UKPC - Multiple tickets at residency car park

m3cca

Hello, had a day off today, so had some time to work on the appeal as well as confirm the POPLA end date, so reminder has been set! Also should I insert a rant like in other appeals, stating duration of living in the area for so many years etc, or will this just hurt the facts that you have both helped me craft?

Also can you check that I have used the Beavis clause correctly and inserted enough info regarding the signage for point 4. I have also taken some photos outside to provide evidence of the lack of appropriate signage, or just the lack of signage in areas mentioned in 4. Also does this forum support images, can they be uploaded into the thread?

As always your feedback is greatly appreciated!

Draft Appeal 3

To whom it may concern,
RE: POPLA Ref No: xxx

Parking Charge Notice (PCN): xxx
Vehicle Reg: xxx xxx
Date of issue: xxx
Company in question: UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited

I wish to appeal against the PCN notice on the following grounds.

1. Notice to Keeper, or lack thereof:
The Notice to Keeper was never sent for the screen ticket issued on the xxx, PCN: xxx. POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the validity of a Notice to Keeper is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. Where a Notice to Keeper is to be relied upon to establish liability it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act. As the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the Act, it was not properly issued as I am NOT the registered keeper and I cannot be held liable. I have yet to receive a Notice to Keeper from UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited, the only formal correspondence I have received in the mail is the denial of appeal dated xxx.

2. Proprietary interest:
It is my belief that UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited have no proprietary interest in the land to issue charges and pursue them in their own name, including at court level. In the absence of such title, UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited must have specific contractual authority from the landowner to issue and pursue charges in the courts, and to make contracts with drivers. UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited have not provided any such contract, and therefore I am of the opinion that no such document is in existence. I therefore put UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited to provide strict proof to the POPLA with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between them and the landowner which provides them with the authority to issue and pursue charges. In accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) for Parking on Private Land 2014 - Version 4, February 2014 Article 7 - Written authorisation of the landowner - This must include assignment of the right for UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited to make contracts with drivers and for UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited to pursue them at court in their own name. Please note that a ‘Witness Statement' or ‘Site Agreement' will be insufficient to provide all the required information set out in Article 7.1 and 7.2 and we put UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited to provide strict proof that their contract covers every point in this section of the BPA CoP for Parking on Private Land 2014 - Version 4, February 2014. Furthermore, I put UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited to provide strict proof that their contract (if indeed one exists) provides that it may issue Parking Charges to a vehicle authorised to park on the land by the landowner, under their residential lease agreement.

3. Genuine pre-estimate of loss:
BPA CoP for Parking on Private Land 2014 - Version 4, February 2014 (which UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited have signed up to adhere to) Article 19.5 - If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer. In this case, UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £100 figure is arrived at, whether as an actual or pre-estimated loss. It is my position that UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited has suffered no loss whatsoever in this case. The £100 parking charge is arbitrary and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract or trespass. There has been no loss to the landowner as this is a residential car park and parking is free for permit-holders. As leasehold owners, our household has authority from the freeholder to park a car in that residential parking area so the vehicle was not 'unauthorised' nor did this parking event cause any loss to UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited nor to the freeholder, or the managing agent. An initial loss must be shown in order to claim costs in respect of it. As an initial loss must be shown in order for a charge to constitute a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has failed to show that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I put UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited to provide strict proof to POPLA with a ‘Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss’ incurred due to the vehicle remaining in the parking area for any given period of time. This is therefore an unenforceable penalty and respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charges dismissed for all Parking Charge Notices made against the vehicle (xxx xxx). Furthermore, the £100 charge is clearly punitive and unreasonable.

In regards to the charge being ’commercially justified'. If UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited cite 'ParkingEye v Beavis & Wardley' it's irrelevant since Mr Beavis is taking that flawed small claim decision to the Court of Appeal, just as HHJ Moloney fully expected at the time he made his decision, which was full of caveats and full of holes and a distinct lack of case law. In addition, POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 upon seeing VCS' latest effort at a loss statement - their latest attempt to get around POPLA - that:

''I am not minded to accept that the charge in this case is commercially justified. In each case that I have seen from the higher courts, including those presented here by the Operator, it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty, “if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach”.

This supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''

UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited contracts are nothing like ParkingEye's contract in the Beavis case, where Parking Eye paid £1000 per week for what was in effect a 'fishing licence' to catch victims and where the Operator made out they were the principal. In this case, UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited are merely agents at best, with a bare contractor's licence to put up signage and 'issue tickets' and they are known to be paid by their client so they have no standing nor loss to claim in their own right anyway. Of course money changing hands will affect any calculations of so-called 'loss' and is one of several reasons why UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited must be able to provide strict proof that their contract (if indeed one exists) in full (unredacted) as per point 2. Proprietary interest.

