UKPC - Our minibuses under attack!

yanyan_2

Hi guys,
I have read the forums extensively and now would appreciate your views on my case.
I realise some of the info is circumstantial and would not be technically considered in court, but here is the full shebang.
For the past 20+ years we have been taking 2 minibuses twice a week from Hemel Hempstead to Cricklewood on a bingo run. The vast majority of our passengers are elderly/disabled.
We have always parked in the retail car park to the rear of the bingo hall. It is always only 1/3rd full at this time of night.
This summer, it appears the retail park have employed the services of UKPC parking services.
On 15/07/14 one of our minibuses was issued with a parking ticket because it was ‘Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space’.
I received a ‘Notice to Keeper’ letter dated 15/08/14.
I sent a response dated 09/09/14 (guided by the excellent info gleaned here):
UK Parking Control Ltd
Appeals
PO Box 1087
Uxbridge
Middx UB8 9UR
9th September 2014
Dear UKPC,

Re: PCN number xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I have received your parking ‘invoice’ and will be complaining in the strongest terms to your client.

I decline your invitation to pay or name the driver, neither of which are required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. This is my appeal and all liability to your company is denied on the following basis:

A. The amount is neither a genuine tariff/fee for parking, nor is it based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss.
B. You are not the landowner and do not have locus standi.
C. Your signage was not sufficiently prominent nor clearly worded and consideration did not flow from both parties, so there was no contract.
If you choose not to cancel this invoice you must issue a rejection letter in reply to my appeal, explaining:
1. The legal basis of your charge (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee). As keeper, I cannot be expected to guess the basis of your allegation.
If you try to rely upon ParkingEye v Beavis at POPLA, I will point out that it was a flawed decision, it is not binding, and it is set for the Court of Appeal. There is clearly no commercial justification for this punitive charge and no case law to support it.
2. Proof of your locus standi to offer contracts to drivers at this site.
3. Your explanation of the consideration that you believe flowed from the driver, and from yourselves.
4. A copy of the signage site map and close-up pictures of the signs in situ at the time, taken at a comparable time of day in similar light conditions.
5. The means to make an appeal to POPLA or the IAS.

In addition and for your information, we have parked the minibuses in this car park for the past 20 years on the occasions we bring elderly and disabled people to Cricklewood. This is always of evening time when the car park is more than half empty. You have penalised us for not parking within the white lines, yet the width of the vehicle would only just fit inside the lines and if another car parks in the next bay, it would be impossible to open the door sufficiently for our passengers to alight. Therefore, you are penalising elderly and disabled people.
A certificate of posting will be obtained for all my written responses and I intend to claim my costs when I prevail.

xxxxxxxxxxx
Proprietor

I am also in possession of a ‘Final Reminder’ dated 01/09/14 although I honestly don’t remember receiving this until after I wrote to them.
I then received a letter from Debt Recovery Ltd dated 16/09/14 in which the charge had risen from £100 to £160 (pay or all sorts of demonic deeds with happen) or words to that effect.
I have not to date heard back from UKPC. I have proof of posting.
Yesterday (21/09/14) another one of my minibuses was ticketed with the same ‘offence’.
My driver took a photo to show the bus was ‘on’ not ‘over’ the white line.

It sickens me that these so called companies are procuring money hand over fist from ordinary people just trying to get on with life. Thank goodness for forums like this.

Coupon-mad

I have not to date heard back from UKPC. I have proof of posting.
Yesterday (21/09/14) another one of my minibuses was ticketed with the same ‘offence’.
My driver took a photo to show the bus was ‘on’ not ‘over’ the white line.

It sickens me that these so called companies are procuring money hand over fist from ordinary people just trying to get on with life.

Repeat the above in a complaint email to the BPA straight away and attach a scan of your appeal and the proof of posting. Email addy for Steve Clark at the BPA, is in post #6 of the NEWBIES sticky FAQs thread near the top of this parking forum. DO NOT name the driver even if the BPA 'enquire' or 'suggest' it! Tell them there will be no admissions and the firm will take every single case to POPLA every time and know how to argue the points of law as you are on a certain forum he knows well. Suggest the PPC puts the vans on a white list in order to resolve the issue and cancels these outstanding jokes of PCNs.

Also send a similar complaint to the landowner and ask for the vans to go on a white list (exempt from ticketing).

Dee140157

In that complaint you need to mention that you have not been given the means to appeal to POPLA as they never responded to you appeal.

I would be inclined to email UKPC and tell them you have put in a formal complaint to POPLA regarding the first PCN. You have nothing further to add to your appeal dated 09/09 and you require a cancellation of charge or a POPLA code. They should desist from any further action.

