UKPC parking notice - advice please!

Redx

12 months ago Jeremey Hunt stated that all trusts are responsible for the actions of their parking contractors

PALS and the trsust may think they are exempt , but they arent exempt

so do the popla appeal, and complain to PALS again and mention the Jermey Hunt guidelines from august 214 and that they should follow them, so ask why they are not doing so

ie; fight it on both fronts , the trust is as responsible as ukpc so dont let them off the hook

but dont miss the popla deadline either (check the code is valid and its expiry date)

Water_Polo_Player

Thanks for your prompt reply.

1. Any advice on appeal to POPLA? Is there a template?

2. Re Hospital. guidelines. i didn't include reason for overstay (delayed hospital appt) in original appeal on advice here of not tampering with template letter. I can raise this with PALS but they will just say it's for the appeal panel - which I have already been to. I could raise it as additional information to which they refer in the UKPC letter. Good idea or not?

Cheers

bod1467

1. No, but if you look at the POPLA Decisions thread (start at the end and work back) you'll find links to other threads with people's appeals.

Redx

1) no there are no templates, each appeal is bespoke, but you can research recent popla appeals and then adapt one to suit your own appeal and points

also look through the last few pages of the popla decisions thread, see what grounds they are using to uphold appeals

the basics are

NTK not compliant with POFA 2012
no contract with landowner
poor signage that doesnt meet the BOA CoP
anpr issues (if used)
not a gpeol
the Beavis paragraph in blue from the newbies thread

EXPAND on those points and look for others too (but not mitigation like the appointment over ran) - this can be included as an additional point but dont expect this point to win

2) its a complaint to the trust themselves (not an appeal), plus raising FOI issues you should be looking at , making them explain why they are not following J HUNT guidelines from 12 months ago, not an appeal or appeal panel, but an actual complaint to their CEO

same to your local M.P. too

Herzlos

Water_Polo_Player wrote: »

2. Re Hospital. guidelines. i didn't include reason for overstay (delayed hospital appt) in original appeal on advice here of not tampering with template letter. I can raise this with PALS but they will just say it's for the appeal panel - which I have already been to. I could raise it as additional information to which they refer in the UKPC letter. Good idea or not?

Jeremy Hunt made it clear last year that patients were not to be penalized for delayed appointments, so you should be getting PALs to clear it. They'll try to say it's nothing to do with them, but mention Mr Hunt and they'll change their mind pretty quickly.

It's just a shame that you need to know which magic invocation is required to get them to do their job.

Water_Polo_Player

Hi - I have drafted the text below to submit to POPLA. I have had a reply to my appeal to UKPC - but I don't believe this constitutes a NTK.

Any help much appreciated! Thanks in advance.

Dear POPLA,

APPEAL RE: UKPC, POPLA Reference No. ******
PCN Ref: ******
Location*/date*, VEHICLE REG: ********

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.

1. NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
As can be seen from the attached picture taken by UKPC operative there are plenty of free parking spaces around the vehicle in question. The parking ticket purchased for the vehicle was for 1 hour (£1.50). The PCN is time-stamped as being issued 42 minutes after the expiry of the ticket. The lost revenue to the landowner was therefore the additional cost of a 2 hour ticket, being £1.50. As registered keeper I am prepared to pay this sum.

However I do not believe UKPC has calculated a genuine pre-estimate of loss in arriving at the parking charge of £60. UKPC cannot lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs, debt recovery costs etc. in any 'loss' claimed. I contend that there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate has been prepared or considered in advance.

My contention is that the charge levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable) against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. If so, why would the initial unreasonable charge be discounted by 50% for early payment?

I also contend that the charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis will have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal. If the operator does not cancel this charge and/or if there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal is adjourned pending the Beavis case.

2. NO CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE
UKPC do not own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their rejection letter they state “UKPC has contractual authority from the landowner to issue parking charges at this site”. However they have not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

I would also request that POPLA please check whether UKPC has provided a full copy of the actual signed & dated contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists or someone has witnessed it) and check that it specifically enables UKPC to pursue parking charges in their own name and through the court system. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

3. NO NOTICE TO KEEPER ISSUED
UKPC have not issued me, the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, with a Notice To Keeper.

In accordance with The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, paragraph 8, UKPC are required to send me a notice that includes, amongst other items:

• Specification of the vehicle
• Identification of the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates
• A statement informing the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full
• A statement that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f);
• A statement that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver

UKPC have failed in this requirement and furthermore the period of serving such a notice under the legislation has now expired, with 56 days from the alleged incident being spent on 31st July 2015.

I therefore contend that as registered keeper I cannot be held liable for the debt of the driver as paragraph 6 of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act has not been complied with.


SUMMARY
On the basis of all the above points I believe the parking charge has not been raised and processed in accordance with relevant codes and legislation and request it be cancelled.

Regards

Umkomaas

Good start.

1. Place the GPEOL paragraph as the final appeal point, otherwise POPLA may not go beyond your opening paragraph and just place this on hold until the outcome of Beavis.