4. Lack of BPA compliant signage:
The driver entered the residential car park, the entrance to which had absolutely no signs to indicate that any restrictions applied, as required by the BPA CoP for Parking on Private Land 2014 - Version 4, February 2014, Article 18.2 - Entrance signs as well as Article 18.3 - Specific parking-terms signage, as there is not enough appropriate signage throughout all the parking bays in the residential parking area, as well as the main entrances to the residential area. The signage, placed in the opposite residential area’s parking area is not lit, or reflective and is extremely poor with inadequate visibility in the dark and is at a height and distance away from the parking bays where the vehicle was located. If indeed THAT signage is applicable to the entire residential area, this is not made clear upon entering and leaving the area, by vehicle, or by foot. UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited are required to provide POPLA with evidence that its signage is compliant with BPA CoP rules upon both entry and where the car in question was parked. Please see attached photos as evidence of the lack of BPA CoP approved signage to: 1. the entrance to the residential parking area, 2. the parking bay bay where the car in question was parked at the time on the PCN, 3. where the car is typically parked and 4. the residential area entrance.

Insert rant here

Sincerely yours.

Coupon-mad

I would amend this part, as shown in red:


1. No keeper liability - Notice to Driver has factual omissions and there was no NTK.

UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited has failed to invoke keeper liability since they have not met the ‘second condition’ in Schedule 4. Nowhere in the Notice to Driver is the 'period of parking' specified as a time period. Under Paragraph 8 (2)(a) of Schedule 4, it states that “The notice must – specify... the period of parking to which the notice relates”. There is an observation time which leads to the issue time of the NTD but this is not necessarily the period of parking. In addition, the Schedule requires that NTD and NTK specifically 'identify the creditor' (this would mean the Notice must state words to the effect 'the creditor is...'). This NTD fails in that respect and - as UKPC are merely an agent - the creditor could easily be the Managing Agent or indeed the landowner, so there is a lack of certainty of the party who should be identified as the creditor.

Further, Schedule 4 requires that the NTD specifies the outstanding parking charges at a time prior to the Notice. This NTD does not specify any ‘outstanding parking charges’ at that time which in this case would be zero but still need to be stated as such in the statutory Notices, in order to properly inform a driver or keeper. The ‘Parking Charge’ on the NTD is certainly not the same sum as any ‘outstanding parking charges’ since the latter are defined in the Schedule as fees which ‘remain unpaid’ before the NTD was issued.

Moreover, UKPC have failed to serve a Notice to Keeper which must also have full details as prescribed by the Schedule, including a period of parking, the creditor and informing the keeper of any parking charges which ‘remained unpaid’ prior to the NTD. At no point has the registered keeper received such a Notice and the time is now expired for that to arrive. There is no excuse for omitting a NTK in the POFA 2012, not even in cases where an appeal has been received. It's a statutory requirement to follow the prescribed issue of Notices which also requires that an Operator can only invoke keeper liability if they have obtained the registered keeper's details from the DVLA (Secretary of State). UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited have not obtained the keeper's details from the DVLA at all, they have assumed that an appellant is a person they can 'assume' was either driver or registered keeper which somehow lets them dispense with the requirements of Schedule 4. This is not the case in law. In fact I am one of the keepers (family members) who 'keep' the car and more than one person drives it. I was not the last driver of the car that day - not the person who parked the car - and nor am I the 'registered keeper' at the DVLA but UKPC appeal to have assumed I may have been one or the other. I cannot be liable.

Remove this from the end of point #3 as it's more about Excel who get paid (UKPC don't):

UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited contracts are nothing like ParkingEye's contract in the Beavis case, where Parking Eye paid £1000 per week for what was in effect a 'fishing licence' to catch victims and where the Operator made out they were the principal. In this case, UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited are merely agents at best, with a bare contractor's licence to put up signage and 'issue tickets' and they are known to be paid by their client so they have no standing nor loss to claim in their own right anyway. Of course money changing hands will affect any calculations of so-called 'loss' and is one of several reasons why UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited must be able to provide strict proof that their contract (if indeed one exists) in full (unredacted) as per point 2. Proprietary interest.

