Parking Charge from UKPC - Stevenage Leisure Park

bod1467

fairway76 wrote: »

I've also noticed that the reference no. on the letter and the NTK is different from the number on the actual parking charge issued. Does this matter at all?

You just add that as evidence of UKPC's poor administrative control in your POPLA appeal.

x) I am using this POPLA appeal code in good faith, despite UKPC's notice to keeper and appeal rejection letter making reference to an entirely different PCN number than that received initially by the driver.

fairway76

OK, I haven't heard from the Management Company and want to get my POPLA appeal ready in case they fail to respond at all.

Please see the below - how does this look?

Dear POPLA,

POPLA Reference No: xxxxxxxxx

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration xxxxxx. I received a Notice to Keeper from UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC) on xxxxx for a parking charge of £100 issued on xxxxx for an alleged breach of contractual terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle. I am using this POPLA appeal code in good faith, despite UKPC's notice to keeper and appeal rejection letter making reference to an entirely different PCN number than that received initially by the driver. I have denied all liability to UKPC. Following the rejection of my appeal to UKPC I wish to appeal to POPLA on the following grounds:

1. The parking charge of £100 does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. UKPC have no proprietary interest in the land and no standing
3. The penalty charge is unlawful
4. The Notice to Keeper fails to establish ‘keeper liability’ under PoFA 2012
5. Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice
6. UKPC Have never provided, despite being specifically asked in their appeal process, any evidence of the alleged breach of contractual terms and conditions.

A detailed explanation of these points is given below.

1) NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS

The Notice to Keeper from UKPC alleges that the driver of the vehicle “breached the terms and conditions of parking” and so the charge levied must be damages that UKPC are seeking in redress.

The car park at which the alleged contract breach occurred is “free” and there was no parking charge levied. No damage nor obstruction was caused so there can have been no loss arising from this incident.

UKPC 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. UKPC 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.

UKPC refuted my claims that this charge was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss by citing the ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) case which they state “unambiguously clarified the common law’s position on both the nature and enforceability of parking charges”. However, they have failed to acknowledge that the case mentioned is currently going through the Supreme Court of Appeal, or the fact that the case dealt with specific details of the car park in question which are actually very different from the circumstances of this charge.

2) CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER — NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE CHARGES

UKPC do not own the land mentioned in their Notice to Keeper and have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. I require UKPC to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner as I believe it is not compliant with the CoP and, without it, UKPC have no legal standing nor authority at this site which could impact on visiting drivers.

If UKPC produce a ‘witness statement’ I contend that there is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract terms or, indeed, is even an employee of the landowner. I contend, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, that this should be disregarded as unreliable and not proving full BPA compliance nor legal standing.

3) UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE

Since there was no genuine loss or damage and a breach of contract has been alleged in a free car park, this ‘charge’ can only be considered an unlawful route of revenue generation. UKPC's own website states:

“Frequently Asked Questions
How much would it cost us to use your parking management services?
Nothing at all! We provide parking management services to our clients free of charge (subject to site survey).”

This indicates that UKPC generates revenues from these parking notices alone. Therefore, this is not a loss, rather a revenue source for them. Hence, it is against the principles of parking charges and should be quashed.

4) NOTICE TO KEEPER NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE POFA 2012

The Notice to Keeper fails to state the period of parking, only that the vehicle was seen at 11:12 am on the day in question. Furthermore, under the terms of the Protection of Freedoms Act — specifically Schedule 4, paragraphs 8 and 9 — UKPC must identify the ‘creditor’ who is legally entitled to recover parking charges on their Notice to Keeper, but they have failed to do so.

Therefore, UKPC has not met the keeper liability requirements and, as a result, keeper liability does not apply. As the keeper of the vehicle I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As UKPC have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were, I submit I am not liable to any charge.

5) UNCLEAR, INADEQUATE AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE

Due to their high position and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read. This evidence is in fact backed up by the photographic evidence that their warden provided as in the photo it is clear to see how high the sign is positioned and that the wording is extremely small. Furthermore, there are no signs at the entrance to the carpark from which the driver could make a decision as to whether they agreed to the alleged terms and conditions of parking. I contend that the signs and any core parking terms that UKPC are relying upon were non-existant when driving in and that the signs around the car park also fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice. I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they ‘must’ have been seen by the driver — who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a free car park — and, therefore, I contend the elements of a contract were conspicuous by their absence.

