uk parking limited / pay my PCN - no observation times

ampersand

Just about to edit/amend, having at last had post Sit and Stay.

BUT WE STILL DON'T KNOW FOR SURE WHICH SCUMPANY is in the dock here.

bm - is it UK PARKING CONTROL LTD? or http://www.paymypcn.net/about/index.php

If so, I see 'PaymyPCN and PCN Parking Solutions are a trading style of SolutionLabs Ltd' down the bottom.
Redx, isn't this a phoenix company?- was doing some work on it the other day.
#
Totally agree Mark, whether or not it's regarded as Luddite. I'm the same in Bank, despite using apps. - want my piece of paper:-)

Redx

no idea who it is, but as I say its listed on the BPA AOS listings, with no other info , cant tell you what we dont know ! - sorry

I believe the OP has the correct name, despite our confusion , either way its that popla deadline in 2 weeks they need to concentrate on

Buttermilk181

Redx wrote: »

no idea who it is, but as I say its listed on the BPA AOS listings, with no other info , cant tell you what we dont know ! - sorry

I believe the OP has the correct name, despite our confusion , either way its that popla deadline in 2 weeks they need to concentrate on

I am getting very confused now with this company business.

PCN stuck on the car stated UKP (UK parking limited)

The appeal letter with my POPLA number attached is headed with PaymyPCN(dot).net

Does UKPL get another company involved to pursue the PCN?

I presume the POPLA appeal should be addressed to UK parking limited.

Thanks,

Buttermilk181

In terms of a POPLA letter what do you guys think about the following:

POPLA CODE xxxxxxxxxx
As registered keeper of the vehicle, registration number xxxx xxxx, I wish to appeal against the parking charge issued by UK Parking Ltd.
The appeal is based on the following grounds:

1. No genuine pre-estimate of loss.
2. No proprietary interest in the land.
3. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.

To expand on these points:

1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss:
I do not believe that the £60 fine demonstrates an estimate of likely losses. The driver of the car paid for a ticket, and merely overstayed by a matter of minutes. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable.
Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, costs in relation to processing of appeals when only a very small percentage of motorists actually appeal as far as POPLA 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 Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner
UK Parking Ltd's lack of title or assigned interest in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. Nor do they have the legal status at that site, which would give them any right to offer parking spaces on a contractual basis, as they are not the landowner and I have seen no evidence of a compliant contract with the landowner.
I put UK Parking Ltd to strict proof that they have a relevant, contemporaneous contract with the landowner that entitles them to pursue these charges in the courts in their own name as creditor.
The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) contains the following:
7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary.
I require UK Parking Ltd to produce a full unredacted copy of their agreement with the landowner to confirm (or otherwise) that they have the necessary legal standing to offer parking and pursue charges in their own name. A Witness Statement will not be sufficient.

3) Due to the position of signage, the lack of signage frequency and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs and any core parking terms UK Parking Ltd are relying upon were too small for a driver to read – particularly at night. It is the will of Parliament following the EU Consumer Rights Directive that express consent is obtained for consumer contracts (not implied consent) and that information is provided in a durable medium in advance. Based on the signage in this car park, UK Parking Ltd has failed to meet these requirements. I request that POPLA check UK Parking Ltd evidence and signage positions/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I contend that the signs on this land (wording, position, frequency, clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011 and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2]).
There is no contract between UK Parking Ltd 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. The requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc., were not satisfied.

Signed XXXXXXXXX

Redx

Buttermilk181 wrote: »

I am getting very confused now with this company business.

PCN stuck on the car stated UKP (UK parking limited)

The appeal letter with my POPLA number attached is headed with PaymyPCN(dot).net

Does UKPL get another company involved to pursue the PCN?

I presume the POPLA appeal should be addressed to UK parking limited.

Thanks,

yes, they are using a different company as "back office" to deal with any issues including payments

I think it may be DRP but not sure , I also think its some new parking company or some small fry parking company we havent come across hence the confusion, dont worry about it now, popla is all you should worry about, cant stress that enough

the popla appeal should be addressed to , wait for it ................

