Ukpc - Use of own space for guests - POPLA code given

fisherjim

"Within the letter - they claimed that the incorrect VRN was a minor error and corrected it within the letter."

Yet another admin error by UKPC, they do make a serious muck up in their admin constantly don't they? It's almost as if it were deliberate!:undecided

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

Not sure that I agree with you. In his initial post, OP says:

I am the homeowner and have Land Registry documents to support ownership of the 2 spaces as well as the house.

His circumstances appear to be the same as in Davey v UKPC

Try post #9. That's why I queried it.

The_Deep

This is UKPC, I would be inclined to play hardball with a 90 year lease.

Dad_to_4_little_monkeys

Here is my 1st draft - comments and input most welcome!

I am the registered owner of the land where a vehicle that was issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) with the ref code xxxxxxx by UK Parking Control (UKPC). I appealed on behalf of the keeper/driver of the vehicle to the PPC (UKPC Ltd), explaining that I was NOT the keeper/driver, but they have continued on the assumption that I was either or both. I submit the points below to show that I am (nor the registered keeper) not liable for the parking charge:

1. Non-compliant Notice to Keeper
2. No standing or authority to pursue charges, nor form contracts with drivers
3. No adequate signage
4. No Creditor identified on the NtK
5. No genuine pre-estimate of loss

1. Non-compliant Notice to Keeper - no keeper liability established under POFA2 2012

No “Notice to keeper” has been issued, a date now far-surpassing day 57, which is non-compliant under POFA 2012.

The PCN shows an incorrect VRN and and incorrect address (states Victoria Gardens, Northumberland Avenue which is different to the details on the Land Registry transfer of title in my name) – furthermore an address that does not exist.

The NTK is a nullity so no keeper liability exists.

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.

As the freehold landowner, I have given no such landowner authority. I have Land Registry documents in my name for this land, the areas outlined in the TP1 Land Registry transfer of title. Therefore UKPC Ltd have no Locus Standi,

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

As landowner, I have not sanctioned a contract, therefore have not sanctioned any signage.

Any signage provided by UKPC is therefore without my approval and consent.

At the time of parking and leaving my land 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.

In dark conditions, there are no visible signage, 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. 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 – as no Notice to Keeper was issued. Whilst correspondence 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 as no such document was ever issued, no such wording exists.

5. 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 (in this case – myself, where at the time of alleged breach – no losses were incurred). 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.

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”.

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.

The_Deep

19.6 can be deleted, this is liquidated damages for breach of contract.

Mention business rates, council permission to erect signs, all grist for the mill.

This has nothing to do with Beavis, which concerned an overstay in a free shopping centre car park, so why mention it.

Redx

leave Beavis in , for 2 reasons

1) its not doing any harm and only takes up a bit more space at the end of the appeal

2) the Supreme Court will be handing out its verdict in a few months time, so popla will stay the popla case if they cannot rule on the other appeal points, in which case as we dont know what the S.C. will say it may as well be in there because it may become useful depending on court the ruling

assuming it doesnt matter but the previous points do, it only takes one point to uphold the appeal , which is what we would expect to happen ,

But popla cannot rule on missing items, so leave it in, if its superfluous , then its irrelevant anyway - sobeit , but it could be a good backstop depending what the S.C. rule and we have no way of knowing what that is at the moment

Dad_to_4_little_monkeys

The_Deep wrote: »

Mention business rates, council permission to erect signs, all grist for the mill.

Only concern with council permission, etc, is that our address is technically a private road which the lighting and road maintenance is covered by the service charges. The parking spaces are only accessed off this road through an underpass (of another property).

Does this still stand to add gravitas?

Also run my business from this address and need the use of my second space for customers - add this in, or too much flannel?

The_Deep

I am sure that you need council permission to erect signs, even on private land. Also, if they are charging people who park in ways they do not like, they are operating a business, and may need to pay business rates. It is all a hassle for them, costs them money and diverts staff from other duties.

OK leave Beavis in, but also mention Davey v UKPC.

Northlakes

Signage needs to be visible from a public highway before planning permission is required and signs need to be over 0.3 metre square.
However business rates is an one which I would be interested in other posters views regarding another matter.

The_Deep

0.3 metres square or 0.3 square metres?