We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Success story - UKCPS
Dentist1234
Posts: 9 Forumite
Success! I appealed my PCN and I was informed by letter yesterday that it had been cancelled. Therefore I thought it would be helpful for others to explain exactly what did...
So in ascending order....
1. Firstly I didn't worry about it and thought about my situation in a pragmatic way.
2. I then read the newbies thread
3. I read the newbies thread
4. I READ the newbies thread. I asked lots of basic questions at the start which were completely covered in the newbies thread. This can annoy the people who help you out on here (coupon-mad & unkomaas).
5. I Didn't disclose any of my details on this site that could identify me. This is for your protection.
6. I quickly read through these two documents:
ww.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_-_V4,_Feb_2014.pdf
ww.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted
find out if your PCN is from a company who is a member of the BPA or not. The government link applies to all companies.
7. Go back to the carpark in question and find out if they have broken any of the rules - in my case the car park didn't have any entrance signs (among other issues) a clear breach of the BPA standards.
8. write a letter similar to one found on this site, but I think it would be a good idea to personalise it. Reciting and quoting relevant paragraphs found in the document links above.
It took me about a day to look through all of the relevant documents and draft a letter. I actually found it quite therapeutic, but i suppose I'm a little weird! :rotfl:
I'd say good luck - but you won't need it :beer:
Here is a copy of the letter I sent:
To whom it may concern,
I am responding to an astonishing letter received at the above address to myself, the registered keeper, regarding the payment of a ‘parking charge’. Therefore I am writing to inform you, UKCPS, that I challenge this unsolicited invoice for £100 on these four main grounds:
1. Signage:
As keeper I believe that the signs were not seen or displayed clearly enough. For example, there is no sign displayed at the entrance (a breach of the ‘British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice’, Paragraph 18.2, 2013). Similarly, any signs within the carpark are too high, with wording too ambiguous and confusing to be seriously considered by any reasonable person (BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice’, Paragraph 18.3, 2013).
With regard to these points, it is my opinion as the registered keeper that this has been deliberately done in a clandestine manner to hide UKCPS’ presence at the carpark in question; and that any attempt to do so is contravening (and by no means exhaustive) the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 2 (2) and (3)(b).
2. Alleged Contract agreement:
Given the issue with inadequate signage, among other issues, there can be no reasonable consideration, (and therefore acceptance), flowing from both parties to justify true contractual consent. This is upheld by recent legislation - The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. It states that expressed consent – rather than implied, is required for any consumer contract and any information should be clearly provided. I therefore then reject any claim that a contract was or ever has been made between UKCPS and me the registered keeper, or the driver (who cannot be named and no assumptions can be made).
3. Genuine pre-estimate of loss:
Given the fact that the carpark where the vehicle was allegedly parked was free of charge, the sum requested for £100 does not represent a ‘genuine pre-estimate of loss’. The ‘BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice’, (Paragraph 19.5, 2013) states that any ‘genuine pre-estimate loss’ should not normally expect to be over £100. It is of my opinion that UKCPS has not seriously considered the ‘genuine pre-estimate of loss’ in this specific case, and is attempting to claim the maximum amount it can under the aforementioned BPA code of practice. Consequently the invoice for £100 can be characterised as a punitive and unreasonable and is therefore not justified (‘BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice’, Paragraph 19.6, 2013).
4. Proprietary interest
As the registered keeper I have not seen any evidence that UKCPS has any proprietary interest in the land to issue charges and pursue them in their own name, including whether the true landowners have given them permission to pursue such action at court level or what vehicles that may or may not be subject to parking restrictions (‘BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice’, Paragraph 7.2, 2013).
For clarity I would like to express the intention of this letter in regard to UKCPS’ invoice for £100:
• A formal challenge – this communication is a formal challenge to any monies requested by UKCPS for an unpaid ‘parking charge’. As there can be no assumptions to who the driver was UKCPS must either:
a) Cancel any ‘charges’, accepting that any claim would be fruitless and rigorously defended in a civil court - subject to accepting my claim for costs as clearly stated below.
b) Rely on POFA (Schedule. 4, 2012) to try and claim the invoice amount based on keeper liability, plus accepting your weak basis for any claim mentioned in the above points.
Therefore the onus is on UKCPS to either uphold my challenge and cease to harass me – or send a letter expressing their reasons for rejection, explaining each point specified in this letter.
