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

Marktheshark

Amazed why you are jumping these hoops if you have land registry title.
Let them go begger off along with popla.

The only letter I would write is to say you decide who parks on your land that they will be hearing from your solicitor for illegally running a profit making business on your land without a contract.

Half_way

Are the signs on your property?

Dad_to_4_little_monkeys

Half_way wrote: »

Are the signs on your property?

No - generally on lampposts, but within our 6-car port enclosure, a sign is screwed to a neighbours perimeter wall, no illumination in dark hours.

Northlakes

These are the signage rules regarding size,

2B. An advertisement relating to any person, partnership or company separately
carrying on a profession, business or trade at the premises where it is displayed.
Conditions and 2B.—(1) No advertisement may exceed 0.3 square metre in area.
Limitations (2) No character or symbol on the advertisement may be more than 0.75 metre in
height, or 0.3 metre in an area of special control.
(3) No part of the advertisement may be more than 4.6 metres above ground level,
or 3.6 metres in an area of special control.
(4) Not more than one advertisement is permitted for each person, partnership or
company or, in the case of premises with entrances on different road frontages, one
advertisement at each of two such entrances.
(5) Illumination is not permitted unless—

These are the extracts from the legislation.

Dad_to_4_little_monkeys

2nd draft - 19.6 deleted, additions in red text:

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. They have transferred the PCN to another reference amending details without notifying myself as appellant nor the registered keeper.

I wish to attest that no such access to the registered keeper’s data has been requested from the DVLA.

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,

It is known to UKPC on a previous occasion that I am the landowner, and as such the PCN at that time was cancelled because of this knowledge.

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.

UKPC has no permission to conduct and operate a business from my premises, is not paying business rates to operate on my land, and are therefore illegally running a profit making business on my land.

I myself run a business from my property and require to use my parking spaces at my freewill without trespass. Such conditions prevent trade and losses can be attributed for future trespass incidents.

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.

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.
UKPC have been requested to cease unwanted attention on my land, and therefore trespass, on more than one occasion. I must remind them of the recent ruling of Davey v. UKPC in Winchester Crown Court which included a damages settlement for trespass.

How do I sign off the appeal? Any sign-off at all??

Marktheshark

If you must jump the PPC's hoops, put the appeal point about first :
Contract to operate :
UKPC have no contract to operate on the land, this is because I own the land and attach proof (land registry)
Therefore they must hold a contract with me, the landowner, no other person can give them a contract, any contract they claim to hold is not valid as I the land owner have no contract with them.

make this number 1 point so we can see what the charlatans at POPLA make of it

Guys_Dad

I agree with Marktheshark. At the moment, your appeal on No Contract reads on first glance like a normal forum appeal where the land does NOT belong to the motorist. You don't need that and it does more harm than good.

You simply state that you are the freehold landowner, enclose some proof, and go with the one-point appeal that should take no more than 1 paragraph.

Keeping it simple allows you to take a claim against the PPC (and their client) for harassment should they repeat that and this forum has a thread somewhere, I seem to recall, in which the motorist won over £1000 from a PPC under similar circumstances.
Why complicate matters if it's your land????

Strike out. I have re-read thread and you are NOT the freeholder according to your post #9.

Little things :rotfl: like actually owning the land or leasing it from a freeholder landlord make all the difference and you need to be accurate when dealing in legal matters. You can not be a 99 year leaseholder and write the following in your appeal "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. "

The_Deep

An excellent suggestion by GD. A single point appeal puts them on the spot, if they reject it and PoPLA upholds it you could, if you were that bloody minded, pursue them for you time and trouble.

It is unlikely that you would get much, or indeed anything, (although Roger Davey did), but think of the nuisance you could cause them. It is about time they stop hassling us flat owners.

Marktheshark

It is the only point relevant really to the situation, all the other points are based on holding a contract.
Where there is no contract, there are no other points of appeal as there is nothing to appeal about other than they have no authority to run a business on your land.

If they reject it and the parking firm harass you then you have them over a quite serious legal point.

To put it in to context it is like someone charging people to walk across a field they dont own because someone else told them they could .
Now they want to charge the farmer who owns the field and has not given them permission to operate such a business on his land.
Can you see what would happen at court if this chancer tried to sue the farmer ?
Same concept here.

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

An excellent suggestion by GD. A single point appeal puts them on the spot, if they reject it and PoPLA upholds it you could, if you were that bloody minded, pursue them for you time and trouble.

It is unlikely that you would get much, or indeed anything, (although Roger Davey did), but think of the nuisance you could cause them. It is about time they stop hassling us flat owners.

See post #38 amended. (You may want to unthank me !!!!! )