Revised popla appeal

DiddlyN

Hello

I have had my initial appeal rejected by UKPC and have now made a second draft of my Popla appeal and I would appreciate any feedback.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle that was issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) with the ref code xxxxxxx by UK Parking Control (UKPC). I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1. No genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. No standing or authority to pursue charges, nor form contracts with drivers
3. The signage was inadequate so there was no valid contract formed
4. Non-compliant Notice to Keeper
5. No Creditor identified on the Notice to Keeper



1. No 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. Parking charges must be based on the loss that is suffered as the British Parking Association (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.
and

19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable
The keeper therefore declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.
The UKPC Notice to Keeper (NTK) alleges 'breach of terms' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event. This might be, for example, a reasonable sum based purely upon the alleged lost parking revenue, or even loss of retail revenue at the nearby shops and cafes if another car was prevented from parking. However, this is not the case because the occupants of the car recall that the car park was almost empty on arrival and when the driver left.
I have not received any breakdown of how UKPC calculated their charge and so therefore require UKPC 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. 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. The landowner/occupier 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.

The DfT Guidance and the BPA Code of Practice require that a parking charge for an alleged breach must be an estimate of losses flowing from the incident. UKPC cannot change this requirement so they have no option but to show POPLA their genuine pre-estimate of loss for this charge, not some a statement that merely claims that charges were calculated to compensate UKPC for their “losses”.

2. No standing or authority to pursue charges, nor form contracts with drivers
UKPC do not own the land on which the car was parked, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such a title, UKPC must have an assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. UKPC have not given me a notice that declares this in their rejection of my initial appeal, so I have no proof that such a document is in existence. I contend that UKPC merely did hold a bare licence to supply and maintain (non compliant) signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right, which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.
I therefore put UKPC to strict proof to provide POPLA and me with an unredacted, up-to-date copy of the contract between UKPC and the landowner. This is required so that POPLA and I can check that it allows UKPC to make contracts with drivers and provides them with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in court in their own name. I am aware that in some cases a witness statement is used instead of a contract, however this will not be sufficient to provide sufficient detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.). There is also no proof that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract 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, not proving full BPA compliance and is not sufficient to prove UKPC have the necessary legal standing at this location to bring a claim in their own name nor to form any contractual relationship between UKPC and motorists.

3. The signage was inadequate so there was no valid contract formed
At the time of parking and leaving the car park the occupants of the car did not see any signs that mentioned restricted parking.
I require UK Parking Control to state the height and position of each sign in their response. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. Therefore, it is the fault of UKPC in the drafting and positioning of the signs that the driver did not see them at all. This is a non-negotiated and totally unexpected third party 'charge' foisted upon legitimate motorists who are not 'customers' of UK Parking Control and so are not expecting to read a contract.
It was dark when the driver parked the car and when I visited the site upon receipt of the parking charge, I saw that the sign is placed high up and is unlit, so that in darkness no signs are clearly visible and the words are unreadable. I put UKPC to prove otherwise; and as well as provide a site map they must show photos in darkness taken without a camera flash. There is no entrance sign, no lighting on site and the sign is not prominent, not reflective and is not lit by headlights. Therefore the sign breaches the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver in the hours of darkness: ''Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness...when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved...by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area.
A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver did not see any sign; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties.

4. Non-compliant Notice to Keeper - no keeper liability established under POFA2 2012
The 'period of parking' is not shown on the NTK, only the time of issue of an alleged PCN. Therefore the wording makes this a non-compliant NTK under the POFA 2012, Schedule 4. According to Schedule 4 para 8, the Notice must specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.
The NTK is a nullity so no keeper liability exists.

5. No Creditor identified on the Notice to Keeper
The ‘Notice to Keeper’ does not comply with paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 as it does not identify the creditor. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to be made to UKPC, there is no specific identification of the Creditor, who may, in law, be UKPC or some other party. The POFA 2012 requires a ‘Notice to Keeper’ to have words to the effect that 'The Creditor is….' and the Notice does not.


This concludes my appeal and I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge be dismissed.
Yours faithfully,