6) NO EVIDENCE PROVIDED OF ANY BREACH OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

The NTK that UKPC have supplied states the date, time and location of the alleged Breach of their Terms and Conditions, however it does not, and neither do the supporting photographs on their website, show any evidence that any breach has taken place. The photos merely show my vehicle parked in a bay from various angles and a further photo of their sign in the car park showing how high it is placed up. I asked for UKPC to provide evidence of the alleged breach in their appeals process yet the totally ignored this part of the appeal and rejected it out of hand.

Considering all of the above points, I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Yours faithfully

fisherjim

This was the case I was thinking of it makes good reading:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231%29

fairway76

Thanks fisherjim - not a great day in Court for that company!

DAVE256

Hi Guys, I've received exactly the same as the main thread post. I have received my ticket from UK Car Park Management and was wondering if I too wait for the NTK before sending my appeal letter? I'm new to the forum and welcome any help. Thanks in advance.

The_Slithy_Tove

DAVE256 wrote: »

I'm new to the forum and welcome any help.

First bit of help: please start your own thread; don't hijack someone else's. No matter how similar it may seem, mixing advice to two people in one thread just gets confusing.

fairway76

Any comments on the POPLA appeal wording?

Thanks

fairway76

Please can someone give my POPLA appeal wording the once over to let me know it is OK?

Thanks very much.

fairway76

Hi All,

I have today received the "evidence" from UKPC to "justify" their parking charge. The majority of it is taken up explaining how clear cut the ruling was on the Beavis v PE case was and how GPEOL is no longer relevant but have not answered several of the points that I raised in the appeal.

I am emailing my rebuttal to POPLA and have worded the email as follows:-

Dear Sirs,

I have today received the UKPC evidence to justify the Parking Charge Notice and would like to provide my rebuttal of their evidence.

1. The actual Parking Charge that was left on my vehicle is attached as file “UKPC Parking Charge.pdf”. As you can see, this is an entirely different parking charge than the one included in UKPC’s evidence pack. The one included in their evidence pack has never been given to me or the driver of the vehicle. I would therefore suggest that the original parking charge that was left on my vehicle was not actually valid and therefore UKPC have now made up an entirely new one.
2. Their statement states that “The parking charge was issued because XXXX”. What does this mean? It appears that they do not know why the parking charge was actually issued.
3. The evidence that they provide showing the signage in the car park when the alleged event happened (dated 07/03/2015 11:13:33) actually shows how high up the signage is and is clearly illegible. How the driver could be expected to read that sign on that day is beyond me. The site photographs that they have provided showing the various signs and their positions are all dated in 2012, 3 years prior to the alleged incident. They have therefore not given a true representation of how the site looks at the time of the alleged event.
4. The letter that they provide from Jones Lang LaSalle Ltd is not a copy of the contract with the Land Owner, which is what was asked for in my appeal. My appeal actually stated “If UKPC produce a ‘witness statement’ I contend that there is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract terms or, indeed, is even an employee of the landowner. I contend, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, that this should be disregarded as unreliable and not proving full BPA compliance nor legal standing.” The letter isn’t even from the Land Owner and therefore it is impossible to know whether the Land Owner has given their explicit authority to UKPC or not, nor do we know if the person signing the letter has ever seen the contract.
5. UKPC have again provided absolutely no evidence to show that any breach of their terms and conditions has taken place. They state on the 2 different Parking Charges and the subsequent letters that the “Vehicle owner/driver left site” but have not provided anything to support that statement despite being asked both in my original appeal to them, and then again in this POPLA appeal.

With the above statements in mind, please could you instruct UKPC to cancel this charge with immediate effect as this is beginning to place an enormous amount of emotional stress on me as I am being hounded to pay a charge that they cannot prove should have been issued in the first place, or that they have authority to do so.

Thank you very much.

Yours sincerely,



What do you all think - is this OK to send?

I am sending it to the enquiries@popla.org.uk address as my POPLA code won't allow me to attach any evidence now. Is this the right address?

Thanks for your help.

fairway76

Can someone please read the above and let me know if it is OK as I want to send the email asap.

Thanks for all of your help.