UK Parking Control - Cheadle Hulme Asda

only_forever

Hi All,


firstly thanks for reading.......cant find any thread relating to this car park so hoping this isn't a duplicate...


I received a postal "charge" from UK Parking Control resulting from a visit to the car park at Cheadle Hulme Asda - its a free car park and I overstayed the 3 hours, got caught by camera.


I followed the advice in the newbie thread and appealed and this has been rejected, the next step is my POPLA appeal and I was hoping somebody would kindly have a quick "!!!!!!" read for me?


The rejection letter lengthy but im guessing pretty standard, giving some examples of case law. They failed to respond to my request for a breakdown of losses citing "commercial sensitivity" I understand this is a key point which people win on at POPLA? I also feel the signage at the car park is inadequate - there are a few of them but the are high up, white (so not explicit) and small writing on them.


One small faux pas is I have mislaid the original letter from UK Parking Control so I don't have their reference but I do have the POPLA code, will this be a problem?


Anyway thanks for your time, my draft is below, any help much appreciated


cheers




Dear POPLA,

POPLA Reference No: xxxxxxxx

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration xxxxxx. I received a Notice to Keeper from UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC) on xx/xx/xxxx for a parking charge of £70 issued on xx/xx/xxxxfor an alleged breach of contractual terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle. 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 £70 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. Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice

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.

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) 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. I contend that the signs and any core parking terms that UKPC are relying upon were too small for the driver to discern 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 £70 in a free car park — and, therefore, I contend the elements of a contract were conspicuous by their absence.

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

Yours faithfully

only_forever

Hi all,


would really appreciate any assistance with this......even just a YES or NO!!!!


cheers

Redx

nearly

I would add the paragraph from the newbies thread about the Beavis case so if they try to rely on the previous judgment it is queried at the Supreme Court decision after it meets next month (decision expected before xmas)

so notes about that ongoing case and the fact its before the SC in july 2015

Umkomaas

It looks ok to me, but I think you need to beef up your 'Contract with Landowner' bit. This is what the BPA CoP says, particularly note the 'pursuing through the courts' sentence.

If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question.The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have
the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary.

So build some of that into your appeal paragraph.

Just on a point of presentation, I think your bullet point appeal section titles should read exactly the same as the actual titles used above each section (or vice versa).

HTH

only_forever

brilliant and many thanks for taking the time to help.


il amend as advised and send it off


cheers

Coupon-mad

Where is 'no keeper liability'? A slam dunk winning point for a keeper if you can show that the POFA was not complied with fully in the NTK wording.

Compare the NTK to para 9 of Schedule 4 if it was a postal one with no windscreen ticket first. Or compare it to paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 if it was a NTK following a windscreen ticket. You did get a NTK - the postal PCN you mentioned is the document in question. Start a comparison - Schedule 4 is linked in the Newbies sticky thread and is easy to read, in bullet points.

Also where is the wording I added in blue in post #3 of the Newbies thread 'to be added to all POPLA appeals now'?

only_forever

Hi All,


sorry for the late update on this one (I had forgotten my log in details)


I received POPLA decision on 03/08 finding in my favour, the ground they found on was that UKPC could not evidence they had the landowners authority to issue the ticket.


Just wanted to say cheers for your help!!


Liam

Ralph-y

well done .... :j


would you kindly post up the POPLA decision ..... as this will/ could help other people who fall into this parking scam ........

Did you ever contact Asda re this ?

Ralph:cool:

only_forever

I didn't contact Asda as the car park is not exclusively theirs, its part of a shopping centre I just used Asda as a reference as its the biggest shop on there (if this makes sense??)


anyway I have attached POPLA response below, cheers again for your help...


03 August 2015
Reference 8661525083 always quote in any communication with POPLA
(Appellant) -v- UK Parking Control Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number 9236115065742 arising out of the presence at Cheadle Hulme Shopping Centre, on 5 March 2015, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxx.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

8661525083 2 03 August 2015
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 5 March 2015, a vehicle leased by the Appellant entered the car park at Cheadle Hulme Shopping Centre 09:09 and left at 13:16. This amounted to a stay of 4 hours 7 minutes. A parking charge notice was issued on the ground that the 3 hour maximum stay period was overstayed.
The Appellant raised a number of grounds of appeal, including whether the Appellant had authority to issue the parking charge notice in question.
Where an Appellant raises the question of authority, the burden of proof is on the Operator to show that it had authority to issue the parking charge notice which is the subject of the appeal. The Operator has produced no evidence of its authority. I therefore cannot find that the Operator was authorised to issue this parking charge notice.
I must therefore allow the appeal.
It is not therefore necessary for me to address the other grounds raised by the Appellant.

Ralph-y

well done :j

if you really want to stir things (rightly so) then contact Asda and ask why you received a speculative invoice from a agent of theirs who has no authority to do so .... and what they are going to do about it .....
as ignoring could well be now complicit in the deception:eek:

Ralph:cool:

sunnycorner

only_forever wrote: »

I didn't contact Asda as the car park is not exclusively theirs, its part of a shopping centre I just used Asda as a reference as its the biggest shop on there (if this makes sense??)


anyway I have attached POPLA response below, cheers again for your help...


03 August 2015
Reference 8661525083 always quote in any communication with POPLA
(Appellant) -v- UK Parking Control Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number 9236115065742 arising out of the presence at Cheadle Hulme Shopping Centre, on 5 March 2015, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxx.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

8661525083 2 03 August 2015
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 5 March 2015, a vehicle leased by the Appellant entered the car park at Cheadle Hulme Shopping Centre 09:09 and left at 13:16. This amounted to a stay of 4 hours 7 minutes. A parking charge notice was issued on the ground that the 3 hour maximum stay period was overstayed.
The Appellant raised a number of grounds of appeal, including whether the Appellant had authority to issue the parking charge notice in question.
Where an Appellant raises the question of authority, the burden of proof is on the Operator to show that it had authority to issue the parking charge notice which is the subject of the appeal. The Operator has produced no evidence of its authority. I therefore cannot find that the Operator was authorised to issue this parking charge notice.
I must therefore allow the appeal.
It is not therefore necessary for me to address the other grounds raised by the Appellant.

Hi I have also received a ticket from the same place could you post the full letter that you sent so that we can edit it and use it.
Thanks