UKPC parking charge at school

Trillain

Hi, hope someone can help with wording on my 1st letter to UKPC.
My partner got a parking ticket whilst using my car - I'm the registered keeper. I have dutifully waited for the letter to arrive, so now ready to contest. I have copied out the template just want some help tailoring it to situation...
The ticket is for 'not parking correctly within the markings of the bay or space' in a free car park on a school and college campus.
Other-half is a peripatetic music teacher and teaches individual lessons to a few students paid for by the school to help with their GCSE or A-level performance pieces, is the fact that they were there in a work capacity relevant?
Thinking I should I change CEO for Head? I the imagine the school is a tenant not the land-owner.
Tried using the search function to find a similar situation with no luck, anyone know of one.
Thanks in advance

Redx

you dont need to find a similar situation !

just read and follow the NEWBIES sticky thread , above this thread

use the template "as is" , or remove the "rant part" only

what happened on the day is largely irrelevant

Coupon-mad

I would be tempted to also argue, if true, that this school land (if a state school) is owned by the local authority so it's not 'relevant land'. The will of Parliament is that parking enforcement on Council-owned land open to the public for parking (which schools are) can only flow from the TMA 2004. Councils cannot act as if land is private land when it is not; they are not empowered by the Dept for Transport to impose restrictions under contract law. And in any case there can be no registered keeper liability.

But then again, UKPC will probably have cancelled by this time next week if you've sent a version of the first appeal from the Newbies thread.

Trillain

I got my rejection letter from UKPC, which looked very standard, so they are obviously getting a lot of similar appeals.

Just looking at the points previously made on letters to POPLA. The major points that seem relevant to my situation are that it is a free car park so no genuine pre-estimation of loss, unfair, unreasonable and no basis for contract with the driver points. Coupon mad's point above the Kent County Council appear to be the owners of the land, this being the case, this is not relevant land under the the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as it is maintained by public expense, so Schedule 4 does not apply.
Not sure whether to include anything about signage, OH took a picture, says there are a number dotted around, but they are over 7 feet high, which seems a bit excessive?
I'll post up the whole letter for review in a bit. Anything I should add?

Trillain

If somebody has the time could you please review my appeal to Popla. This site has been a great help putting this together, I just want to check I haven't confused any points from copying from different sources.

I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle related to the parking charge notice number xxxxx received from UKPC. UKPC are pursuing me as the registered keeper of the vehicle under schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As registered keeper, I am not liable for this PCN and so I wish to appeal on the grounds numbered 1 - 7 as outlined below:
1)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Failure to establish keeper liability
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 applies only to ‘relevant land’ for the creditor to claim unpaid parking tickets from the keeper of the vehicle. The site in question, Maidstone Campus is a school site and is, I believe, owned by Kent County Council, as such it does not meet the definition of ‘relevant land’ and schedule 4 does not apply. From the Department of Transport’s guidance on section 56 and schedule 4 of PoFA 2012:
4.1
The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.
Local authorities are empowered by the Traffic Management Act 2004, for parking enforcement on public land. Councils cannot act as if land is private land when it is not; they are not empowered by the Department for Transport to impose restrictions under contract law. Therefore there is no keeper liability stemming from the PoFA 2012 and I cannot be held liable for this charge. If UKPC argue otherwise then they must prove that this land is not owned and/or controlled by the local authority and does not constitute public land. The onus falls upon UKPC to demonstrate this and I put them to strict proof on this point.

2) Contract with the landowner- not compliant with the BPA code of practice or legal status to offer parking or enforcement charges

The operator does not own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their Notice and in the rejection letters, UKPC has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

I require UKPC to provide a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner.

Contracts are complicated things, so a witness statement signed by someone is not good enough, neither is a statement that a person has seen it. A copy of the original showing the points above is the only acceptable items as evidence that a contract exists and authorises The Operator the right, under contract to write numerous letters to an appellant chasing monies without taking them to Court, to pursue parking charges in their own name, to retain any monies received from appellants and to pursue them through to Court.

I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed the legal standing to allege a breach of contract. I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges. It was stated that: "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be." The ruling of the Court was that "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services." In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated, losses, as set out above.


3) No contract with the driver

There is no contract between UKPC and the driver, but even if there was a contract then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. So the requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, consideration etc, were not satisfied.

4) 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. In particular, 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" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."



5) Unreasonable

The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

6) No breach of contract and no genuine pre-estimate of loss

There was no parking charge levied, the car park is “free”. The car was parked in such a way as to cause absolutely no damage or obstruction and therefore no loss arose from this incident. There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can UKPC lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in enforcing parking restrictions at the site (for example, by erecting signage and employing administration staff) in any 'loss' claimed. This does not represent a loss resulting from a breach of the alleged parking contract. In other words, were no breach to have occurred, the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same. This has been quoted by PoPLA itself in adjudication.

I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared or considered in advance.

The charge that was levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable) against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Nor does it even equate to local council charges of £8.00 for all day parking. This is all the more so for the additional charges which operator states accrues after 28 days of non-payment. This would also apply to any mentioned costs incurred through debt recovery unless it followed a court order. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by 40% by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with.

7) Unlawful penalty charge

Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012) .

The operator is either charging for losses or it is a penalty/fine.

The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CONTRACTUAL PARKING CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.

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