I would add to this as shown in red:

4. Lack of BPA compliant signage and no contract with drivers:
The driver entered the residential car park, the entrance to which had absolutely no signs to indicate that any restrictions applied, as required by the BPA CoP for Parking on Private Land 2014 - Version 4, February 2014, Article 18.2 - Entrance signs as well as Article 18.3 - Specific parking-terms signage, as there is not enough appropriate signage throughout all the parking bays in the residential parking area, as well as the main entrances to the residential area. The signage, placed in the opposite residential area’s parking area is not lit, or reflective and is extremely poor with inadequate visibility in the dark and is at a height and distance away from the parking bays where the vehicle was located.

If indeed THAT signage is applicable to the entire residential area, this is not made clear upon entering and leaving the area, by vehicle, or by foot. UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited are required to provide POPLA with evidence that its signage is compliant with BPA CoP rules upon both entry and where the car in question was parked. Please see attached photos as evidence of the lack of BPA CoP approved signage to: A. the entrance to the residential parking area, B. the parking bay bay where the car in question was parked at the time on the PCN, C. where the car is typically parked and D. the residential area entrance.

Moreover, the signs do not create a contract with residents who already have an established right to park and are entitled to peaceful enjoyment of the property. In fact when UKPC have issued tickets 'in error' to residents before, they have cancelled them, which leads to a legitimate expectation that the signs are not directed at residents at all. Instead of getting the usual 'ticket was issued in error' letter this time, we got a rejection letter with POPLA code. In any case, in order for a contract to exist, consideration must flow from both parties. As the permit to park flows from the Managing Agent (not UKPC who merely act on their behalf as an agent with negative responsibility) and no consideration flows from us as drivers to UKPC, the elements of a contract do not exist. Signs being dotted around the site cannot just create a contract where none is capable of being formed.

Insert rant here

No need for any rant.

Don't forget this doesn't get submitted until close to your POPLA code expiry.

m3cca

Another day off, another draft. Guys I am learning so much about parking, it's incredible. Thank you for your valuable insight and help. I didn't know what this Schedule 4 you mentioned, did a bit of digging in the BPA COP doc and googled a link to Legislation site and found the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, that you were referring to. I too like to understand the short hand and jargon that you use, very insightful, you guys have been doing a lot of research and digging into your subject matter.

The POPLA Deadline is in early October, should I submit on the day of the deadline? Or a day or two before is fine? As I am working on that day and I haven't got my schedule yet. If I am doing a late, I can submit in the morning of the deadline, which shouldn't be an issue.

Anyway onto Draft 4:

To whom it may concern,
RE: POPLA Ref No: xxx

Parking Charge Notice (PCN): xxx
Vehicle Reg: xxx xxx
Date of issue: xxx
Company in question: UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited

I wish to appeal against the PCN notice on the following grounds.

1. No keeper liability - Notice to Driver (NTD) has factual omissions and there was no Notice to Keeper (NTK):
UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited has failed to invoke keeper liability since they have not met the ‘second condition’ in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - Recovery of unpaid parking charges. Nowhere in the Notice to Driver (NTD) is the 'period of parking' specified as a time period. Under Paragraph 8 (2)(a) of Schedule 4, it states that “The notice must – specify... the period of parking to which the notice relates”. There is an observation time which leads to the issue time of the NTD but this is not necessarily the period of parking. In addition, the Schedule requires that NTD and NTK specifically 'identify the creditor' (this would mean the Notice must state words to the effect 'the creditor is...'). This NTD fails in that respect and - as UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited are merely an agent - the creditor could easily be the Managing Agent or indeed the landowner, so there is a lack of certainty of the party who should be identified as the creditor.

Further, Schedule 4 requires that the NTD specifies the outstanding parking charges at a time prior to the Notice. This NTD does not specify any ‘outstanding parking charges’ at that time which in this case would be zero but still need to be stated as such in the statutory Notices, in order to properly inform a driver or keeper. The ‘Parking Charge’ on the NTD is certainly not the same sum as any ‘outstanding parking charges’ since the latter are defined in the Schedule as fees which ‘remain unpaid’ before the NTD was issued.

Moreover, UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited have failed to serve a NTK which must also have full details as prescribed by the Schedule, including a period of parking, the creditor and informing the keeper of any parking charges which ‘remained unpaid’ prior to the NTD. At no point has the registered keeper received such a Notice and the time is now expired for that to arrive. There is no excuse for omitting a NTK in the POFA 2012, not even in cases where an appeal has been received. It's a statutory requirement to follow the prescribed issue of Notices which also requires that an Operator can only invoke keeper liability if they have obtained the registered keeper's details from the DVLA (Secretary of State). UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited have not obtained the keeper's details from the DVLA at all, they have assumed that an appellant is a person they can 'assume' was either driver or registered keeper which somehow lets them dispense with the requirements of Schedule 4. This is not the case in law. In fact I am one of the keepers (family members) who 'keep' the car and more than one person drives it. I was not the last driver of the car that day - not the person who parked the car - and nor am I the 'registered keeper' at the DVLA but UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited appeal to have assumed I may have been one or the other. I cannot be liable.

