Help Help UKPS

walabala

Hi Redx,

Thanks for directing me to the post.

I have just copied and pasted form one of UKPCS popla appeal.

Can any one review and add if there is anything I should be adding.




"POPLA Code: xxxxxxxxxx

Todays Date


Dear POPLA,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle reg xxx xxxx and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. I wish to appeal against the notice on the following grounds.

1) Lack of BPA compliant signage
The driver entered the car park, the entrance to which had absolutely no signsto indicate that any restrictions applied, as required by the BPA Code of Practice paragraph 18.2 .

2) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The charge demanded far exceeds any loss to the landowner. If it exceeds any loss, it becomes a penalty.

In the appeal, UKPS did not address this issue, and has not explained whether their charge is relating to a breach of terms, or trespass, or contract (all of which are denied).

Further, I contend that the UKPS employee deceived the driver about any need to pay, which would have mitigated any loss, preferring instead to issue a parking ticket. In Vehicle Control Services Limited (VCS) -v- Mr Ronald Ibbotson (Case Reference 1SE09849 May 2012) District Judge McIlwaine reminded the Operator of the need to mitigate any loss in circumstances where the employee is near enough to observe the driver.

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.

3) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner
UKPS' lack of title or assigned interest in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. Nor do they have the legal status at that site, which would give them any right to offer parking spaces on a contractual basis, as they are not the landowner and I have seen no evidence of a compliant contract with the landowner.

I put UKPS to strict proof that they have a relevant, contemporaneous contract with the landowner that entitles them to pursue these charges in the courts in their own name as creditor (a requirement of the BPA Code of Practice). Any breach of the BPA Code of Practice means that 'registered keeper liability' has not been established, since full compliance is a pre-requisite of POFA 2012.

4) The Notice to Keeper was not properly issued
The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with POFA 2012 on three counts.
- Firstly, it fails to state the period of parking: paragraph 8(2)(a)
- Secondly, it fails to identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made: paragraph 8(2)(h)
- Thirdly, it fails to inform the keeper of the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available: paragraph 8(2)(g). This must include:
(a)any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and
(b)any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration.

In a flagrant disregard for the POPLA rights of appeal available to myself as the registered keeper, the section 'Appeals Procedures' wholly misleads the recipient. It wrongly informs me that I can only now appeal if the vehicle was stolen.

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 is to be relied upon to establish liability ... it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act. As the Notice was not compliant with the Act, it was not properly issued.

5) Misleading business practices - breach of CPUTR 2008
UKPS have breached the CPUTR 2008 on two counts.

The 'warden' on site misled the driver by specifically telling her that she could park in that space and would not get a parking ticket. And the NTK misled the registered keeper (myself) by stating that I could only make an appeal if the vehicle had been stolen.

It is an unfair trading practice, to mislead, misinform and/or hide core terms which would have caused a consumer to make a different economic decision. POPLA has a duty to make its decisions taking into account any relevant law.

6) Business Rates and VAT would apply if the charges are contractual agreements for the provision of a service
UKPS run a business in this car park for revenue and profit, and (although no signs were seen by the driver at all) I now notice that their signage appears to try to create a contractual agreement for 'services'. I put UKPS to strict proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority Valuation Office in respect of this 'contractual parking service' business, and that they are paying VAT to HM Revenue & Customs.

I respectfully ask the POPLA assessor to consider my points and order that this charge be cancelled.

Yours faithfully, "

walabala

it is

http://www.ukparkingsolution.co.uk/?gclid=Cj0KEQjwl_6oBRDHxNGz6ueJufMBEiQAvm_k_qQE2nXTRLfUM6q6l_Rry4fz9uP_2Fjowd6xd3GOeQYaAu648P8HAQ

enfield_freddy

walabala wrote: »

UKPS Coventry.

UKPS or UKPCS, both have been quoted now?

Umkomaas

enfield_freddy wrote: »

UKPS or UKPCS, both have been quoted now?

Well, neither are BPA AOS, so a POPLA appeal is totally pointless!

walabala

I think UK parking solution is BPA registered because when I complaint to BPA about initially about debit collector chasing me without even writing me a letter about my appeal then BPA emailed UKPS about my complaint and that's when UKPS now have sent me the rejection letter.

enfield_freddy

yup , not on a machine that I can switch tabs , summots not right




OP WHO was the ticket from?

walabala

they are registered as

T R Luckins Ltd t-as UK Parking Solutions

BPA Members - T R Luckins Ltd t-as UK Parking Solutions

enfield_freddy

walabala wrote: »

I think UK parking solution is BPA registered because when I complaint to BPA about initially about debit collector chasing me without even writing me a letter about my appeal then BPA emailed UKPS about my complaint and that's when UKPS now have sent me the rejection letter.

have they changed there name recently?


BPA


http://www.britishparking.co.uk/approved-operators


IPC


http://www.theipc.info/#!aos-members/cv75


it says BPA here http://www.ukparkingsolution.co.uk/ but there again it says Heinz baked beans on the sides of buses , but they don't sell them

enfield_freddy

walabala wrote: »

they are registered as

T R Luckins Ltd t-as UK Parking Solutions

BPA Members - T R Luckins Ltd t-as UK Parking Solutions

ok , got it ,

Redx

always been T R Luckins