UKPPO Popla Appeal Help

Jinx_001

Hi,


Firstly apologies as I've posted this twice but I wanted to double check my popla appeal before I sent it off . I've received a rejection letter from UKPPO:


UK Parking Patrol
Department 309,
Great Northern House,
275 Deansgate
Manchester
M3 4EL

Penalty Charge Number: ******

Vehicle Registration Number: *******

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your letter of appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice issued by us on **.**.2015
Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:

The vehicle was captured via CCTV footage parked loading/unloading whilst in clear view of a warning sign stating “No Stopping/Loading/Unloading In This Area”, see attached. There are signs around the entire airport complex including at the entrance that clearly state the parking restrictions in place. Security at the airport is paramount and any vehicle captured loading or unloading in anywhere other than the official collection/drop off car park is issued a notice by the CCTV operator.

The land is subject to byelaws, to which we are contracted to enforce. The penalty was issued under these byelaws and not contract law, therefore the Protection of Freedom Act does not apply and the registered keeper is held liable.

We are in possession of a signed agreement with the landowner. We are unable to supply you with a copy of this agreement due to Data Protection but a copy will be produced should the case go to court/POPLA.

The vehicle has been issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice. Therefore genuine pre-estimate of loss is not relevant and the penalty was correctly incurred.

You now have a number of options:

1. Pay the Penalty Charge Notice at the prevailing price of £60 within 14 days. Please note that after this time you will lose the chance to pay the discounted rate and the full amount of £100 will become payable.

2. Make an appeal within 28-days to POPLA- The Independent Appeals Service by visiting their website at: POPLA Website and completing the accompanying forms. Please be advised that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case and are unsuccessful, the full amount of £100 will become payable. If you opt to pay the penalty charge you will be unable to appeal to POPLA. Your verification code is: **********

3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.

How to Pay:
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PAY £60 WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE ISSUE OF THIS CORRESPONDENCE. CHEQUES/POSTAL ORDERS SHOULD BE CROSSED AND MADE PAYABLE TO:

The UK Parking Patrol Office and posted to:

Parking Patrol Collections
Office 309, Great Northern House
275 Deansgate, Manchester
M3 4EL

Alternatively you can pay online at parking tickets

Jinx_001

[FONT="&amp]Here's a draft for the POPLA appeal. I've used the template from the forum and tweaked it a little (not sure if they would be relevant or if I should omit anything? If someone could kindly advise if it's ok or if I should amend anything in it before I send it off? [/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]Thanks in advance[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]
[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

RE: POPLA Code **********

Vehicle Registration: *******
PPC: UK Parking Patrol Office
PCN ref: ******
Alleged Contravention Date: **/**/2015
Date of notice: **/**/2015

On **.**.2015 I received an invoice from UK Parking Patrol Office requiring payment of a £100 charge for the alleged contravention of “Parking in a Prohibited Area”. The vehicle appears to have stopped, for possibly 2 minutes, to allow a passenger to alight on the airport approach road.

I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds.
1) Not relevant land for registered keeper liability
2) Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
3) “Penalty Charge Notice” Breach of BPA Code of Practice
4) No authority to levy charges
5) Keeper is not liable for the charge as POFA does not apply
6) Signage
7) No Creditor identified on the Notice to Keeper

1) Not relevant land for registered keeper liability
I contend that this is not 'private land' as defined by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, therefore there is no keeper liability. It's an Airport road and this Airport is known to have Byelaws and the right to 'registered keeper liability' is simply not available on land covered by local Bylaws. Railway or Airport land is generally not 'relevant land' under the definition within the POFA. The keeper puts the Operator to strict proof to POPLA that this particular Airport Road is not covered by Statute or Byelaw and is 'relevant land' (as defined in Schedule 4 paragraph 3) because I believe it is not 'relevant land' at all.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]
2) Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The keeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.
The BPA code of practice states:

19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay
is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge
must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that
you suffer.

19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually
agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or
unreasonable

The keeper require UK Parking Patrol Office to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the 'charge' was arrived at. I am aware from court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimate losses.
I, therefore, respectfully request that my appeal is upheld


3) “Penalty Charge Notice” Breach of BPA Code of Practice [/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]If it is indeed a “Penalty Charge Notice” issued under statute then [/FONT][FONT="&amp]POPLA[/FONT][FONT="&amp] has no jurisdiction and the matter should be referred to Trading Standards for possible criminal proceedings. The wording “Penalty Charge Notice” and “Fixed Penalty Notice” have been used by the Operator in their correspondences and in their signage and therefore UK Parking Patrol Office is in clear breach of the BPA CoP which states:

[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]14 Misrepresentation of authority[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]14.1 You must not misrepresent to the public that the parking[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]control and enforcement work you are doing is carried[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]out under the statutory powers of the police or some[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]other public authority.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp] [/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]14.2 You must give clear information to the public about what[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]parking activities are allowed and what is unauthorised.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]However, you must not mislead the public into believing[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]that the rules you are enforcing are based upon the[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]powers of an agency regulated by Statute.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp] [/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]14.3 Operators who suggest to the public that they are[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]providing parking enforcement under statutory authority[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]will be acting in breach of the Code.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp] [/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]14.4 You must not use terms which imply that you are acting[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]under statutory authority; this will include terms such as[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]‘fine’, ‘penalty’ or ‘penalty charge notice’.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp] [/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]14.5 The term ‘PCN’ is used to denote a ‘Penalty Charge[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]Notice’ in the ‘on street’ environment. If you use the term[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]PCN in your ‘Parking Charge Notice’, you must preface[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]PCN with ‘Parking Charge Notice’ at least once in your[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]document.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]
[/FONT][FONT="&amp]B10.5 You must not try to impose a ‘penalty’. You must not call[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]a parking charge a ‘penalty charge’ on any document[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp](electronic or paper) that refers to parking charges, or on[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]any signs in your car parks.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]
4) No authority to levy charges.
A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorisation to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract.
The Operator must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the land-owner; or, a contract or other evidence that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue charge notices at this location
The Keeper believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles the Operator to levy these charges and to pursue these 'charges' in their own name as creditor in the courts and, therefore, has no authority to issue charge notices.
The keeper puts the Operator to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and I demand that the Operator produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the Operator.

5) Keeper is not liable for the charge as POFA does not apply
This is not a parking issue, but a stopping/dropping off passenger issue. Therefore POFA 2012 does not apply, which means Registered Keeper liability does not apply
I 1) This was not a parking incident as defined by the POFA 2012 which states:
Quote:
1(1)This Schedule applies where—
(a)the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land; and ...
2) Therefore, keeper liability does not apply
3) The operator may only pursue the driver
4) The operator has offered no proof as to the identity of the driver
5) The operator should not have requested the keeper details from DVLA.

I, therefore, respectfully request that my appeal is upheld


6) Signage
Prominent, clear signs are a strict requirement of the CoP and are especially important in an area the Operator is, apparently, claiming is a no Dropping Off/ Picking up zone, bearing in mind that this is an area of moving traffic where a driver will not have had a chance to read and understand any alleged contractual terms merely signposted in unclear 'headings above small-print' style.
The keeper puts it to the Operator to demonstrate how their signage meets the BPA's regulations.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]I would also like to point out the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the Chief Adjudicator's first Annual POPLA Report 2013:

''It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it. Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it.''

[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]I contend that even if the sign could be read from a moving vehicle, which it cannot, no contract could be entered in to as this is a matter of “Dropping Off/ Picking up” and not one of parking.

As there was no contract entered in to I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.


7) No Creditor identified on the Notice to Keeper
Failing to include specific identification as to who 'the Creditor' may be, is misleading and not compliant, in regards to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the POFA. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to be made to UKPPO, there is no specific identification of the Creditor, who may, in law, be UKPP or some other party. The POFA requires a ‘Notice to Keeper’ to have words to the effect that 'The Creditor is….' and the Notice does not.
I, therefore, respectfully submit that my appeal by upheld and the charge dismissed.

Yours Sincerely,

[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]
[/FONT]

System

Have you added that UKPPO is not a legal entity and the Creditor is not identified. Its impossible to contract with an unidentified entity. Should be Fred Bloggs Trading as or UKPPO Ltd on signs. You will see that there is nothing there.

Jinx_001

Thank you for your reply. Yes, there is a section stating that the creditor is unknown and therefore no contract.
Is the rest of it ok? Was I right to added in the section about the BPA CoP breach?

System

You're on the right track but it is not a Code issue - its a legal issue.

UKPPO are not a statutory body therefore cannot demand a fine. Statutory fines are for the courts. Misrepresentation of authority or fraud or both.

Demand POPLA to refer this back to the BPA for further investigation and sanction.

Jinx_001

Thank you for that. I'll make the amendments before sending it off and will keep you posted on the outcome. Thanks for your help.

Jinx_001

Also one other thing, is it worth putting a copy of the PCN and the rejection email as evidence? or would they have this already?

System

Copy is a good idea so POPLA can send it off to the BPA for investigation.

You might also want to make a separate point about this to Eric at Communities and Local Government. He wants to know

Comments here

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MVFQBFX

Jinx_001

I've added copies of the PCN letter, and also the rejection email as evidence. I'll have a look at the link you provided. Thanks

Jinx_001

Hello again,


I've received an email from POPLA where UK Parking Patrol Office have submitted their response:


The UK Parking Patrol Office
Dept 309,
Great Northern House,
275 Deansgate
Manchester
M3 4EL



Dear Sir/Madam,




Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXX


PCN – XXXXXX


We enforce the parking restrictions at: Roads surrounding Newcastle Airport, Woolsington, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE13 8BZ via CCTV footage that is taken by airport security. We have a signed contract with the landowner that enables us to go to the DVLA and request registered keeper details and then write to the keeper informing them they have incurred a notice.



The above vehicle was parked unloading whilst in clear view of several signs stating “No Stopping/Loading/Unloading In This Area”.



Please see the attached files:




1. The initial parking form issued by the CCTV operator clearly stating the reason for issue as “Dropping off/Picking up in a Restricted Area”.


2. The Notice to Owner.


3. Formal Demand.


4. The appeal and rejection.


5. CCTV footage of the contravention.


6. Vehicle unloading in restricted area.


7. Site photographs showing the area is well signed and also well lit (red lines have since been painted as an added deterrent) .


8. The wording of the warning signs (at 600x600mm larger that the BPA state we must adhere to).


9. Agreement with Park & Fly and statement of authorisation (sensitive information obscured due to Data Protection).


10. Copy of airport bye-laws.



We have recently changed the way that we issue and enforce the restrictions at the airport. As the land is subject to byelaws we are now issuing Fixed Penalty Charges under these byelaws. We spoke in length to the British Parking Association about this and Steve Clarke in particular, who advised us this was the correct route to take. The issue regarding whether to offer the option to appeal to POPLA was also talked about and we were advised to offer this option. The following quote is directly from the BPA: “ The reason is that under the Airport Bylaws at Newcastle airport, there is no facility to offer an independent appeals service after the initial appeal. Therefore you are providing the motorist with the same opportunity, that the rest of the private parking industry provides (ATA members only). This is being seen as fair to the motorist”.



The appellant states that they stopped to drop off a passenger and that as the registered keeper they are not liable for the charge. The attached photographs/CCTV footage shows the vehicle stopped in close proximity to several warning signs. The site photographs submitted may have been taken during daylight hours but as the site is an airport the entire complex is well lit. For the avoidance of doubt as the vehicle incurred a penalty under the airport bylaws the registered keeper is liable for the charge.



The Appellant appears to be confused in her approach to contesting this parking charge (please note the term “parking charge” is used based on the terminology set out in the bylaws, notwithstanding the fact the parking charge was issued as a penalty). This confusion has meant that the points put forward in the Appeal are superfluous to the issues at hand. Any reference to a contract is ill-considered as this matter relates to a criminal offence and whilst the Respondent to the appeal is at this stage happy to allow payment of the Parking Charge, it fully reserves its right to take alternative, criminal action if this remains unpaid. In view of this, any points in the appeal to which a ‘contract’ is inferred are ignored and rejected outright. What is more, any reference to the Appellant’s “belief” or “personal (albeit miss-guided) understanding” is submitted to be defunct, as ignorance is no defence in criminal law.



The parking charge was issued pursuant to an offence committed by the Appellant under the Newcastle International Airport Bylaws 2009 (‘the Bylaws’), a copy of which is attached. To clarify, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is not relevant where the Bylaws apply.




The Appellant has set out the relevant facts of the offence which are not substantively in dispute; the Appellant (and registered keeper of Vehicle reg. BG07WCL) “waited” in a vehicle where waiting was prohibited by notice pursuant to clause 6.3 of the Bylaws. The notice to which is referred is the sign at the location where the offence took place, a copy of which is attached together with a site plan as to where they were located.




The Respondent to this appeal, as an agent to Newcastle International Airport Limited (i.e. The Company), was entitled pursuant to clause 3.3 of the Bylaws to apply a parking charge (as it did). For the avoidance of doubt, pursuant to clause 3.3 the Respondent could have alternatively applied a wheel clamp or removed the vehicle but elected not to.




In accordance with clause 3.3.1 of the Bylaws the Respondent was obliged to send to the Appellant (as Registered Keeper) a ‘Parking Charge Notice’ that specified;


i. The sum the Registered Keeper is required to pay


ii. The time within which the payment must be made


iii. The address to which the payment must be sent


iv. That court action may be commenced to recover the sum



The Respondent complied with this clause, yet payment was not forthcoming.




The motorist parked on land which is governed by Byelaw 6.3. The Byelaw gives permission for Newcastle International Airport Ltd or its agents to issue parking charges to Registered Keepers of vehicles who breach the Byelaws. We are acting as an agent of Newcastle International Airport Ltd. The charge is not issued under contract law and is not an attempt to recover damages for breaching a contract. The charge is an alternative to prosecution in the Magistrates Court for breaching the byelaws. As a result of the charge being permitted under the byelaws Genuine Pre-estimate of loss is not a consideration which is relevant.




The attached agreements (actual contract produced and not merely a witness statement) clearly show that we have the appropriate authorisation to enforce the penalty’s issued at the airport. It would be somewhat inconceivable for a high security venue like an airport to hold an agreement with a company who do not have the appropriate legal standing. The BPA have issued the following statement: “The contract incorporates the elements that we require in our Code of Practice. It can be clearly seen the contract has been signed to the effect that Newcastle Airport Byelaws will be enforced and that authority is given to take legal action against the driver or the keeper”.



Therefore by dropping off a passenger in a no stopping/loading/unloading area the notice was correctly issued/incurred.


Kind regards




S Froggatt
UK Parking Patrol

Jinx_001

Could someone please advise what should I do next?