2. Proprietary interest:
It is my belief that UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited have no proprietary interest in the land to issue charges and pursue them in their own name, including at court level. In the absence of such title, UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited must have specific contractual authority from the landowner to issue and pursue charges in the courts, and to make contracts with drivers. UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited have not provided any such contract, and therefore I am of the opinion that no such document is in existence. I therefore put UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited to provide strict proof to the POPLA with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between them and the landowner which provides them with the authority to issue and pursue charges. In accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) for Parking on Private Land 2014 - Version 4, February 2014 Article 7 - Written authorisation of the landowner - This must include assignment of the right for UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited to make contracts with drivers and for UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited to pursue them at court in their own name. Please note that a ‘Witness Statement' or ‘Site Agreement' will be insufficient to provide all the required information set out in Article 7.1 and 7.2 and we put UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited to provide strict proof that their contract covers every point in this section of the BPA CoP for Parking on Private Land 2014 - Version 4, February 2014. Furthermore, I put UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited to provide strict proof that their contract (if indeed one exists) provides that it may issue Parking Charges to a vehicle authorised to park on the land by the landowner, under their residential lease agreement.

3. Genuine pre-estimate of loss:
BPA CoP for Parking on Private Land 2014 - Version 4, February 2014 (which UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited have signed up to adhere to) Article 19.5 - If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer. In this case, UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £100 figure is arrived at, whether as an actual or pre-estimated loss. It is my position that UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited has suffered no loss whatsoever in this case. The £100 parking charge is arbitrary and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract or trespass. There has been no loss to the landowner as this is a residential car park and parking is free for permit-holders. As leasehold owners, our household has authority from the freeholder to park a car in that residential parking area so the vehicle was not 'unauthorised' nor did this parking event cause any loss to UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited nor to the freeholder, or the managing agent. An initial loss must be shown in order to claim costs in respect of it. As an initial loss must be shown in order for a charge to constitute a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has failed to show that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I put UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited to provide strict proof to POPLA with a ‘Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss’ incurred due to the vehicle remaining in the parking area for any given period of time. This is therefore an unenforceable penalty and respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charges dismissed for all Parking Charge Notices made against the vehicle (KB57 VTY). Furthermore, the £100 charge is clearly punitive and unreasonable.

In regards to the charge being ’commercially justified'. If UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited cite 'ParkingEye v Beavis & Wardley' it's irrelevant since Mr Beavis is taking that flawed small claim decision to the Court of Appeal, just as HHJ Moloney fully expected at the time he made his decision, which was full of caveats and full of holes and a distinct lack of case law. In addition, POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 upon seeing VCS' latest effort at a loss statement - their latest attempt to get around POPLA - that:

''I am not minded to accept that the charge in this case is commercially justified. In each case that I have seen from the higher courts, including those presented here by the Operator, it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty, “if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach”.

This supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''

4. Lack of BPA compliant signage and no contract with drivers:
The driver entered the residential car park, the entrance to which had absolutely no signs to indicate that any restrictions applied, as required by the BPA CoP for Parking on Private Land 2014 - Version 4, February 2014, Article 18.2 - Entrance signs as well as Article 18.3 - Specific parking-terms signage, as there is not enough appropriate signage throughout all the parking bays in the residential parking area, as well as the main entrances to the residential area. The signage, placed in the opposite residential area’s parking area is not lit, or reflective and is extremely poor with inadequate visibility in the dark and is at a height and distance away from the parking bays where the vehicle was located.

If indeed THAT signage is applicable to the entire residential area, this is not made clear upon entering and leaving the area, by vehicle, or by foot. UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited are required to provide POPLA with evidence that its signage is compliant with BPA CoP rules upon both entry and where the car in question was parked. Please see attached photos as evidence of the lack of BPA CoP approved signage to: A. the entrance to the residential parking area, B. the parking bay bay where the car in question was parked at the time on the PCN, C. where the car is typically parked and D. the residential area entrance.

Moreover, the signs do not create a contract with residents who already have an established right to park and are entitled to peaceful enjoyment of the property. In fact when UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited have issued tickets 'in error' to residents before, they have cancelled them, which leads to a legitimate expectation that the signs are not directed at residents at all. Instead of getting the usual 'ticket was issued in error' letter this time, we got a rejection letter with a POPLA code. In any case, in order for a contract to exist, consideration must flow from both parties. As the permit to park flows from the Managing Agent (not UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited who merely act on their behalf as an agent with negative responsibility) and no consideration flows from us as drivers to UKPC - UK Parking Control Limited, the elements of a contract do not exist. Signs being dotted around the site cannot just create a contract where none is capable of being formed.

