Newcastle Airport - PCN from UK Parking Patrol Office

Trailtrout

Hi there,

Back in February, we got a PCN from UK Parking Patrol Office for parking on one of the access roads. As it was, my wife had got confused, and found herself in the lane for the drop off/pick up carpark. As I was on crutches at the time, I took the opportunity to get out along with my son who had the luggage. My wife then turned around, and parked in the main carpark.

Yes, it would of been simpler to go into the drop off carpark and pay the £1 fee. However at the time we had no change, so it would have meant heading into the terminal, then autobank, buy something, and then back outside.

Anyway, several weeks later, we received a PCN from UKPPO for stopping and unloading in a "no stopping zone", hence a breach of the bylaws.

I immediately googled the problem and followed the guidance on this website, ie appealed to UKPPO, who obviously refused, then appealed to POPLA using a suggested template from this site.

I have just been sent a cc copy of UKPPO's response to POPLA and I'd be interested in anyone's view on it.

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

Dear Sir/Madam,

Vehicle Registration: xxxxxxxx
PCN – xxxxxxx

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 captured stopped and unloading in clear view of a sign stating “No Stopping/Loading/Unloading In This Area”.

Please see the attached files:

1. The initial parking form issued by the CCTV operator.
2. The Notice to Owner.
3. Formal Demand.
4. The appeal and rejection.
5. CCTV footage showing the vehicle stopped and unloaded in clear view of two warning signs stating: “No Stopping/Loading/Unloading In This Area”.
6. Site photographs showing the position of the warning signs (double red lines have been painted since the incident as an added deterrent).
7. Signage advising drivers CCTV is in operation on a 24-hr basis.
8. The wording of the warning signs.
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 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 appears to be confused in his 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. FT62EKH ) “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”.

It has been speculated that no audit trail is held. We hold an audit trail for all cases. The fact that all correspondence, photographs, CCTV footage etc. have been produced pertaining this case substantiates this. This data is held securely at our premises and is subject to regular inspections by the DVLA and the BPA.

All employees who deal with the issuing of PCN’s at the site are trained to the standards portrayed in the BPA’s Code of Practice. Onsite training is given in the part that they play when recording contraventions. All equipment used is regularly checked (as would be expected at a high security venue). The Code of Practice states: “the equipment must be in good working order and the data collected accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with”. We adhere to this at all times. There is no “hidden camera car” situated at the site. The CCTV camera is fixed. The roads surrounding Newcastle Airport are no stopping zones and not car parks. The signage clearly advises drivers that CCTV is in operation on a 24-hr basis.

We are registered with the Information Commissioner and adhere to the Data Protection act.

In summation the appellant parked and unloaded directly in front of two warning signs, as show on the clear images produced by the CCTV camera.

Therefore we believe that the parking was correctly incurred.

Kind regards



S Froggatt
UK Parking Patrol

What is confusing is that the supplied information says that the contract from Newcastle Airport is with Newcastle Park and Fly Ltd, with no indication how or where UKPPO fit in.

I'm happy to append the letter from the airport and UKPPO if someone can explain how to add a pdf.

Thanks for your help,

Alastair

bod1467

So did you receive a Penalty charge notice from UKPPO? (I very much doubt it). Did the notice say they were enforcing under bylaws, or claiming keeper liability under POFA, or a hodge-podge of both?

Note: bylaws (as far as I am aware) only allow pursuance of such notices against the driver - there is no keeper liability.

ManxRed

I've seen UKPPO tickets that are indeed penalties. They claim they are issuing under lawful authority by way of the byelaws. How legit this is another matter entirely but they DO claim to be issuing penalties.

ManxRed

Can you post up a redacted copy of the ticket?

What's the EXACT name of the company you're referring to as UKPPO on the ticket? The last I heard Cheetham (for it is he) was issuing tickets from a trading name with no disclosure that he was the sole trader involved. UKPPO Ltd was dormant in January 2015.

You also need to contact the DVLA to ask them the exact legal entity name of the company which requested your details. Make it clear that it's in relation to a complaint about a potential breach of the Data Protection Act, and nothing to do with a subject access request.

Take a screen dump of this webpage, and note carefully the following ludicrous claim:

Parking Patrol generates revenue by the administration of parking charge tickets. This means that you do not pay for the problem to be solved, the offenders do!

http://parkingpatrol.co.uk/parking-patrol/

Have a read of this thread on Pepipoo:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=95932

ManxRed

The byelaws, which are (a) a mess, (b) contain contraditions, and (c) over-rule current legislation (namely the PoFA 2012), which they don't have the power to do, are here:

http://www.newcastleairport.com/Media/about-your-airport/newcastle-airport-byelaws-2009-v2.pdf

enfield_freddy

link 1 = excellent

ManxRed

This is the company that Newcastle Airport probably think they have a contract with. You'll notice it's dormant.

