UKPC Parking Charge Notice Appeal

matt_d_3

Hi all,

First of all a thanks in advance to all those who can help out! As a NEWBIE to this I have taken the advice to read up on this topic and the appeals processes and am looking for some further advice on how to quash this charge.

So now the problem, I received a parking charge from UKPC back in April 2014 for parking in a bay that required a permit at my local shopping center. The actual bay I was parked in was not marked as a permit bay however signage nearby did indicate the area needed a permit.

I quickly appealed this ticket (on the grounds that I was only there for 5 minutes and I was in the process of loading/unloading as the hazard lights were on) and received a letter refusing my appeal unless I present a valid permit etc... It all seemed a little 'copy and pasted' for my liking.

Anyway, since reading up, I understand I was right to appeal but now I am stuck with my next move. Obviously the advice is to appeal with POPLA however I do not know if I have grounds to appeal or not (based on clear signage nearby). I was also driving a company car at the time and am not the registered keeper, not sure if this changes anything.

Any advice in shutting these scammers up would be great.

Thanks!
Matt

Redx

if you have a popla code for a pcn in your own name , then appeal on the usual grounds of not a gpeol , bad signage and no contract , as detailed in the links in post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky thread

you have no idea if that signage complies with the BPA CoP and usually they dont , so no matter what YOU feel about the signs you are putting them to proof that they are valid , that their contract is in place and that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss

usually they fail on all 3 but popla only have to find one in order to grant your appeal

so use all the appeal points you can , to make them prove their case to popla , dont do their job for them

good luck

matt_d_3

Thanks Redx for the reply, I do not currently have a POPLA code, as the letter I received from UKPC states I need to apply in writing to POPLA or use POPLA's website to lodge an appeal.

Should I appeal via POPLA online? Or, should I ask UKPC for a POPLA code?

Hot_Bring

You can't appeal to POPLA without a code from UKPC. You need to DEMAND a code from UKPC.

Redx

as above

I would also mention that you have seen the bbc watchdog programme last night that mentioned delaying tactics like these and tell them you have reported them to the BPA for a breach of the 2014 CoP and the 2014 newsletter that clearly states that a person appealing should receive a popla code in any appeal rejection letter without having to ask for it

I would then report them to the BPA aos compliance section (or to s clark) and enclose copies of all the paperwork as well , especially your appeal and their rejection letter

the more sanction points they get, the morelikely it is that these companies will get sanctioned by the BPA (yeah right , we can only hope)

just double check all the paperwork for a 10 digit popla verification code and a popla sheet also containing the code (in case you missed it) before doing so

matt_d_3

VERY good point, in my haste I had skimmed over the top of the letter containing a POPLA reference number. I guess I lose the BPA angle attack now.

So, I shall be appealing to POPLA using the reference they have given me and also by using one of the letter templates (and modifying to suit my application). Good idea?

Redx

yes, very good idea, get it checked on here if unsure , minus any personal info of course

matt_d_3

Ok so this is template advisable to be used? (I'm not a fan of copy and paste but if it works for others then...):

Dear POPLA Assessor,

Re: UKPC PCN, 000000000000:

I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from UKPC. UKPC claim to manage a free private car park in which the vehicle was recorded, where they deemed my actions “breached their terms and conditions of parking”. UKPC are now requiring payment of a charge of £80 (discounted to £40 if paid within 14 days) for the alleged contravention of parking in a permit space without a valid permit at Yate Shopping Centre Car Park. The issue date on the PCN was 00/00/0000.

I am not the registered keeper of the vehicle as it is a company vehicle, however I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:

1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The parking space the vehicle was parked in belongs to the tenants of the flat and permission was given to park there for free. There is no requirement in the tenancy agreement that requires a parking permit e 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 £80 to £40 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.
Yours Sincerely,

Coupon-mad

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.

The above bit should be in point #2 really, not in the no GPEOL first point.

And you could add a point #4 (I'm guessing you've already admitted you were driving, hence this wording):

4. The bay in question was not marked as a permit bay, there were no lines on the road nor a sign at the bay and I was using it for less then 5 minutes merely to load, not park, and the hazard lights were on which was more than sufficient to alert the UKPC employee to the non-parking activity. My signalling was clearer than theirs! If the Operator had wanted to clearly delineate some bays for permits only they should have clearly marked them as such. Failure to clearly show signs and lines at a bay which looks like any other, is a failure to form any contract about 'permits' with me as driver and there were certainly no signs at all to ban or limit loading/unloading.

matt_d_3

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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.

The above bit should be in point #2 really, not in the no GPEOL first point.

And you could add a point #4 (I'm guessing you've already admitted you were driving, hence this wording):

4. The bay in question was not marked as a permit bay, there were no lines on the road nor a sign at the bay and I was using it for less then 5 minutes merely to load, not park, and the hazard lights were on which was more than sufficient to alert the UKPC employee to the non-parking activity. My signalling was clearer than theirs! If the Operator had wanted to clearly delineate some bays for permits only they should have clearly marked them as such. Failure to clearly show signs and lines at a bay which looks like any other, is a failure to form any contract about 'permits' with me as driver and there were certainly no signs at all to ban or limit loading/unloading.

Umm, considering they have an image of the vehicle parked next to a sign, does this point above still count?...

Coupon-mad

I was going by this that you said: ' The actual bay I was parked in was not marked as a permit bay however signage nearby did indicate the area needed a permit. '

You could still say there was no loading/unloading ban nor lines to indicate such a restriction...