Sincerely yours.

Coupon-mad

The POPLA Deadline is in early October, should I submit on the day of the deadline? Or a day or two before is fine? As I am working on that day and I haven't got my schedule yet. If I am doing a late, I can submit in the morning of the deadline, which shouldn't be an issue.

If you count 57 days from the date of the parking incident you will know when the time expires for them to send you a NTK. Pretty sure it was early October, before your POPLA deadline. But check, you do the maths! So don't leave it till the last day, as long as you are past the 57th day.

And the POPLA appeal looks ready now; it'll beat UKPC hands down.

Schedule 4 was linked all the time in the Newbies thread but I guess you missed it. Glad you found out what we are talking about though - so you can understand the arguments.

m3cca

As luck would have it. It is my day off and day 58 according to the time of the ticket being issued. I have submitted my appeal via the website as well as uploaded my 7 photos of the area.

Now I guess I just have to wait and see for their response, how long is it typically before we hear something?

Also on the POPLA website I just checked both options that I was not improperly parked as well as not being liable for the parking charge, hope that was right to do.

Anyway just wanted to keep you all posted and will let you all know once I have an outcome.

Thank you again for all your help and insight into this matter! Now just have to wait if UKPC follow up and act on the other two outstanding parking charges, or drop them once this goes through!

m3cca

Hi all, Just an update, the charges have been dropped. For some reason I have misplaced the letter from the POPLA guys, but I have received the letter from UKPC stating the charges have been cancelled. From memory, the only reason the POPLA guys have upheld the dispute was only on the grounds of 3. Genuine pre-estimate of loss. UKPC could not justify the £30 for the print/adhesive of ticket to window, could justify the cost of the ticket. According to the letter, this is the only reason they upheld my dispute. IF and when I find the letter, I can add the correct language they used. Thanks again for all your help!

m3cca

If your familiar with my case. I had 3 parking infringements for the same violation.

One, which I have disputed and won and replied just in the last post.

As I was looking for the letter the wife found to unopened letters, which are from UKPC with the rejection notice and POPLA reference numbers.

Since, these came whilst we are abroad and I just opened then now. Both letters are dated the 16/10/2014.

Is it too late for me to appeal both of these charges now via the POPLA website like I did with the original notice?

Also, should I just structure both appeals similar to my initial appeal that was in my name and I won?

Which annoys me is that I won the first case, but now it looks like we might have to pay for the other two due to the time constraints and missing the window to appeal.

What should be my next step?

bod1467

You're too late to appeal to POPLA. But don't worry - the only way UKPC can force you to pay is to take you to court; they wont.

IF they did then you could use your POPLA victory as part of your defence.

m3cca

So, for the time being. Do I do nothing, or attempt to file the two cases on the POPLA website, as the reference numbers appear to be still valid and accepted on the site.

The wife does not feel comfortable to do nothing.

Otherwise, according to the letters from UKPC, they will uphold the initial £100 for the parking charge as well as an additional £60. Hence, £160 for each offence, for a total of £320!

What annoys me is that all three tickets are for the same offence, which I won, hence these should be void.

So your advice for the time being, is do nothing?

m3cca

2nd Page from POPLA response on first ticket.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On 6 August 2014, the appellant was issued with a parking charge notice for breaching the terms and conditions of the parking site.

It is the operator’s case that the appellant’s vehicle was parked without displaying a valid permit despite signage erected at the site to indicate that this was necessary to do so. There is photographic evidence to support that there was signage at the site to inform motorists of parking terms and conditions. There is also photographic evidence to support that the appellant’s vehicle was parked without displaying a valid permit.

The appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely that the parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

In order to justify that the amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has submitted a breakdown of the losses incurred as a result of the appellant’s breach. Amongst other things, the operator has included “Site based” costs. Although a detailed breakdown may not necessarily be required to prove this, as the appellant has questioned the level of the charge in this case, it is necessary for the operator to provide an explanation as to how this sum was arrived at as an estimate of the damage which could be caused by the appellant’s alleged breach. The operator has stated, “The site-based costs include (but are not limited to) the cost of producing the charge itself with accompanying weatherproof wallet, which directly relates to the breach.” However, I find that the operator has failed to show how a sum of £36.21 has been calculated on these items alone. On this occasion, I am not satisfied that the operator has discharged the burden.

In consideration of all the evidence before me, I find that the operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Farah Ahmad
Assessor