UK PARKING PATROL OFFICE LIMITED
7 CHRISTIE WAY
CHRISTIE FIELDS
MANCHESTER
M21 7QY
Company No. 07105527




Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 15/12/2009

Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC):
99999 - Dormant Company
Accounting Reference Date: 31/12
Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/12/2013 (DORMANT)

UKPPO (without the Ltd) is a trading name, and under Company Law the sole trader using that trading name must disclose their identity, which I'm willing to bet they don't. Hence a recommendation to ask the DVLA who obtained the details.

Probably worth asking Newcastle Airport for the exact name of the person/entity they have awarded the parking contract to.

bazster

Upload the PDF to a file-sharing site such as tinypic, and post the resulting URL here. Because you are a Newbie you are not allowed to post working URL's, so change "http" to "hxxp" and one of us will the re-post it for you, fixed.

Redact all personally-identifying information before you post.

This really is the biggest load of bollox from the aptly-named Steven Cheetham.

Firstly, UKPPO doesn't exist, there is no such company. Note the absence of "Limited" from any of the bog paper they've sent you, the absence of a company registration number, and the absence of a company registered address.

It is in fact a sole trader, the above-mentioned Cheetham, and he is breaking company law by failing to disclose his true identity on his official paperwork. Accordingly you have not been sent any lawful, valid notices by Cheetham, and nor has PoPLA unless Cheetham has submitted to PoPLA under his real name and not merely the trading name UKPPO. This is your first point to PoPLA (don't mention Cheetham, just stick to the absence of any company identifying information as required by law and the consequent invalidity of any papers sent to you or PoPLA).

n.b. there is a company UKPPO Ltd. but it's been registered as dormant for years, and even if Cheetham wants to pretend he is operating as the limited company he's still breaking the law by failing to show "Limited", the company registration number, and the company registered address.

Given the above it's hardly surprising that he hasn't produced a contract between UKPPO and the airport. A mere trading name cannot enter into a contract!

So this is your next point to PoPLA: he has failed to produce a contract showing that the non-existent legal entity UKPPO has any authority at the airport.

Your next point is regarding the byelaws.

http://www.newcastleairport.com/Media/about-your-airport/newcastle-airport-byelaws-2009-v2.pdf

The only power that the airport byelaws confer on the airport (or its agents, of whom UKPPO appears not to be one) is the power to issue a NtK. Big deal. Nowhere in the byelaws does it state that anyone breaking the byelaws relating to "parking" (6.6, 6.10, 6.16 to 6.18, 7.1, 7.2 or 7.7) will be liable to prosecution, and nowhere does it state any penalty payable upon conviction. All it says is that they can issue an NtK. You cannot be compelled by byelaw to pay that penalty to the airport, UKPPO or anyone else.

If the byelaws create any liability whatsoever re those clauses it would be purely civil (read 3.3.1.2) so Cheetham's bluster about prosecution is pure hogwash.

Finally, the non-existent UKPPO claims to be enforcing byelaws in respect of criminal offences. It has no statutory power to do so. Furthermore PoPLA has no competence or authority to adjudicate on criminal offences.

Coupon-mad

I have seen one of these where it is indeed headed up 'Penalty Charge Notice' and they are trying to pursue these as penalties.

Trouble is, the byelaws only allow them to either clamp (yes, they can clamp as it's not relevant land) or to issue a 'parking charge notice'. There is nothing in the byelaws to allow them to issue a penalty charge notice (penalties are mentioned in a heading but then the nitty gritty says 'clamp or parking charge notice'). So if yours was a Penalty Charge Notice it's not supported by the byelaws, nor by contract law.

Also you can argue that here is no evidence that the Park & Fly employee who fills out the 'violation ticket' thingy, has had any training about the BPA CoP. The violations are not written out by UKPPO, the CCTV is not watched by UKPPO, they merely do the back office sucking up of money from victims.

UKPPO pay Park & Fly a bounty for each one, I think (you can see it in the contract, crossed out).

This doesn't help them: ''double red lines have been painted since the incident as an added deterrent''. You can argue therefore that the signs and lines were not clear that it is intended as a no stopping zone, at the time of the event. Otherwise why would they have added red lines now, too late?

And last but not least!

Compare the time of the parking incident on the Notice with the time on the actual CCTV pictures. Look closely. I expect, as usual, they are trying to get you for an event they say occurred (probably) two minutes later...at a time when the car was already in the car park. So you can truthfully say to POPLA that the car was not inappropriately parked and certainly not at the time stated on the NTO.

Point all the above out in an urgent email to POPLA:

[EMAIL="appeals@popla.org.uk"]appeals@popla.org.uk[/EMAIL]

Quote the verification code of course - in the email subject line - and ask that your urgent rebuttal of the operator evidence is added to the appeal file before the decision.

Guys_Dad

I do hope it was your car. If so, and if the penalty has been issued in your name, then the photos will show you couldn't have been driving as you were on crutches and was a passenger.

They admit to not operating under POFA, so they can only go after the driver. Clearly that would and could not have been you.

No case to answer.