• ‘Drop-hands’ offer – although both parties may disagree on the UKCPS’ ‘pre-estimate of loss’ of £100, I understand that UKCPS may have incurred costs in contacting the keeper. However, I have also incurred costs for taking the time to read the notice to keeper; researching the law; and postage. At this point it is clear that both our costs do not exceed £20 at best. Therefore this is my formal ‘drop-hands’ offer to UKCPS. For all parties involved to accept the losses on both sides as they lie, and for neither one of the parties to pursue any losses in the future. However if UKCPS persists, I will charge an hourly fee based on my occupation as a Dental care professional, for which I can assure you is very expensive, for my time plus expenses and damages for harassment.
By replying to this formal challenge you are acknowledging receipt and acceptance of all of the points made above. If UKCPS decides to persist I will not hesitate to spend time rigorously appealing and defending this matter. As such I remind UKCPS again that it will be liable for any costs incurred and that my pre-estimate loss (which is genuine), given my profession, will likely be greater than £100.
I have kept proof of this challenge, along with any relevant evidence (including photographic) and I look forward to your considered reply in no less than 35 days.
So in ascending order....
1. Firstly I didn't worry about it and thought about my situation in a pragmatic way.
2. I then read the newbies thread
3. I read the newbies thread
4. I READ the newbies thread. I asked lots of basic questions at the start which were completely covered in the newbies thread. This can annoy the people who help you out on here (coupon-mad & unkomaas).
5. I Didn't disclose any of my details on this site that could identify me. This is for your protection.
6. I quickly read through these two documents:
ww.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_-_V4,_Feb_2014.pdf
ww.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted
find out if your PCN is from a company who is a member of the BPA or not. The government link applies to all companies.
7. Go back to the carpark in question and find out if they have broken any of the rules - in my case the car park didn't have any entrance signs (among other issues) a clear breach of the BPA standards.
8. write a letter similar to one found on this site, but I think it would be a good idea to personalise it. Reciting and quoting relevant paragraphs found in the document links above.
It took me about a day to look through all of the relevant documents and draft a letter. I actually found it quite therapeutic, but i suppose I'm a little weird! :rotfl:
I'd say good luck - but you won't need it :beer:
Here is a copy of the letter I sent:
To whom it may concern,
I am responding to an astonishing letter received at the above address to myself, the registered keeper, regarding the payment of a ‘parking charge’. Therefore I am writing to inform you, UKCPS, that I challenge this unsolicited invoice for £100 on these four main grounds:
1. Signage:
As keeper I believe that the signs were not seen or displayed clearly enough. For example, there is no sign displayed at the entrance (a breach of the ‘British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice’, Paragraph 18.2, 2013). Similarly, any signs within the carpark are too high, with wording too ambiguous and confusing to be seriously considered by any reasonable person (BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice’, Paragraph 18.3, 2013).
With regard to these points, it is my opinion as the registered keeper that this has been deliberately done in a clandestine manner to hide UKCPS’ presence at the carpark in question; and that any attempt to do so is contravening (and by no means exhaustive) the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 2 (2) and (3)(b).
2. Alleged Contract agreement:
Given the issue with inadequate signage, among other issues, there can be no reasonable consideration, (and therefore acceptance), flowing from both parties to justify true contractual consent. This is upheld by recent legislation - The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. It states that expressed consent – rather than implied, is required for any consumer contract and any information should be clearly provided. I therefore then reject any claim that a contract was or ever has been made between UKCPS and me the registered keeper, or the driver (who cannot be named and no assumptions can be made).
3. Genuine pre-estimate of loss:
Given the fact that the carpark where the vehicle was allegedly parked was free of charge, the sum requested for £100 does not represent a ‘genuine pre-estimate of loss’. The ‘BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice’, (Paragraph 19.5, 2013) states that any ‘genuine pre-estimate loss’ should not normally expect to be over £100. It is of my opinion that UKCPS has not seriously considered the ‘genuine pre-estimate of loss’ in this specific case, and is attempting to claim the maximum amount it can under the aforementioned BPA code of practice. Consequently the invoice for £100 can be characterised as a punitive and unreasonable and is therefore not justified (‘BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice’, Paragraph 19.6, 2013).
4. Proprietary interest
As the registered keeper I have not seen any evidence that UKCPS has any proprietary interest in the land to issue charges and pursue them in their own name, including whether the true landowners have given them permission to pursue such action at court level or what vehicles that may or may not be subject to parking restrictions (‘BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice’, Paragraph 7.2, 2013).
