Help: POPLA Appeal against UKPC at hospital site

bdotcdot

Dear Forum members,
I am planning to appeal a UKPC parking notice for a car "Not clearly marked within parking of a bays".

The parking bay in question has really poor bay-markings. In addition, I had appealed to them showing that this is a small car and did not cause obstruction. They rejected my appeal.

I had send photos, which they ignored (due to their size, they may not have been uploaded). I uploaded them again, but it seems UKPC will not consider them.

Having read this forum, I have drafted an appeal to POPLA and will be very thankful for comments. Particularly, please check the first three point to see if they makes sense. I will be further thankful on any advice on how to strengthen the gneuine pre-estimate of loss clause.

Finally, should I send photos to the POPLA or not.

With regards,
Basker


The first draft of the appeal
Dear POPLA Assessor,
UKPC verification code

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from UKPC. I believe I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds:


1) Incorrect notice – No Marked parking bays
It has been alleged that the car was parked outside marked bays. This car was parked in an area; which appears to be meant for motorcycles and small cars. The car in consideration is a small smart car and hence can fit is small areas.

More importantly, the parking bays at the concerned staff parking area of Milton Keynes general hospital are not marked on most instances and very poorly marked at other instances. I have attached 6 photographs (figure 1-6) of this site to validate my point. At the parking site, it is not possible to ascertain if there are lanes and if so, where are correct lanes. With no separating lines at the parking bays, it is impossible for a lay-person to know if they exist and hence cannot be used as a means for charging for incorrect parking. I believe that the car was parked correctly and the parking charge has been incorrectly applied.

2) Inadequate, unclear & non-compliant signs
The parking signs at the concerned car park are very poorly stated and poorly lit. There is significant ambiguity in them. The physical size of the wording related to the parking within bays is significantly smaller than other notices and hence is very difficult to read. The sign is below the eye-level and is actually below the height of a car, and hence could have been hidden by another parked car. I have attached a photograph of the scene (Figure 7) to show that the signage are very small compared to any other sign.

Furthermore,
a) The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice
I also appeal on the grounds that the signage fails to meet the BPA code of practice section 18, appendix B as there was no signage related to UKPC or that or parking within bays at the entrance of the car-park. The park is entered through a card controlled entry-barrier and the only sign at this barrier is one stating staff only entrance.

Having parked the car, the driver left without the need to further check the parking area. Only after finding the ticket on the windscreen when about to leave, did the driver further search for signs and saw a small sign hidden below a large sign. Therefore, the signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of a bay-only parking area or of the terms and any consequences for breach.Any alleged contract should be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It cannot be formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late.

b) The signs do not meet the ‘distance contract’ requirement within the Consumer Contracts(Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regs
''(d) where the trader is acting on behalf of another trader, the geographical address and identity of that other trader;
(e) the geographical address of the place of business of the trader, and, where the trader acts on behalf of another trader, the geographical address of the place of business of that other trader, where the consumer can address any complaints;''

In case the Operator dismisses this appeal point, saying merely that this type of contract is exempt from these regulations, I contend it is not because the only exemptions are listed in the Regs and this 'contract' fits none of the stated exemptions. This is certainly not a simple, immediate ‘day to day transaction’ defined by the EU in the Guidance as ‘buying a cup of coffee or a newspaper’. In fact, providing parking spaces as a 'service' for a fee is specifically stated as covered by the Regulations, as shown here in the EU Guidance behind the original Directive upon which the UK Law is based:

'' Service contracts...should be included in the scope of this Directive, as well as contracts related to...the rental of accommodation for non-residential purposes.
For example, renting a parking space...is subject to the Directive.''

3) No genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The Notice from UKPC alleges that “a breach of the terms and conditions of parking have occurred” and so the charge levied must be damages that UKPC are seeking in redress. But this car park is staff car-park for which a payment has already been made by salary sacrifice.

There was no damage nor obstruction caused so there can be no loss arising from the incident. Given there has been no genuine pre-estimate of loss the charge levied is unenforceable and the charge should be cancelled.

4) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
UKPC do not own the land mentioned in their Notice to Keeper and have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. I require UKPC to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner as I believe it is not compliant with the CoP and without it, UKPC have no legal standing nor authority at this site which could impact on visiting drivers.

If UKPC produce a 'witness statement' I contend that there is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract terms, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I contend, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, that this should be disregarded as unreliable and not proving full BPA compliance nor legal standing.

5) Notice to Keeper not compliant with the PoFA 2012.
Under the terms of the Protection of Freedoms Act, specifically Schedule 4, paragraphs 8 and 9, UKPC must identify the creditor who is legally entitled to recover parking charges on their Notice to Keeper. They have failed to do so, and so they have no right under the PoFA to reclaim parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

6) Unlawful penalty clause - revenue for UKPC
Based on no genuine loss or damage, and the fact that a breach of contract has been alleged, thus ‘charge’ can only be considered an unlawful route of revenue generation. UKPC's own website states the following - accessed in December 2014)
''frequently asked questions:”
How much would it cost us to use your parking management services? Nothing at all! We provide parking management services to our clients free of charge.


This means that UKPC generated revenues from these parking notices alone. Therefore, this is not a loss rather a revenue-source for them. Hence, it is against the principles of parking charges and should be quashed.

I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform UKPC to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,

The_Deep

Do not take this company seriously

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=63597

If PPCs were cars, UKPC would be a Trabant

Fruitcake

First of all, well done on getting this far on your own. It really helps the experts on here when people do their own research fist.


Have you looked at the How to Win at POPLA section of the NEWBIES thread? There is a lot of information there on GPEOL and I'm sure there are several specifically aimed at UKCP.

Coupon-mad

I like that POPLA appeal, it says all it needs to say except maybe just change the final sentence in point #3 to 'initial loss' so it says:


'Given there has been no initial loss, it follows that there can be no consequential losses so the charge levied is unenforceable and the charge should be cancelled.

bdotcdot

Thanks a lot, Coupon-mad, Fruitcake and the Deep.

I will add lines as suggested by Coupon-mad. I will also try to find more on GPEOL as advised.

Really liked the Trabant simile from the Deep.

Cheers,