Help Help UKPS

enfield_freddy

oh , this one with a million year of looking after car parks (not) http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/uk-parking-solution-claim-unlikely.html

enfield_freddy

and don,t forget "sonnys" daddy is a director of http://www.ukparkingcontrol.com/ so He might get the "boys in" how come uk parking control can claim to be IPC and BPA ,


do they pick an adjudicator at random?


must be going blind , or the IPC hav,nt told them they are kicked out yet http://www.theipc.info/#!aos-members/cv75

walabala

Is my template letter to popla is ok ?

Umkomaas

enfield_freddy wrote: »

is it this one? http://ukparkingservices.net/about-us


if so they are IPC , not BPA


I cant see a UKPS Coventry listed with the BPA , however TNC debt collector appear to be BPA.

I worked on the basis of this. Yep the Luckins conglomerate (:rotfl:) - BPA, so sorry, as you were, off to POPLA.

walabala

I also would like to add few other points.

For example : UKPS failed to reply to my appeal within 24 days which is as per BPA standard but instead sent me debt collector harassment letter.

I complaint to BPA about that and they contacted UKPS and their excuse was not responding to my appeal because I did not provide them my address.

if I had not provided my address details so, how could their own company TNC parking services sent me the letter to demand the money.

I would like to put these points and other in an eloquent manner.

I would appreciate if anyone can help.

Thanks

Umkomaas

None of the above will have any relevance to POPLA. Getting things off your chest (ranting) is not recommended within a POPLA appeal as they may, in reading that, miss out the salient points of GPEOL, locus standi, contract and signage.

Don't waste your time trying to find any form of words.

Redx

walabala wrote: »

I also would like to add few other points.

For example : UKPS failed to reply to my appeal within 24 days which is as per BPA standard but instead sent me debt collector harassment letter.

its actually 14 days to acknowledge and 35 days to reply

24 days does not exist in any of these parking issues

Umkomaas

Redx wrote: »

its actually 14 days to acknowledge and 35 days to reply

24 days does not exist in any of these parking issues

The danger of going off 'half-c0ck' ........ and getting it wrong!

walabala

Can anyone advise the below template letter is correct as per my situation ?

Thanks


PCN No: xxxxxx



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 signs to indicate that any restrictions applied, as required by the BPA Code of Practice paragraph 18.2 and Appendix B. The driver enquired from UKPS parking attendant on duty where they could park and was directed to an area that had no signage restricting parking whatsoever.

2) The driver had verbal permission from UKPS to park from the employee, so with no signs seen, this was the only contract formed
The UKPS employee spoke to the driver and showed her where to park, which was an area where no signs could be seen.

This was the only possible contract between UKPS and the driver, who parked with clear verbal permission (albeit from an employee who then placed a ticket on the windscreen unbeknown to the driver, took a photo and then apparently swiftly removed it). The UKPS employee was still there when the driver returned and spoke to him again, so there was no possibility that the ticket could have been served properly, or removed by an unknown person, as the UKPS employee was there all the time.

3) 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.

4) 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.

5) 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.

6) 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.

7) 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 photographic evidence and order that this charge be cancelled.

yours faithfully,

Umkomaas

You're narrowing down the identity of the driver by referring to them by gender. Re-work any sentence which might so identify.

Lose Appeal Point 7 - 'business rates' was an old tactic which proved fruitless, and VAT would only be payable where a contractual charge was claimed (as per IPC model).