wrote: »

Of course sending the Glasgow bombers a parking charge notice a couple of weeks after the event would have solved everything!

Not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse but do you not think after Glasgow it would be a good idea to discourage people from deliberately ignoring restrictions put in place to PROTECT passengers.
A regular ncl user!!!!!

fisherjim

geoffken wrote: »

Not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse but do you not think after Glasgow it would be a good idea to discourage people from deliberately ignoring restrictions put in place to PROTECT passengers.
A regular ncl user!!!!!

I used to fly to Glasgow regularly and they actually stopped vehicle access to the front of the terminal where the bombers struck!
A correct (if rather late) outcome rather than allowing people to take their vehicles up to the terminal so that they can trap them with camera vehicles.
If they were truly concerned about stopping people waiting in a controlled area they would move them on not take pretty photos of them!

geoffken

So those of us who obey the restrictions put in place for our/your safety should not have to pay the consequences of willfully ignoring those signs.
ANARCHY RULES or you broke the rules PAY UP.
This is a money saving site not a "I broke the rules put in place for safety reasons " help me to find a loophole!!!site