UKPC PCN - I signed a contract when I obtained a parking permit

parkingsucker

Hi all.
I've searched the forums but haven't found anything similar to my question - apologies if I've missed something.

I got a PCN from UKPC for parking on double yellow lines at my place of work (a large university). The parking lot has been subcontracted for management to UKPC.

I signed a contract when I got my parking permit. It states that I "should be aware" that parking is "subject to University traffic regulations" (with a website link to regulations) and that "this includes the use of financial parking charges for unauthorised parking".It also states that the university will use my data for "management and monitoring of parking and payments".

The registered keeper (not me) did not leave the university all day and can provide witness statements. However, I swipe photo ID on entry and exit to the parking lot, so if the university shares information with UKPC, they have evidence regarding who was driving.

I read about a previous court judgement regarding parking on double lines on hospital property, dismissing all charges, but I'm concerned that they have me in writing agreeing to the charge by signing the initial contract for the parking permit. What do you think?

They also took photos with a (clearly) distorting fish-eye type lens that make it look like I was blocking other cars. I absolutely wasn't, and can re-photograph the site to prove the distortion. The charge is £30 if paid in 14 days, £60 thereafter. The daily parking rate, which I paid, is £1 per day. The council fine for the same offence is £70 so it's less than that.

Not that it matters, as I realise from reading here that mitigating circumstances mean nothing, but I only parked there because the car was undriveable - the windscreen wiper snapped as it started raining heavily while I was close to the university, so I pulled in. I have a receipt for a new windscreen wiper fitted 2 hrs later the same day - just had to wait for it to stop raining to drive it to the garage. So annoying!

Thanks for reading.

hoohoo

If you signed a contract when you got your permit, then the consumer information legislation will apply. If there was no face to face contact (eg you got this by letter/email/etc) regarding the the contract then this will be a distance contract, and is not binding if the right information was not provided.

Might be worth posting up a redacted version of the contract.

nigelbb

You signed a contract with the University not with UKPC so when your appeal reaches POPLA it will be a slam dunk win that there was no contract between you & UKPC.

The_Deep

In any case, financial sanctions must not be penalties, UKPC are asking for considerably more than they are entitled to for a breach of contract, (if such a contract even exists). It is therefore a penalty, but not a commercially justified on a la Beavis.

fisherjim

How can the swiping of your ID card be evidence of the driver if the car?

parkingsucker

Unfortunately I can't upload the redacted contract as I'm a new user, but exact wording is below. Thanks for the advice, it's much appreciated and very interesting.

A further question about contracts if I can impose on you a little longer:
I think you're probably right that the University contract is invalid. For example, it doesn't contain any info on the parking rules I'm signing up to - those are linked to and are hosted on a website - I am pretty sure this isn't kosher according to the consumer information legislation (thanks for the advice to read this).

However:
I believe UKPC would argue that I entered into a second contract with them, by entering the carpark - the usual signs at entrance etc. Does one contract take precedence over the other under this situation? Could I argue, do you think, that I reasonably expected only to be bound by the University contract? (especially given I am swiping my university ID on entry and exit). Or am I more reasonably bound by the later one I entered into with UKPC? The University contract does not mention that their parking is subcontracted. It does mention it in the website link provided on the contract.

Exact wording of the contract:
Notes:
- The applicant should be aware that bringing a vehicle onto University property is subject to University Traffic Regulations (link provided), this includes the use of financial parking charges for unauthorised parking.
- The current cost for deduction from salary is £1 per day. Pay & Display charges are also £1 per day for staff. Changes to personal and vehicle details should be notified immediately to Car Parking Records at the above address.
- The University will hold this data in a secure database accessible only by the authorised members of staff. It will be retained whilst the applicant holds a valid parking barrier permit and will then be removed from the database. The data will be used for effective control, crime prevention, management and monitoring of parking and payments.

Signature required for deduction of parking fees via salary deduction from University Payroll Only.
I hereby authorise the Finance Office to deduct car parking fees from my wages / salary in respect of the above payroll number until further notice.

Signature.

(Come to think of it, I don't think the contract asks me to agree to their regulations at all - correct? The signature is to approve payment withdrawal, not as an agreement of their terms?)


Thanks again for your time.

parkingsucker

In any case, financial sanctions must not be penalties, UKPC are asking for considerably more than they are entitled to for a breach of contract, (if such a contract even exists). It is therefore a penalty, but not a commercially justified on a la Beavis.

Yes good point The Deep, I will definitely raise this. Isn't that Beavis case up for appeal at the moment? Can't wait to see what comes of it.

Herzlos

parkingsucker wrote: »

I believe UKPC would argue that I entered into a second contract with them, by entering the carpark - the usual signs at entrance etc.

They will, but the signage is garaunteed to be deficient and therefore no contract can have been formed.

The fact they have pretended there is a contract still doesn't make the charge valid. If it's a breach of contract then it must be for the loss which you caused them (i.e. nothing).

bazster

Some of this is debatable but my take on it is that the university is shooting itself in the foot.

You have a contract with the university whereby they grant you permission to park in return for you paying by means of salary deduction. Presumably those deductions are taking place i.e. you are fulfilling your side of the bargain.

Although it mentions regulations and charges for unauthorised parking (which is an oxymoron anyway) it's doubtful those terms are incorporated into the contract if you have to go somewhere else to read them.

In English law, for a contract to be valid, consideration (i.e. something of value) has to flow in both directions. So what consideration has UKPC offered to you? They can't offer you permission to park, because you already have that under your contract with the landowner, the university.

And what consideration have you offered to UKPC? Certainly not payment to park, because you are making that payment to the landowner.

So you have no contract with UKPC because there is no consideration in either direction, therefore UKPC has no standing to bring a claim against you.

Possibly the university could try to enforce its contract with you but, as noted, it is doubtful that the regulations and the charges for unauthorised parking are incorporated in that contract anyway.

Guys_Dad

It will depend on the wording on the sign. If UKPC's sign states that they are working as subcontractors/management agents for the University, then the contract with the university holds good. There would be no need for a separate contract with UKPC per se.

bazster

Guys_Dad wrote: »

It will depend on the wording on the sign. If UKPC's sign states that they are working as subcontractors/management agents for the University, then the contract with the university holds good. There would be no need for a separate contract with UKPC per se.

If there is no contract with UKPC then UKPC has no claim, it would have to be brought by the university. PoPLA should uphold an appeal on these grounds. Whether it will do so is another matter.