UKCPS parking ticket help?

Tatteh

So would I be correct to assume that from the lack of agreement surely the ambiguity of the sign would be part of the defense for someone who was involved in an appeal regarding a situation like this?

Also if they had obtained photographic evidence to link the keeper and driver of a vehicle would there still be a case for appeal, I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding all of information that I have been reading?

nigelbb

From the Government website explaining the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/legal-powers/legal/unfair-terms/what-is-unfair#.U4SfTV7zG9o

The plain language requirement

According to the UTCCRs, a standard term must be expressed in plain and intelligible language. A term is open to challenge if it could put the consumer at a disadvantage because he or she is not clear about its meaning - even if its meaning could be worked out by a lawyer. If there is doubt as to what a term means, the meaning most favourable to the consumer will apply.

Coupon-mad

Tatteh wrote: »

Also if they had obtained photographic evidence to link the keeper and driver of a vehicle would there still be a case for appeal, I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding all of information that I have been reading?

How would they do that, seeing as they can't put names to faces? There is ALWAYS a case for you to appeal because the charge is an unfair term - it's not a genuine offer to park nor is it a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The sign is unlit, non-reflective, unclear and with the potential to be hidden by vans & other high vehicles against that wall, and it creates no allowance to park where it is specifically disallowed/unauthorised. Nor does it provide any site boundary and appears to relate to parking alongside that wall only - and the wording talks about 'agreeing to the following' which is not actually agreeing to pay a charge (if you look). The 'following' is vague stuff about disabled bays!

Are there also no entrance signs as you drive in? That's another point against them if there are none at the entrance.

And if you wait for the NTK and send my template from the NEWBIES thread, you can see the template asks UKCPS to elucidate about the basis of their charge (contractual fee or breach). That's why the template is worded that way so you have the facts for POPLA and so they might contradict themselves! When you get the NTK watch out for the wording - check to see if it pretends the time to appeal has 'elapsed' and that the keeper 'can only appeal if the car was stolen'. If so then that's completely wrong and worthy of a complaint to the BPA and to be included in the POPLA words in due course.

Here's a thread discussing a similar sign by UKCPS and I've kept the wording I suggested RyanSunderland should use for POPLA (I assume he won):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4858558

As an aside, I suspect UKCPS will jump to the IPC at some point this year seeing as their signs are often now attempting (badly) to create a contractual fee.

da_rule

The only time that photographic evidence of the sort you are fretting about would come into use would be at court, where it could be produced as an exhibit. However, if you appeal to POPLA as per the templates on this site etc then it will be extremely unlikely that it will go that far.

Also, you haven't been dishonest, you have never claimed not to have been the driver, you have just chosen to correspond as the registered keeper. Whether or not you were the driver at the time is kind of irrelevant as you, as the registered keeper, have a right to appeal and to enter into correspondence regarding your vehicle.

Tatteh

Great replies from you both! That has made the whole issue a lot easier to understand. I thank you both for that.

As for whether there was any signs at the entrance, I do not believe there are and I believe the only other signs are ones that simply say "Residents Only". As for the UKCPS signs, they are actually at a height of around 12 feet. This does however mean that it would not be hard to miss these signs entirely.

Coupon-mad

Except if it was dark/overcast/raining - and 12 feet up is hardly a natural place to read an unexpected contract of t&cs - at least without a stepladder! And also there should be entrance signs (look at appendix B of the BPA code of Practice and you'll see the 'rules' about mandatory entrance signs). Take a pic of the entrance to prove your point on that front, in readiness for POPLA stage. Apart from that, wait for the NTK.

Tatteh

Well I'd just like to say after receiving an NTK and subsequently sending a letter back to them using the template offered on the forum this matter was closed without going anywhere near court or POPLA even, the PCN was cancelled by UKCPS. Sorted .