UKPC Parking Charge

cbl1983

Hi everyone,

I have looked at the sticky post and understand I need to just ignore the ticket and wait for the Notice to Keeper to come through before then replying with the template you have kindly provided.

I just want to check about the ticket tho as I parked on Ashton Moss car park behind one of the restaurants at the side of another car. The ticket I got states "Parked in a permit area without displaying a valid permit.", but the other vehicle didn't have a ticket nor was displaying a permit either.

Is my ticket just as ignorable as any other type of ticket? I believe it is but just wanted another opinion.

Thanks for your help!

Chris

Redx

forget "what happened" or what happened to "other people"

if a policeman pulled you up for speeding and there were others speeding, you cannot use the fact he hasnt pulled all those over as a defence for your own case

just deal with it using the NEWBIES sticky thread as you have indicated, doesnt matter what happened on the day or with anyone else parked close by (their car could have been on a whitelist or it could have been the security company using it)

no it should not be ignored as the vehicle is subject to POFA 2012 as this happened in england

appeal it using the post oct 2012 details contained in that sticky thread, that is why its there !

yes you wait for the NTK, then appeal the NTK as per that sticky thread

Coupon-mad

Hi Chris, yours is the same as all the rest and UKPC will likely cancel when they see a version of the appeal from the NEWBIES thread (a shorter version as it won't fit in online). Just wait for the NTK, or if you are getting twitchy, you can send the NEWBIES appeal around day 24 or so, as it's done online, just to get it cancelled quicker.

Waiting till near the end of the 28 day appeal deadline after a windscreen ticket then appealing as keeper only, buys you an extra appeal point at POPLA - that by the time you appeal to POPLA, by timing it carefully - day 56 will have passed and no Notice to Keeper will have been served. PPCs forget the NTK when they deal with an appeal but for keeper liability there must be a NTK posted out too.

cbl1983

So nutshell is:

* Leave and wait for NTK
* Reply with NEWBIE template
* Wait....

Coupon-mad

Yep and they will reply that there has been an admin error so they've cancelled it!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64869779#Comment_64869779

Read the UKPC ones! So predictable!

cbl1983

Yeah I had seen a few of them already (been reading forum for over an hour).

Leave it with me and I'll let you know how I get on.

Thanks for your help!

Chris

cbl1983

Well I got the NTK and sent the template letter in the newbie thread.

Today I recieved a letter thanking me for my appeal letter and they have put it on hold and will reply within 35 days.

beardywierdy

Hi
I just won my popla appeal for doing exactly that on Ashton Moss. I parked behind Frankie and bennys.
Popla found that they did not have sufficient evidence of authority from the landowner.

Umkomaas

beardywierdy wrote: »

Hi
I just won my popla appeal for doing exactly that on Ashton Moss. I parked behind Frankie and bennys.
Popla found that they did not have sufficient evidence of authority from the landowner.

I'd write to POPLA to ask them if they have referred this to the BPA, as insufficient evidence of authority from the landowner is a PPC sanctionable offence.

It's great breathing a sigh of relief that you've won, but you do need to help further the cause, by helping those who give so much to help others.

Now I can't write to POPLA about this, because I have no cause to do so, but you do! You've been through the wringer on it.

Just fire off an email into the ether and see what that brings. The PPC has given you grief - give them some back. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. AKA - a two-way grief street!

cbl1983

Hey guys, thanks the replies, I've had my first appeal rejected so I'm doing the POPLA now...

Any feedback (umkomaas) you might recognise this:

Dear POPLA,

POPLA Reference No: xxxxxxxx

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration xxxxxx. I received a Notice to Keeper from UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC) on xx/xx/xxxx for a parking charge of £90 issued on xx/xx/xxxxfor an alleged breach of contractual terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle. I have denied all liability to UKPC. Following the rejection of my appeal to UKPC I wish to appeal to POPLA on the following grounds:

1. The parking charge of £90 does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. UKPC have no proprietary interest in the land and no standing
3. The penalty charge is unlawful
4. The Notice to Keeper fails to establish ‘keeper liability’ under PoFA 2012
5. Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice

A detailed explanation of these points is given below.

1) NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS

The Notice to Keeper from UKPC alleges that the driver of the vehicle “breached the terms and conditions of parking” and so the charge levied must be damages that UKPC are seeking in redress.

The car park at which the alleged contract breach occurred is “free” and there was no parking charge levied. No damage nor obstruction was caused so there can have been no loss arising from this incident.

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. UKPC 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) CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER — NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE CHARGES

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.

3) UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE

Since there was no genuine loss or damage and a breach of contract has been alleged in a free car park, this ‘charge’ can only be considered an unlawful route of revenue generation. UKPC's own website states:

“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 (subject to site survey).”

This indicates that UKPC generates 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.

4) NOTICE TO KEEPER NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE POFA 2012

The Notice to Keeper fails to state the period of parking, only that the vehicle was seen at 16:21 on the day in question. Furthermore, 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, but they have failed to do so.

Therefore, UKPC has not met the keeper liability requirements and, as a result, keeper liability does not apply. As the keeper of the vehicle I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As UKPC have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were, I submit I am not liable to any charge.

5) UNCLEAR, INADEQUATE AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE

Due to their high position and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read. I contend that the signs and any core parking terms that UKPC are relying upon were too small for the driver to discern when driving in and that the signs around the car park also fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice. I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they ‘must’ have been seen by the driver — who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a free car park — and, therefore, I contend the elements of a contract were conspicuous by their absence.

Considering all of the above points, I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Yours faithfully

Daver

beardywierdy wrote: »

Hi
I just won my popla appeal for doing exactly that on Ashton Moss. I parked behind Frankie and bennys.
Popla found that they did not have sufficient evidence of authority from the landowner.

I have just won on exactly the same issue, UKPC submitted a letter from Jones Lang Laselle, the landowner, which was dated Friday 17th Jan 2013 ( which was a Thursday anyway) relating to a contract dated 8th May 2006, the letter does not state that JLL is the landowner nor does it have an agreement end date, hence it is not a contract of authority and POPLA threw it out.

If you ask me UKPC are a bunch of complete clowns, the evidence letter they submitted referred to incorrect test cases relating to what they were trying to infer and generally was written in such gobbledegook that it was clearly trying to bully the intended recipient by tying everything up in very legal looking references to case law etc.... they have obviously not taken into account that it is a very simple task to google the cases they refer to and out their lies!

As ukomass encourages......I for one am going to persue this with the BPA as a breach of their COP and try to cause UKPC some hassel for a change.:T