UKPC Parking Charge Notice Appeal

matt_d_3

Hi again, just before submitting this to POPLA, can you please skim through the updated version?

Many thanks for your time, it is really appreciated.

Dear POPLA Assessor,

Re: UKPC PCN, 0000000000000:

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 **** 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 **** Shopping Centre and there is no evidence that **** Shopping Centre ask for payment to use their parking facilities. 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.
As the parking facilities are free for the first 4 hours, and as the car was parked for less than 10 minutes before being moved, no genuine loss has been incurred.
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".
Finally, the car park in question is provided “free” to all genuine customers for the first 4 hours. The car was parked in such a way as to cause absolutely no damage or obstruction and was only present for less than 10 minutes, therefore no loss arose from this incident. So it is difficult to see where there is actual loss resulting from the non-payment of this demand; and therefore it is difficult to see how high a figure as £80 (or, indeed, any figure) can be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

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. 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.
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.
There was also no agreement to pay and no consideration/acceptance flowed - so no contract exists. Furthermore, as this ticket was self issued, I require proof that the ticketer was trained in the BPA CoP & an explanation of why no grace period was allowed. In such conditions the BPA CoP does not allow ticketing.

The wording contained within the signage was also unreadable due to its size and format, and even if they could have been seen and read the terms are misleading, with words which attempt to dress up the charge as a 'contractual' fee. It is not; see point 2.

4. No marking on ‘permit holder’ parking bays.
The bay in question was not specifically marked as a permit bay, it was marked identically to all the other spaces in the car park. There were no lines on the road suggesting otherwise and the space was also being used for less than 10 minutes merely to load, not park. The vehicles hazard lights were also showing which was more than sufficient to alert the UKPC employee to the non-parking activity. The signalling of the driver 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.

I look forward to your response in reviewing this case.
Yours Sincerely,
Me

Redx

minor critique

no empty line between paragaphs 2) and 3)

no numbered bullet point summary prior to the main appeal points for easy viewing by the assessor

matt_d_3

That's strange, I have them spaced on my letter in Word. Thanks for the feedback though, I will add a bullet point summary at the start.

Redx

matt_d wrote: »

That's strange, I have them spaced on my letter in Word. Thanks for the feedback though, I will add a bullet point summary at the start.

if you copy and paste from WORD you will get formatting errors on here

copy and paste into NOTEPAD first, save it , then copy and paste from notepad onto here

you can attach the finalised word doc to your online appeal when submitting it

matt_d_3

OK thanks.

The only point I am unsure whether to submit is point #3 about signage not being compliant etc...

If I was the assessor looking at the pictures, I would say the signage is readable and not place too high etc so would dismiss this as evidence. Would using this go against me?

da_rule

Nope, won't go against you. The idea of including it is to make the parking company prove their signage is compliant. This just wastes more of the company's time and energy and makes it less likely that they will try to fight the appeal.

Redx

as above , by making the point you force the PPC to defend the position that their signs are compliant with the BPA CoP , which they rarely are

you are no expert on signage, but have the right to challenge them to prove their case on each and every point

however, if you leave it out , the assessor will not take it into account and the PPC wont have to defend it , for all you know they may make an error like submitting signage of a different car park, or old signs that are no longer used, all kinds of mistakes are possible , it was certainly flawed when queried in court at fistral beach when ivor pecheque took PE to account in altrincham and won and parking prankster has regularly blogged about this and had his own cases where highview have failed miserably on signage issues , it could be as simple as not using black on white or white on black , or fonts that are too small , or incorrect wording

matt_d_3

POPLA appeal submitted, I will keep you updated of progress.

Thanks

matt_d_3

OK so after appealing to POPLA, I also sent a complaint letter to the shopping centre manager. I had basically stated the facts as I did in the POPLA appeal and also added some more blurb/waffle about being shocked that they allow such a notorious firm to profit on their behalf, dissapointed etc (all the good stuff for a complaint really). Anyway, the reply I received was a little strange:

Dear Mr xxxxx
Thank you for your email reference parking at xxxxxxxxxxx.
From your description it seems that you have parked your vehicle in a service yard which acts as a delivery point for the stores. The service yard is strictly controlled via a permit system & for security, health & safety & insurance reasons, members of the public or any unauthorised persons are not permitted to enter.

Please see attached images that show the main signage on entry to the service yard advising persons that the service yard is private property & only authorised vehicles can enter. Also attached is an image of signs that a located in various locations around the service yard advising that a valid permit must be displayed.

Please could you forward the parking charge reference number & your vehicle registration in order for me to clarify the location where your vehicle was parked.

With thanks
xxxx

The images he sent show a sign from UKPC and also a sign from the Shopping Centre saying that the area is restricted and any unauthorised cars will be ticketed...

Not sure if I should provide him my parking details yet or wait for the POPLA appeal to come in?

Thanks.

Coupon-mad

I would wait then when you win, send a printed out copy of the POPLA decision to him and say something like:


Re our recent letters, it is well known that your parking agent's fake 'parking tickets' are unenforceable codswallop anyway. So I decided not to reply to your letter (copy attached) which was missing the usual customer service ethic that a reasonable person would normally expect from a Retail Park. In fact, it appeared to have been written by your agent UKPC as it was full of inaccuracies and was hell-bent on sending pictures of their cheap plastic signs to try to prove that I was in the wrong.

So I have waited until I won the appeal at POPLA stage, as does everyone who points out that UKPC's charges are not a genuine pre-estimate of any loss. I thought I would show you a copy of my POPLA win (attached) and let you and your staff know how to win these appeals because it won't be long before staff members as well as ex-customers like me, get victimised. This always happens when you allow one of these firms onsite - I have researched the matter now that I have experienced the scam first hand. How do you think these firms make their money when they offer this 'protection racket-style' service for free? They have an incentive to issue lots of their fake PCNs - and that is what they do for profit. This is not 'parking management'.

Myself and my family won't be returning in a hurry now we can see how the Shopping Centre responds to valid complaints about this horrendous intimidation of paying customers. You are on the wrong side, your customers are more important than any parasite company.

Yours,