But yes follow C-M's advice and contact the landowner. Personally I would hit the press with this one too if the landowner/retailer is not helpful.

buglawton

I'd be curious to know if such a thing as a disabled badge exists for minibuses (to allow parking in the special wide bays for example)

Redx

buglawton wrote: »

I'd be curious to know if such a thing as a disabled badge exists for minibuses (to allow parking in the special wide bays for example)

the BB isnt valid in private land, so NO is the answer to that specific question

those spaces are provided by law (EA2010) for anyone to use who is protected under that law who is using the private facility , but in the case of a minibus the driver is probably (but not always) fit and healthy so the parking aspect does not apply as he would be dropping off and reloading , then he could park in a non-disabled bay somewhere else and conform to those rules of parking

ie- its not for his use, its for the use of the person protected under the EA 2010 , who may or may not actually have a BB

the driver is more than likely not a part of the party so isnt using the facility at all in most cases

The_Deep

Have you approached the Bingo organisers? If they rent the venue from the retail park owners, you need to get them on side.

However, be aware that UKPC is not the biggest fish in the pool, the ex clampers from Denver only venture into court when they are taken there by Trading Standards and !!!!ed off lawyers.

Guys_Dad

Redx wrote: »

the BB isnt valid in private land, so NO is the answer to that specific question

With respect, because I have read and agreed with your valuable posts and personal experience, this is not 100% correct and may be misleading.

Yes, it does not have any authority on private land unless the Pic says it has, and private landowners and Pics are perfectly free to say that a BB holder has no special concessions.

However, they are able legally to designate any parking space for BB holders, yellow cars, BMW or any chosen category they like. In the case of wider parking spaces they can say that only BB holders have a valid right to park there.

However, they would then face the distinct possibility of being sued, not under parking contract small claims but Equality legislation. Even worse, if an Estonian grandmother who was severely disabled took them to court on the basis that they were in no way able to be entitled to a BB, they could also face claims under racial discrimination.

So, in the real world world of PPCs, a BB is their definition of a valid indicator of a right to use their wide bays.

yanyan_2

Thank you for all your great replies.
I did email the BPA (thanks coupon-mad) but, lo and behold, just afterwards I received a letter from UKPC telling me that the charge has been cancelled even though 'we feel that the Parking Charge was correctly issued'.
I now have the 2nd ticket to deal with.
I will certainly ask that the buses be put on a 'white list'.

Redx

However, they are able legally to designate any parking space for BB holders, yellow cars, BMW or any chosen category they like.

In the case of wider parking spaces they can say that only BB holders have a valid right to park there.

I disgree

if those spaces are provided by law under the EA 2010 then they cannot discriminate in this fashion as those spaces are actually provided for ANYBODY who qualifies under the EA 2010 to lawfully park there , and the law trumps petty rules on permits

my point is that the BB itself and the booklet accompanying it confer no rights to the individual as far as private land is concerned, yet people tend to look at the badge as giving them the right to park in ANY space with a wheelchair pictogram on it , no matter where it is

the fact is that the BB rules and regs apply to public roads etc and these "rules" and the booklet tell you where its legally valid , which is not on private land so my statement stands until parliament decide to extend its use to private car parks or whatever (it sidetracks the main issues regarding these lawfully provided spaces)

the point here is not about the BB but the spaces the vehicles were parked in, pictogram or no pictogram , its just graffiti on the private tarmac just like the yellow lines or red lines etc

in fact, if a person qualifies to be parked in that legal space under the terms of the EA 2010, it doesnt really matter what piece of paper or cardboard or plastic is denoting their right, but many people who are qualified under the EA 2010, cannot get the BB , especially since they tightened up the rules recently

so the issue isnt the BB at all, its the rights of somebody to use that space, and its tunnel vision to suggest that only a BB can park there, because the PPC and landowner are not complying with the law and are actually discriminating against those who by law can park there but according to these BB "rules" on their signage actually discriminate against those who qualify yet have no BB

the main point here is to disassociate the marked bay from the BB and actually have a rule that states that people who qualify under the EA 2010 can park there, or be carried to there , BB or no BB, but what tends to happen is people think of the BB as a permit that protects the vehicle no matter where it has been parked, public or private land , its all the same to the masses who just think its a magic wand to invicibility (I used to think this way too until 2013 when I realised the true nature of what was going on out there)

I can assure those reading this thread and posts that the BB is not the issue here, and rarely is, but its about the use of the bays and who is entitled to use them, which is a completely different issue under the EA 2010 and maybe other laws too

the trouble with bringing a BB into the equation is that it muddies the waters from the true problem and focuses peoples minds onto one aspect of the whole debate , reinforced by this pictogram and the yellow lines which they use to mimic the public roads and spaces yet have no legal basis at all

to sum up, if I was to park in a bay with this pictogram on it, didnt display my badge and received a ticket, my redress under the law is that I parked according to the EA 2010 rules that allow me to , which is why people managed to get Meadowhall to back off with trubster and the blue dragon etc , who have the right to park there but didnt or dont have the BB

if my BB had run out and I hadnt got the new one, I could still use the marked bay under the EA 2010 and do not have to prove any entitlement at all, neither have I suddenly "got better" overnight either

so their issues were the right to park there and not be hounded by the PPC or landowner, not about if they own or have access to a BB , nor any other BB issue at all

one thing I have done is suggested to my MP that the government extend this BB entitlement and rights issue to cover any marked bay no matter who owns the land, public or private, so public roads, council car parks, hospitals , airports, ports , railway stations etc , but that still doesnt address the issue of those who cannot get the badge but are qualified under the EA 2010 , like maybe trubster or the blue dragon or whoever it may be. so it would be a step in the right direction , but it does not and cannot cover everybody for everything, yet its seen as a passport to almost parking where you like, which it isnt and never was

what I fail to see is why an able bodied mini bus driver would think they can get a permit to park on these bays , possibly for free ?

