Is it too late or have I been dumb by appealing?

00hemmings

I received a £100 PCN from UKPC for not parking within the bay correctly. I stupidly didn't read the forum sticky first and appealed as it seemed an absurd amount of money for something so trivial.


they have of course refused my appeal and I now have 14 days to pay the reduced fee of £60 or it will go up to £100 again. I did write to them using my name & address so yes they who I am now - oops!


The POPLA number they gave is (removed) and checks out as being current.


Ideally I'd like to not pay anything as these companies are a blight on society & I don't agree with their policies.


please can anyone advise on what to do next? will any of the template letters still work at this stage?


Much appreciated in advance!!!

Redx

firstly, remove the popla ref from your post

then check the NEWBIES sticky thread and look at the link to popla appeal examples, then prepare your own using the most suitable example

then upload to popla before the expiry date

00hemmings

Thanks for the prompt response!!


I've removed the POPLA reference


In my PCN it says if my POPLA appeal is unsuccessful I will only have the option to pay £100. I don't want to appeal if its just going to be turned down and then cost me even more. some of the comments regarding POPLA didn't seem overly favourable of their service....


has anyone else tried this?

bod1467

You will be successful at POPLA if you follow the NEWBIES thread (post #3) and post your appeal wording here for review ... the £100 will be £0.

Redx

00hemmings wrote: »

Thanks for the prompt response!!


I've removed the POPLA reference


In my PCN it says if my POPLA appeal is unsuccessful I will only have the option to pay £100. I don't want to appeal if its just going to be turned down and then cost me even more. some of the comments regarding POPLA didn't seem overly favourable of their service....


has anyone else tried this?

even if you were daft enough to lose at popla, its not binding upon you so you have the other option of NOT PAYING AT ALL !

so at worst you ignore anything except an LBC or an MCOL for 6 years

00hemmings

Thanks for all the replies so far, very impressed!!

I thought since I was over the bay line but it was in a free supermarket car park I would go with:


Dear POPLA,
I am the registered keeper & this is my appeal:

1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The sign states the charge is for 'not fully complying with the conditions' so UKPC must prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. There is no loss flowing from this parking event because the car park was not full, so if a tyre was indeed over a bay line (which is denied as I am the keeper and it is up to UKCPS to show as much) there was no loss of potential income in a free car park.


UKPC cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.



2) Lack of standing/authority from landowner
UKCPS has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put UKCPS to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). UKCPS have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that UKCPS are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require UKCPS to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority


3) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms
The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.


Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer".



I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.


Yours.....


If anyone can let me know if that's the kind of wording that would work and if its correct or needs more added I would be most grateful.

bod1467

So which PPC is it? UKPC? UKCPS? Someone else?

Proof-read what you're posting, don't just cut-n-paste.

00hemmings

Oops sorry I didn't notice the additional S in the latter section! I'm guilty of copying the text though as this legal language goes a bit over my head- sorry!

For clarity it's UKPC (UK parking control ltd), uxbridge