2. Place the 'No Notice to Keeper' paragraph as the opening appeal point, but you need a sharper header like 'No Keeper Liabilty Establshed Under PoFA 2012 - Failure to Issue a Notice to Keeper' (provided the 56 days since your parking event have passed).

3. You don't seem to have included a 'Signage' appeal point. That's essential, as once included, the PPC needs to prove to POPLA that they've got all their signage ducks in a row!

4. You need to put a bullet point index, as the opener, with each of the appeal point headers. This gives the adjudicator the opportunity to quickly scan for the 'killer' appeal point, saving them ploughing through loads of text to get to the point of upholding this. My view is, when they're having to wade through dozens of appeals each day (it would drive me nuts!), the easier you make it for them, the more likely (obviously with the right appeal points), they will look favourably on your submission.

But please be aware that POPLA arrangements have now changed, and you need to read this link (and its included sub-link) thoroughly to advise you just how you now proceed.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/popla-changeover-starts-tomorrow.html

HTH

Ralph-y

have you started any FOI requests yet?

" hospital trust representative is on the UKPC appeals panel"

so information re this meeting should now be a further FOI IMHO

Ralph:cool:

Herzlos

You should also ask under FOI who the representative is paid by - i.e. is it a member of the trust staff representing the trust and paid by the hospital, or is it a member of the UKPC staff "representing" the trust? In either case, since they are not upholding the appeals, they don't seem to know about Mr Hunts directions.

My money is on it being a UKPC staff member as a box-checking exercise.

Water_Polo_Player

Many thanks for your comments. I have re-ordered as you have suggested and added a signage point. If you could review again I'd be grateful. I also note how you now lodge your intention to appeal - great stuff!

Thanks in advance :-)

Dear POPLA,

APPEAL RE: UKPC, POPLA Reference *******
PCN Ref: ****
Location, Date, VEHICLE REG: *****

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.


1. NO KEEPER LIABILTY ESTABLSHED UNDER POFA 2012 - FAILURE TO ISSUE A ‘NOTICE TO KEEPER'

2. NO CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE

3. POOR SIGNAGE THAT DOESNT MEET THE BPA CODE

4. NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS




1. NO KEEPER LIABILTY ESTABLSHED UNDER POFA 2012 - FAILURE TO ISSUE A ‘NOTICE TO KEEPER'

UKPC have not issued me, the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, with a Notice To Keeper.

In accordance with The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, paragraph 8, UKPC are required to send me a notice that includes, amongst other items:

• Specification of the vehicle
• Identification of the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates
• A statement informing the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full
• A statement that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f);
• A statement that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver

UKPC have failed in this requirement and furthermore the period of serving such a notice under the legislation has now expired, with 56 days from the alleged incident being spent on 31st July 2015.

I therefore contend that as registered keeper I cannot be held liable for the debt of the driver as paragraph 6 of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act has not been complied with.

2. NO CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE

UKPC do not own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their rejection letter they state “UKPC has contractual authority from the landowner to issue parking charges at this site”. However they have not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

I would also request that POPLA please check whether UKPC has provided a full copy of the actual signed & dated contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists or someone has witnessed it) and check that it specifically enables UKPC to pursue parking charges in their own name and through the court system. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.


3. POOR SIGNAGE THAT DOESNT MEET THE BPA CODE

Having subsequently visited Stoke Mandeville hospital myself I note there is a lack of clear signs at the entrance to the hospital grounds. UKPC signs in the hospital grounds are sparse and unclear, to the extent that they are incapable of forming a contract even if the driver had seen and agreed to the terms, which is not the case in this instance.

Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the hospital grounds as there is general parking on roads within the hospital grounds and in individual car parks, prior to parking.

The contract is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, such as when the driver walks away and past a sign, as this is too late. Even at the pay and display ticket machine there are no signs outlining any contract, only a list of the amounts to be paid.

BPA Code para 28.2 states “Entrance signs, located at the entrance to the car park, must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions which they must be aware of. Entrance signs must meet minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and follow Department for Transport guidance. Industry-accepted sign designs.” I contend that this requirement is not complied with at Stoke Mandeville.

BPA Code 28.3 states “Specific parking terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle.” I contend that this requirement is not complied with at Stoke Mandeville.

4. NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS

As can be seen from the attached picture taken by UKPC operative there are plenty of free parking spaces around the vehicle in question. The parking ticket purchased for the vehicle was for 1 hour (£1.50). The PCN is time-stamped as being issued 42 minutes after the expiry of the ticket. The lost revenue to the landowner was therefore the additional cost of a 2 hour ticket, being £1.50. As registered keeper I am prepared to pay this sum.

However I do not believe UKPC has calculated a genuine pre-estimate of loss in arriving at the parking charge of £60. UKPC cannot lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs, debt recovery costs etc. in any 'loss' claimed. I contend that there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate has been prepared or considered in advance.

My contention is that the charge levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable) against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. If so, why would the initial unreasonable charge be discounted by 50% for early payment?

I also contend that the charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis will have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal. If the operator does not cancel this charge and/or if there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal is adjourned pending the Beavis case.


SUMMARY
On the basis of all the above points I believe the parking charge has not been raised and processed in accordance with relevant codes and legislation and request it be cancelled.

Regards