if a coach driver drops people off in a hotel car park, he doesnt then have the right to remain there blocking the hotel or car park just because one passenger may be disabled

as for this OP, he should appeal in the normal manner for each and every ticket, because as we usually mention on here, the circumstances are irrelevant as its private land , which would also include any disabled bay issues, or any BB issues , plus he should get those vehicles on a whitelist , like trubster and the blue dragon did at Meadowhall

I always encourage the disadvantaged to fight these PPC,s and if necessary to fight fire with fire and go for a counter claim MCOL, if they do actually have the right under the EA 2010

but I can assure you that the BB booklet does not mention use on private land and at no time has the Minsiter mentioned that it does cover use on private land , nor do the authorities issue some sort of "permit" to those who qualify under the EA 2010 either , nor is it specified in the EA 2010 nor was it specified in the previous DDA either

so as mentioned recently, if I park at B&Q in a wide bay with a pictogram on it , I do so knowing that B&Q provided it by law for people like myself, BB or no BB, and that neither B&Q nor the PPC have any right to make me use the BB , nor can they discriminate against those who cannot get the BB but who do actually qualify under the EA 2010 (the problem here being what proof they have that they qualify , mine would be a known medical condition which is on the "list")

yes its a complicated issue , but sometimes the BB issue masks the real issues caused by these landowners and their PPC,s , mainly because the markings etc have crept in over decades and from the times of the OB (orange badge) which I also had due to my condition , long before POFA 2012 or this BB scheme

one of the arguments I have fought against for a few years is this idea that private landowners (like hospital trusts for example - yeah , I know, not really private people think) see the council ACRONYMS like NTK , or NTD or yellow lines or wheelchair markings , signage etc and they try to mimic these and then tell people like me they are doing these changes becasue its what the council do , well I disgree and have told my trust this, also in the papers too, plus told my MP the same thing as well

its not MONKEY SEE, MONKEY DO, so its time they had a better system on private land like they do on public roads , maybe they need to stop trying to mimic the public sector with their fake pcn,s , fake yellow lines , fake signage , fake NTK,s etc , but they dont because they know the confusion helps their business plan , the BB is yet another example of this fakery at work , but its obvious that the goverment isny going to bring back something like the GREEN CARD scheme to show who is entitled under the EA 2010 , preferring the courts to handle it, yet not everyone wishes to fight an MCOL or take it to court , hence even the Meadowhall problems continue

Guys_Dad

The law in summary is that landowners/retailers etc have to make adjustments to cater for disabled people. Agreed. If they do not, then they are liable for claims under the EA 2010. Again agreed.

Now I have been in car parks where there are no wider spaces for disabled drivers. Arguably these landowners could be held to be in breach of the act.

Now when a PPC is granted a parking management contract, they put their t&c on their signs and tickets/correspondence. Under contract law, they seek to show that a driver has broken their t&c. Arguably, a driver could be held to break the t&c and liable for the charge. The motorist could, of course, claim that enforcing a BB on display was an unfair contract term. At the same time, but under a different law EA2010, the landowner and their agent could be held liable and suffer a higher penalty for not making the relevant changes to comply with that law.

But it is a different law and, theoretically, the PPC could win and the driver could win under EA2010.

This is explained clearly and in my view accurately by the POPLA chief adjudicator in his 2014 report on the POPLA web site.

Page 25

Operators do have responsibilities under the Act, however, the Act itself specifically provides for resolution, in England and Wales, through the County Court.

Some two million disabled people hold blue badges across the country but there are different criteria as regards the issue of such disabled person’s parking permits and any possible requirements under the 2010 Act.

A landowner must obviously comply with the law but otherwise, can generally set what reasonable requirements they wish for parking. This could probably include the display of any particular badge or permit.

POPLA would certainly be bound by the Act as regards provision for appellants, in the same way that the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service, the Road User Charging Appeals Tribunal and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal are. They, of course, all have personal hearings and thus make the required provision for those, in terms
of access and so on. POPLA does not have personal hearings and the majority of appeals are online but we are alert to issues that might arise in this area and London Councils, who provide the service, is clearly very experienced in this regard.

However, it is not for POPLA to enforce the requirements of the Act, when the Act itself clearly makes provision for this to be done elsewhere.

Now I know that this comes from POPLA and not the court. But I believe it to be a reasonable view. In addition, the advice we give about not naming the driver would be taken as an unhelpful statement in court, unless a statement in the appeal included some proof that a disabled person was being transported.

I still believe that there are 2 separate issues here, unfortunately.

esmerobbo

buglawton wrote: »

I'd be curious to know if such a thing as a disabled badge exists for minibuses (to allow parking in the special wide bays for example)

Yes you can have what they call an Institutional/organisational blue badge.