For clarity I would like to express the intention of this letter in regard to UKCPS’ invoice for £100:
• A formal challenge – this communication is a formal challenge to any monies requested by UKCPS for an unpaid ‘parking charge’. As there can be no assumptions to who the driver was UKCPS must either:
a) Cancel any ‘charges’, accepting that any claim would be fruitless and rigorously defended in a civil court - subject to accepting my claim for costs as clearly stated below.
b) Rely on POFA (Schedule. 4, 2012) to try and claim the invoice amount based on keeper liability, plus accepting your weak basis for any claim mentioned in the above points.
Therefore the onus is on UKCPS to either uphold my challenge and cease to harass me – or send a letter expressing their reasons for rejection, explaining each point specified in this letter.
• ‘Drop-hands’ offer – although both parties may disagree on the UKCPS’ ‘pre-estimate of loss’ of £100, I understand that UKCPS may have incurred costs in contacting the keeper. However, I have also incurred costs for taking the time to read the notice to keeper; researching the law; and postage. At this point it is clear that both our costs do not exceed £20 at best. Therefore this is my formal ‘drop-hands’ offer to UKCPS. For all parties involved to accept the losses on both sides as they lie, and for neither one of the parties to pursue any losses in the future. However if UKCPS persists, I will charge an hourly fee based on my occupation as a Dental care professional, for which I can assure you is very expensive, for my time plus expenses and damages for harassment.
By replying to this formal challenge you are acknowledging receipt and acceptance of all of the points made above. If UKCPS decides to persist I will not hesitate to spend time rigorously appealing and defending this matter. As such I remind UKCPS again that it will be liable for any costs incurred and that my pre-estimate loss (which is genuine), given my profession, will likely be greater than £100.
I have kept proof of this challenge, along with any relevant evidence (including photographic) and I look forward to your considered reply in no less than 35 days.
0
Comments
-
Congratulations, but I'm afraid your step-by-step guide will not be as helpful as you might think because UKCPS is no longer a member of the BPA.Je suis Charlie.0
-
I dunno baz - I was told that advice a few weeks ago and their most recent letter (yesterday) clearly states that they are a member of the BPA.0
-
What was your reason for this demand?Dentist1234 wrote: »I have kept proof of this challenge, along with any relevant evidence (including photographic) and I look forward to your considered reply in no less than 35 days.
(Surely that gave them carte blanche to ignore you for ever)0 -
Well they're not, at least they're not members of the AOS which means they're not bound by the BPA CoP and they don't have to go to PoPLA:
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Approved-Operators
http://www.theipc.info/#!aos-members/cv75
Tickets issued whilst they were members of the BPA can still be appealed under the BPA regime (they were typically cancelling these on receipt of a strong first appeal, because they knew they'd lose at PoPLA).
However, tickets issued since they jumped ship to the IPC a few weeks ago must be appealed under the IPC regime, and they will not cancel these because they know they will most likely win at the IAS kangaroo court.Je suis Charlie.0 -
What was your reason for this demand?
(Surely that gave them carte blanche to ignore you for ever)
No. The BPA CoP states that appeals must be resolved within 35 days, but some PPCs play fast-and-loose with that requirement. If it's mentioned in the appeal then they can't say they didn't know.
0 -
Well done OP good result!
It is true that UKCPS have jumped ship to the IPC but the appeal rejections they are sending out still have the BPA logo on them.
I guess they are respecting the environment.0 -
Dentist1234 wrote: »I have kept proof of this challenge, along with any relevant evidence (including photographic) and I look forward to your considered reply in no less than 35 days.What was your reason for this demand?
(Surely that gave them carte blanche to ignore you for ever)No. The BPA CoP states that appeals must be resolved within 35 days, but some PPCs play fast-and-loose with that requirement. If it's mentioned in the appeal then they can't say they didn't know.
The point is it should have said no MORE than 35 days rather than no LESS than 35 days or just stuck with the template wording "within 35 days"
Anyway Well done Dentist1234. :T0 -
The question posed to the OP was why did he demand in his appeal they take more than 35 days before replying!No. The BPA CoP states that appeals must be resolved within 35 days, but some PPCs play fast-and-loose with that requirement. If it's mentioned in the appeal then they can't say they didn't know.0 -
This can annoy the people who help you out on here (coupon-mad & unkomaas).
Who? Moi?
I only get annoyed when people spell my name incorrectly! Grrrr. :mad: :rotfl:
PS - great result!Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards