UKPPO Popla Appeal Help

Coupon-mad

Put the word Newcastle into 'search this forum' (on the right on page one just above the threads, next to 'forum tools') and read the answers from two days ago.

Jinx_001

Hi Coupon-Mad,


Thanks for your quick reply. I've found the post and will check it out.


Many Thanks

Jinx_001

Ok, I just wanted to check before I send this email to popla, so if someone could check to see that it's ok and let me know your thoughts before I send it off? Thanks




I request an urgent rebuttal of the operator evidence is added to the appeal file before the decision is made. I believe that UK Parking Patrol Office is acting unlawfully and fraudulently. For matters of convenience UK Parking Patrol Office is referred as UKPPO.


Firstly, I will stress that at no point has the driver been identified and therefore no assumptions could be drawn. The onus is on UK Parking Patrol to identify the driver, which they failed to do so and no invitation to request the driver details were made. I am astounded that UKPPO are continuing to pursue keeper liability and have obtained my details unlawfully. Keeper liability can only be established by invoking POFA 2012 and no other legislation. If byelaws regulate parking then it is not ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012 and therefore no keeper liability can apply. It also appears that there may be a conflict between the byelaws at Newcastle Airport and current legislation. The Byelaws don’t have the authority to over-rule current legislation.


Secondly, I would like UKPPO to clarify why they are pursuing this penalty charge for “Parking in a prohibited area” when the CCTV operator clearly states that the reason for issue is “Dropping off/Picking up in restricted a restricted area”. There appears to be no contravention in the Byelaws for “Dropping off/Picking up”.


Thirdly, from the evidence of the signage and site photographs provided by UKPPO, it is obvious that for a driver to read the sign, they would have to physically turn their head and look away from the road to read the terms on the signs whilst maintaining an airport speed of 20mph. How is it possible for a driver to read the sign with the amount of wording used without stopping?


Fourthly, the time stated for the alleged contravention was 06.01am, yet the photographs supplied show times of 06.02 25 and 06.03 46 and the video clip provided starts from 06.02 14 and finishes at 06.03 12. Therefore this shows that the alleged contravention didn’t occur at the time stated.


Fifthly, UKPPO states that this is a criminal offence yet surely they must be aware that in such instances this would have to be appealed through the Magistrates Court and not via POPLA who have no jurisdiction to adjucate on criminal matters.


Sixthly, UKPPO issued a “Penalty Charge Notice” but on who’s authority as it has no statutory powers. Under the Byelaws, that UKPPO are claiming to enforce, there is no mention of any “Penalty Charge Notice”. Under Byelaw 3.3 it states, ‘the Company or its agents may (in its/their absolute discretion) either:





3.3.1 Apply a Parking Charge Notice


3.3.2 Apply a wheel clamp to the vehicle


3.3.3 Remove the vehicle


This shows that the only power that Newcastle Airport Byelaws confer on the airport and it’s agents (not UKPPO) is to issue a Notice to Keeper. Neither does it state anywhere that breaking Byelaws related to parking would be liable to prosecution nor any penalty payable upon conviction


In their statement, UKPPO stated that,


“In accordance with clause 3.3.1 of the Byelaws the Respondent was obliged to send to the Appellent (as Registered Keeper) a ‘Parking Charge Notice’”,


Yet the evidence that they have supplied shows that they have issued a Penalty Charge Notice which is not enforceable by law.


Seventhly, UKPPO need to decide on what type of company they are. On UKPPO’s own website, UKPPO is a Limited company, registered as:


UK Parking Patrol Office Limited are registered in England (company number 07105527)
Registered Office at: 7 Christie Way, Christie Fields, Manchester M21 7QY


However, on all correspondence received from them they state themselves as


The UK Parking Patrol Office


Dept 309,


Great Northern House,


275 Deansgate


Manchester


M3 4EL





This address is in fact a mailbox address.


If they are registered as a limited company, then UKPPO is breaking Company Law by failing to state ‘Ltd’ in the company name, the company registered address and registration number on their correspondence.


UKPPO are also breaking the law by failing to identify the ‘creditor’ who is legally entitled to recover the parking charge.


UKPPO claim that they have an “actual contract” with Park & Fly and statement of authorisation. The statement of authorisation is dated 23rd April 2015 and addressed to:


Mr Steve Cheetham


Managing Director


UK Parking Patrol Office Limited


Department 309


Deans Gate


Manchester


M3 4EL





followed by the “Parking Enforcement Contract”, which is absolutely worthless.





The UKPPO company headed paper again states the mailbox address. The alleged contract is dated 5th January 2015. This is not a legitimate contract. The UK Parking Patrol office is a trading name and is breaking the law by failing to disclose the true identity on official paperwork. A trading name alone CANNOT enter into a contract, a legal entity is required.


If UK Parking Patrol Office is a limited company then again they are breaking the law by not stating Ltd in the name, the company registered address and registration number. One very interesting point to note is that UK Parking Patrol Office Limited has been dormant for a while and therefore would not be able to enter into any contracts.


Therefore, UK Parking Patrol Office has failed to produce a legitimate contract and as such has NO AUTHORITY to issue charge notices.

Guys_Dad

The letter from the PPC has the following in it "The appellant states that they stopped to drop off a passenger and that as the registered keeper they are not liable for the charge."

If you have indeed written in your appeal that you were the driver, then you can forget your first point. If you did not, in fact, say that in your appeal, you need to rebut their claim in your first point.

ManxRed

Add the fact that UKPPO Ltd is a dormant company, and - under Company Law - should not be trading.

Jinx_001

Hi Guys Dad,


Thanks for your reply. No I was not the driver and have never stated who the driver was. From the video evidence that they provided, the driver is seen to stop, leave the car and the passenger drive the car off. However, UKPPO continue in their statement to accuse me (registered keeper) of the offense.


Thanks ManxREd, I'll add that in.

Myriddin

ManxRed wrote: »

Add the fact that UKPPO Ltd is a dormant company, and - under Company Law - should not be trading.

I queried Companies House on this very topic recently when dealing with [FONT=&quot]Creative Parking Solutions PLC who are registered as a dormant company[/FONT]. The reply I got: '[FONT=&quot]I can understand your concerns that it would appear that a dormant company has been awarded a contract to manage a car park. On the face of it, it may seem odd for a company that does not trade to be awarded a contract. However, it may be that the company is acting as an agent on behalf of another company and does not trade in its own right.'[/FONT]

I wonder if something similar is going on with this bunch?

ManxRed

As far as I can see it's claiming that it's formed contracts with motorists, under which it is due money.

That's trading in my book. Unless someone else knows different.

enfield_freddy

dunno , but its nice of them to state:


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


which is in direct contidiction to there signature saying they understand and will abide by b the KODOE agreement with the DVLA (parking , not stopping offences)


they then go on to contradict there contract by stating you have :


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

Jinx_001

Ok, so I emailed POPLA today and they added the information to the file. Just wanted your thoughts on the response from UKPPO below (My thoughts are in bold italics):

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

Dear Sir/Madam,

Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXX
PCN – XXXXXX

Dear Sirs,

In response to the additional evidence submission by the appellant I would like to apologise for submitting the incorrect appeal rejection. Please find the correct response attached.

To reiterate, the parking charge was issued pursuant to an offence committed 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 and the registered keeper is held liable. (Why do they keep stating this? The one and only time that the registered keeper is mentioned in the Byelaws is in clause 3.3.1.1.1 the sum that the registered keeper is required to pay. Whereas in clause 3 it refers to the driver committing the offence)

The CCTV operator has described what has actually happened rather than quoting the relevant byelaw. When we receive the information from the CCTV operator we assess this and enter it on our system under the specific byelaw which in this case is clearly:

6.3 Parking in Prohibited Areas
Wait in, leave or park a vehicle where waiting or parking is prohibited by notice

The vehicle is parked, as shown on the CCTV footage, for a considerable length of time. (From the video which starts at 06.02 14, the vehicles is seen driving away around 06.02 52, so stationary for just over 30 seconds) Therefore the driver would have had ample time to read the signage whilst in this stationary position. The vehicles headlights are even further illuminating the already visible signage. (I’m not sure how stupid these people are, but the last time I checked, vehicle headlights always face forward towards the oncoming road, not sidewards!)

The timeframe is minute. The CCTV operator must first observe a vehicle contravening the byelaws before they begin to write a PVF and record the relevant footage. (If they’re going to submit evidence, then surely the time should correlate with the offence)

As previously stated regarding the issuing of a POPLA Code, 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”.

Again to reiterate: 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). (can a parking charge be issued as a penalty charge?)

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. (Clamp could not have been applied nor the vehicle removed due to the extremely short time period )

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 ( Not sure where they dreamed this up but this condition is not stated anywhere in the byelaw!)


We have recently changed the status of the company from a sole trader to a limited company, this was from 1st April 2015 and would explain the differences between the information on the letters and website. (Companies House state otherwise – UKPPO Ltd was incorporated in 2009. Also if they have only changed status in April, why are they continuing to use their mailbox details and not add LTD to their name, the registered address etc.)

Re: The Creditor, as the name at the top of the letter is UK Parking Patrol and the payment slip states: “Return payment to UK Parking Patrol” is it quite clear who the creditor is. (Obviously no legal/true identity behind UKPPO)

Please refer to the statement from the BPA regarding the contract we hold with the airport: “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”. (The contract is still not valid for reason already explained in my email to POPLA above in post no 14)

Should I email POPLA again? Is there anything further that I can add apart from my thoughts above?