POPLA

they have a website which allows you to appeal on it, check it out

in your appeal you may refer to the company name that issued the charge, so if copying and pasting DO NOT leave in the name of apcoa or any other parking company , make sure you proof read it

a quick skim read shows you are on the right track

ampersand

FOUND IT! - :-)and it involves dear old gone bust Roxburghe....
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5124906, #3
#
29-11-2014, 6:42 PM #3 Castle
MoneySaving Convert




Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Sleepy Suffolk
Post Count: 107
Thanked 84 Times in 59 Posts



Ultimate Customer Solutions (UCS) is a trading name of SolutionLabs Ltd (Company No:-9075434). They have taken over management of the Roxburghe Parking Accounts.

Buttermilk181

Redx wrote: »

yes, they are using a different company as "back office" to deal with any issues including payments

I think it may be DRP but not sure , I also think its some new parking company or some small fry parking company we havent come across hence the confusion, dont worry about it now, popla is all you should worry about, cant stress that enough

the popla appeal should be addressed to , wait for it ................

POPLA

they have a website which allows you to appeal on it, check it out

in your appeal you may refer to the company name that issued the charge, so if copying and pasting DO NOT leave in the name of apcoa or any other parking company , make sure you proof read it

a quick skim read shows you are on the right track

Sorry that was an incorrect choice of words on my part. The appeal will be addressed to POPLA. What I meant to say was in the letter do I REFER to UKPL seeing as they issued the initial ticket. You have answered that above so thanks.

ampersand

bm - just to give you an idea, my headings were:
1. Non-Compliant Signage, Unclear and Inadequate.

[STRIKE]2. Signage not compliant with Motorway Service Station Requirements
[/STRIKE]
3. Contract with the Landowner is not Compliant with the BPA code of Practice and No Legal Status to Offer Parking or Enforce Charges

4. No Contract with the Driver

5. Unfair Terms

[STRIKE]6. ANPR Accuracy[/STRIKE]- possibly?

7. No Breach of Contract and No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
#
Each was then expanded upon. Keep the language dry, use 3rd person where possible.
#
Obviously 2 doesn't apply to you and ' On the ticket (which I shall upload..... there are fields for observation times, from and till. These are blank,' suggests blokie+camera? It's a bolt-on, not a killer blow for a ppc scam invoice.

Keep going:-)

bod1467

And you still need to edit various posts (e.g. #1 and #7) to remove your name.

Buttermilk181

ampersand wrote: »

bm - just to give you an idea, my headings were:
1. Non-Compliant Signage, Unclear and Inadequate.

[STRIKE]2. Signage not compliant with Motorway Service Station Requirements
[/STRIKE]
3. Contract with the Landowner is not Compliant with the BPA code of Practice and No Legal Status to Offer Parking or Enforce Charges

4. No Contract with the Driver

5. Unfair Terms

[STRIKE]6. ANPR Accuracy[/STRIKE]- possibly?

7. No Breach of Contract and No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
#
Each was then expanded upon. Keep the language dry, use 3rd person where possible.
#
Obviously 2 doesn't apply to you and ' On the ticket (which I shall upload..... there are fields for observation times, from and till. These are blank,' suggests blokie+camera? It's a bolt-on, not a killer blow for a ppc scam invoice.

Keep going:-)

Okay so I think the draft I copied from elsewhere online maybe rolls a few of your point into one.

1) Okay so in the draft I drew up I mentioned this in point 3. that can be ticked off the list.
2) As you said is not relevant.
3) I think this point was also rolled into point 3 on my appeal?
4) Also in point 3.
5) Point 1?
6) I have no clue about ANPR, I have not seen any digital images of my car provided in any of the correspondence (not to say they dont have any) however I would presume its a man with a camera.
7)Mentioned in point 1.

Are you suggesting I should break my appeal up into smaller sections with your above heading suggestions?

Going back to the man and a camera part, what do you mean by "It's a bolt-on, not a killer blow for a ppc scam invoice."

Thanks for taking your time.