Help Help UKPS

walabala

debt collector TNC are harassing me by sending me text messages to settle the penalty while I have already appealed this to POPLA and waiting for the outcome.

Any advise if i should report this to POPLA ?

Grimble

Report it to BPA and DVLA.

Redx

no , report it to the BPA and the DVLA (as above)

walabala

Thanks,

I complaint both DVLA and BPA now.

Lets finger cross that POPLA give decision in my favour.

Thank you all.

Ralph-y

OK so while you wait ..... why not let the government know how you feel about all this ???

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418725/Parking_Discussion_Paper_FINAL.pdf

Ralph:cool:

walabala

hello guys,

I have received copy of evidence / report from UKPS which they have submitted to POPLA. I am not sure if I need to send something to support in my defence.

if anyone can advise further.

UK PARKING SOLUTIONS 8060895005
1. On the 24/12/2014 our operative observed the vehicle a Black Nissan Almera .
TFA parked, Unauthorised, as the driver walked off site, these facts have been confirmed by the appellant.

2. In the Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 2011 ‘Unauthorised parking’ includes:
Parking on private land where parking is forbidden. The drivers of these vehicles are trespassing and are liable to parking control and enforcement action to deter this happening again.
Parking as part of contract between the driver of the vehicle and the landowner or operator, but when the driver breaks the contractual terms and conditions. An example of this is when the driver does not display a valid permit or park his vehicle Unauthorised. Our Operative wrote a comment in our system stating that the vehicle was parked, in free parking whilst in premises only area, and the driver walked off site It is motorists responsibility to make sure that, they read all the terms and conditions for parking on our private road. In this case it is not acceptable the excuse that the appellant was unable to determinate what the parking restrictions were. Also the appellant is stating in their appeal letter to POPLA that they had a verbal permission from UKPS employee to park there, which is not true. The appellant states that they parked their vehicle in front of a lower sign, which means that the sign placed in close proximity to the appellant’s vehicle, would have informed them that the private road is free parking whilst in premises only.

3. What Parking Charge Notices Represent
The Parking Charge Notices (PCN’s) that we issue represent a claim for liquidated and ascertained damages in respect of a breach of the ‘parking contract’ which is deemed to have been offered by our signage at the location, and accepted by the motorist in that he opted to remain. The breach of the stated Terms & Conditions has been proved by other evidence elsewhere in this submission. When a motorist parks in breach of the Terms and Conditions of Parking, a loss is incurred by us as incorrect parking prevents the efficient management of the car park.

4. PCN Amounts and the BPA Code of Practice
At present we are limited by the British Parking Associations Codes of Practice as to what the level of a PCN can be charged. We chose on a business case, mindful of the costs incurred above, to levy a PCN of £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. Often it is the case that we incur charges in excess of £100 but this additional cost has to be then subsidised from other parts of our business.

During October 2012 after significant pressure from Government and motoring/consumer organisations, the BPA reduced the maximum recommended charge for that a motorist should be expected to pay for a breach of the parking contract or for an act of trespass from £150 to 100. Despite the BPA being unable, due to prevailing legislation, to fix prices at this level, the actions of the Association were welcomed by all stakeholders. In this instance the charge being levied is within (well within) the recommendations set out within Clause 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice. This sum, and the calculations which have been made in setting it, has been approved and agreed by the landowner or his agent of the site.

5. Following the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012)
The Code ‘ parking charges ’ means charges arising from enforcement under tree different circumstances:
- When a motorist breaks the terms and conditions of a parking contract,
- When a motorist trespasses by parking without permission,
- Agreed charges that are advertised in the contract; for example, for an overstay.
Considering carefully all the evidence provided, I must find as a fact that on this particular occasion, by parking in free parking whilst in premises area and walking off the site, the appellant has breached the terms and conditions of using the site. In all cases, the driver’s use of our land will be governed by our terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. We use high levelled signage to make it easy for them to find out what our terms and conditions are.

6. The amount of the parking charge that the driver, was asked to pay is based on a genuine pre-estimate of loss we suffer, resulting from the breach of contract or act of trespass. Our parking charges are fair, reasonable and not disproportionately high. We consider the amount on the PCN as a reasonable charge for liquidated damages in respect of a breach of the parking contract and contend that it is not a ‘Penalty’ for a number of reasons. We have calculated this sum as a genuine pre-estimate of our losses as we incur significant costs in dealing with an appeal to ensure compliance to the stated terms & conditions and to follow up on any breaches of these identified as detailed above.


7. On or around 25/03/2015 we received an appeal from Mr XXX.copy of which is attached, this appeal was denied on 30/03/2015 after investigation by the appeals department. A copy of the rejection letter is attached.

8. The notes made by our operative at the time state Unauthorised Parking, walked off site. These notes are made at the time in situation on a hand held PDA device. Our computer system recorded the time of incident at 12:40:00. This has not been denied by the appellant.

9. The PCN is produced electronically so no physical copy is held; a notice to driver is printed on site.

10. It is accepted that the appellant is a visitor of the car park, however the driver should NOT park Unauthorised, in free parking whilst in premises area and walking off the site.

11. Our operative who is employed by UK Parking Solutions as a parking control operative places a PCN on any vehicle he sees parked in contravention of the terms and condition on each car park. When he attaches a PCN correctly, which he has done in this case, he creates an invoice £100 discounted in accordance with the code of practice. This invoice is now payable and constitutes an actual loss to UK Parking Solutions. The Parking Charge Notice that we issue represents a claim for liquidated and ascertained damages in respect of a breach of the ‘parking contract’ which is deemed to have been offered by our signage at the location, and accepted by the motorist in that he opted to remain. When a motorist parks in breach of the Terms and Conditions of Parking, a loss is incurred by us as incorrect parking prevents the efficient management of the car park.

The PCN is produced electronically and so a hard copy is not retained. We do not keep copies, because our ticket machine automatically upload to our system the details of the appellant’s vehicle, as they are all the same apart from the individual incident details, (Reference, VRM, and Location etc.), these details are stored on a secure server. This is a genuine attempt to reduce our carbon footprint.
The notes made by our operative at the time state: Obstructive Parking. These notes are made at the time in situation on a hand held PDA device. In This case the appellant does not provide a copy of the Parking Charge Notice, so please find attached a copy:

walabala

hello,

can anyone advise please for the above post.

Guys_Dad

Well that's a good rejection for you. Beavis CoA allowed some form of penalty charge to be imposed on motorists, although it is being challenged in the Supreme court, but this mob have stated that the £100 is a Genuine pre-estimate of loss and "their actual loss". Rubbish!

You now need to challenge that after reading their submission stating that it is clearly not a loss to the PPC, demand a breakdown of how it is made up.

They can not justify that cost as a result of you walking off site .

Even if you have already appealed on GPEOL, you should now focus POPLA in on their para 11, point out that this appeal should not be stayed awaiting Beavis as it does not apply in this case, as confirmed by the PPC.

walabala

Hi Guys Dad,

i have already submitted my appeal to POPLA so, I believe I can't further send popla anything.

I am just waiting outcome from POPLA.
Thanks

bazster

Yes you can send a further submission to PoPLA. GD has given you one point. Another point is that in their "evidence" they admit that their operative saw the driver leave the site, thereby admitting, in effect, that their operative failed to mitigate their supposed losses (as the law requires) which he could easily have done by warning the driver not to leave the site.