UKPC Parking Charge

Kieran_C · 23 March 2015 at 1:54PM

Here's the letter I plan to send to POPLA.
I would appreciate any comments.
Thanks:

POPLA Reference Number 8660625721

Dear Madam/Sir,
I was the driver of vehicle reg xxx xxxx on the day UKPC issued a parking charge and this is my appeal:

1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
This Operator must prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. There is no loss flowing from this parking event because the car was not parked in a bay and the event occurred in a free car park.

This Operator 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 signage - no contract with driver
I see that the sign is placed high up and is difficult to read. It is not adjacent to where I parked. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. I did not see any signso there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties.

3) 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.

5) 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. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:
'18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances.

A small sign of terms placed too high to rea and not immediately obvious, is far from 'transparent'.

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".

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.”

I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on signs like this in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a free car park. I put this Operator to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described does not cause a significant imbalance to my detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.

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

Coupon-mad · 23 March 2015 at 2:01PM

What happened when you complained to the contacts Castle gave you for the retail park? You will beat UKPC at POPLA fairly easily but a complaint to the retail park itself is in order too. Link already above.

I was the driver of vehicle reg

You have already admitted this then? Oh yes I see from post #1 you have. Oh well. You'll still win but be ready to rebut UKPC's 'GPEOL evidence' and file that they will send to POPLA in April.

Kieran_C · 23 March 2015 at 4:13PM

Thanks Coupon-Mad.
I didn't get round to complaining to the retail park.
I complained to the store I visited. They were no help. Details in thread.
What does 'GPEOL evidence and file' mean?

Walaboobah · 23 March 2015 at 5:26PM

Kieran_C wrote: »

Thanks Coupon-Mad.
I didn't get round to complaining to the retail park.
I complained to the store I visited. They were no help. Details in thread.
What does 'GPEOL evidence and file' mean?

1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
This Operator must prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. There is no loss flowing from this parking event because the car was not parked in a bay and the event occurred in a free car park.

GPEOL = genuine pre-estimate of loss

Kieran_C · 12 April 2016 at 3:55PM

Received a etter on April 11th asking for response within 7 days from 7th April. Seems a bit unreasonable. Anyone else got one? Do I need to respond?
I don't seem to have permission to upload it. It says they have been appointed to act as an independent appeals body and that, given the length of time that has passes since my appeal was lodged (pending Supreme Court Beavis judgement) I have 7 days from 7 April date of their letter to submit any further evidence.

Any suggestions?

Redx · 12 April 2016 at 5:07PM

Kieran_C wrote: »

Received a etter on April 11th asking for response within 7 days from 7th April. Seems a bit unreasonable. Anyone else got one? Do I need to respond?
I don't seem to have permission to upload it. It says they have been appointed to act as an independent appeals body and that, given the length of time that has passes since my appeal was lodged (pending Supreme Court Beavis judgement) I have 7 days from 7 April date of their letter to submit any further evidence.

Any suggestions?

yes, plenty of people

read through the links I posted

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5336635

Coupon-mad · 12 April 2016 at 5:13PM

Kieran_C wrote: »

Any suggestions?

Read rachieb77's thread and the Parking Prankster's new Blog about this.

RESPOND BUT SENSIBLY AND AFTER RESEARCHING AND READING WHAT IS IMPORTANT (GPEOL no longer is, in most cases, and the Equality Act will not win a POPLA appeal anyway).

We cannot individually deal with these this week, hence why the two places above are where to look.

Your response to WH depends on whether you received an evidence pack from UKPC (if yes, rebut it/make final comments about signage and landowner authority, etc) or if no evidence pack was ever received, tell WH you have never had any evidence - Parking Prankster's Blog explains what to say. No link provided. It's already shown on rachieb77's thread which you can easily find as it's a new one this week.

Ralph-y · 12 April 2016 at 5:38PM

Kieran_C · 23 July 2016 at 8:04PM

So, WH have rejected my appeal on behalf of POPLA and have informed UKPC who have written to me to pay or face debt collectors and Court. Ouch.

Umkomaas · 23 July 2016 at 8:12PM

Kieran_C wrote: »

So, WH have rejected my appeal on behalf of POPLA and have informed UKPC who have written to me to pay or face debt collectors and Court. Ouch.

Ignore debt collectors - toothless! Do not ignore a LBA/LBCCC or real court papers.

Post up your (redacted) WHOPLA (WH POPLA) adjudication. It may be badly assessed, so there is the possibility of an opportunity to complain to ISPA - the POPLA (and WHOPLA) overseeing body.

We can guide you on that.

UKPC Parking Charge

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free