5 UKPC parking tickets on my motorbike outside my house up on the curb

Kevok6

oh really, how should I end it instead?

Yours Sincerely,
One Unhappy Vehicle Keeper.

ampersand

op - remove it from this public forum! C'est tout, rien d'autre.

Kevok6

Je comprends maintenant, merci!

prowla

Hmmm, I wonder if the kerb/pavement is included in their remit.

enfield_freddy

I suspect their contract states that they look after the car park (only)

Kevok6

Hi all,
I received an email from POPLA saying that they received the case file for one of these tickets from UKPC and that the case file is available for me to review on the POPLA portal. I have 7 days to add any comments which will be part of the case.

The problem is when I go onto the POPLA track appeals website and log in, it says the operator will send the evidence indepentantly. I haven't received anything from UKPC and therefore have nothing to comment on yet the 7 days are ticking.

Is this a common thing? surely I should be able to see what their appeal is? It's telling me to comment on something I can't see and giving me a deadline to do it!

nigelbb

Contact POPLA & tell them your problem. The seven days to comment countdown can only start when you have the PPC evidence to comment on. It may well be that UKPC are not submitting any evidence as PPCs commonly don't bother when they know they will lose. Check with POPLA what the drop dead date for the PPC to submit their evidence is. If you don't receive it by that date then it's Game Over.

Herzlos

You can always email UKPC and ask for a copy of the evidence. They'll have sent it but you'll get a few days less.

If you don't get it with sufficient notice to rebut correctly, then mention that in your comment.

The_Deep

I would not stress about UKPC, they are going down.

Kevok6

Hi,

So after ringing UKPC, I finally got them to send me on their evidence. I marked the parts I thought were funny in bold:

On 28/07/2015 our warden issued a parking charge to vehicle registration [bike] at [home]. The parking charge was issued because the vehicle was parked outside of a marked bay. The Parking Charge amount was £100, reduced to £60 if payment was received within 14 days. An appeal was received from [Me] on 18/08/2015, to which the appeals department investigated and decided to reject. The basis of [My] appeal was that if he had parked his motorbike in his residential bay with a permit on display but [he] think's someone will take it, however you can buy a permit holder for the permit to go into when displaying these on motorbikes. has no authorisation from the property management company to park his vehicle here. The photographic images clearly show the vehicle parked outside of a bay or space. Within [My] POPLA appeal he mentions that his motorbike is not parked within our jurisdiction but as [he] did not mention this within his appeal with UKPC we was [double funny] unable to investigate this. However [he] also mentions that UKPC does not have Proprietary interest, Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss, Signage and POFA 2012, these are as follows: The contract that UKPC has with the owner or occupier of the land (which authorises UKPC to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of Parking Charges in respect of parking of the vehicle on the land As a member of the Approved Operator Scheme, UKPC are audited by the British Parking Association to ensure that we have all relevant contracts in place. We can confirm that parking management at this site has been contracted to UK Parking Control Ltd. [He] states that a stement saying someone has seen the contract won't do. We are providing an agreement between UKPC and the Property management, one of the requirements of formation of contract is agreement and that is what we are presenting. Proprietary rights are personal to the parties of the agreement or contract (UKPC and the landowner) and also capable of binding and affecting third parties, and not only the parties to the contract. That is, they are capable of attaching to the land itself so that anybody who comes into ownership or occupation of the land will be subject to the obligations that it imposes. Please see the attached agreement between UKPC and the property management which authorises UKPC to levy parking charges for vehicles parked on the landowners premises in breach of the parking conditions displayed at the premises, this document represents the agreement between both parties of which confims the existence of our contract with the property management. In the recent case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] EWCA Civ 402, the Court of Appeal unambiguously clarified the common law’s position on both the nature and enforceability of parking charges. It is now clear that a parking charge having the predominant purpose or intention to deter is ‘not sufficient in itself to invalidate [the charge]’. The principle test that should be used is whether the sum charged is ‘extravagant and unconscionable’ (see para 51). In the case, it was found that the parking charge was not extravagant and unconscionable and thus fully enforceable under the rules about contractual penalties (see para 31). This ruling now represents the most authoritative judgement in the area of parking law and must be strictly adhered to. In undertaking this ‘principle test’, an ‘excessive concentration’ on the difference between the amount payable under the charge and the measure of actual loss sustained has been strongly ‘deprecated’ (see para 18). The Court of Appeal understood that in certain circumstances parking operators may not suffer any ‘direct financial loss’ from parking contraventions. However, even in these circumstances, the Court recognised that such contraventions can cause an ‘indirect loss’ to parking operators. For example, the inability of an operator to prevent breaches of parking restrictions would likely result in the loss of its service contract with the landowner (see para 25). Though the Court recognised that it is theoretically possible to charge motorists more ‘modest amounts’, it would be ‘wholly uneconomic to enforce such charges by taking legal proceedings against them’ (see para 25). Further, the Court appreciated that charges must be large enough to act as a ‘deterrent’ and large enough to ‘justify collection’ (see para 30). Despite indications that a charge is extravagant and unconscionable, other factors may be present which ‘rob’ the charge of this character (see para 27). In prior cases, it has been the case that only commercial factors or justifications have been considered. However, in Beavis, the Court of Appeal stated that such charges can be justified using other considerations, such as ‘social’ factors, due to the fluidity of a ‘rule grounded in public policy’ (see para 27). Relevant public policy factors were highlighted by the Court when it stated that deterrent charges can be beneficial to drivers, shopkeepers and ‘the community as a whole’ (see paras 38 and 45). The Court also found that Parliament’s enactment of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 strongly supports the conclusion that the legislature considered it to be ‘in the public interest’ that parking charges be valid and enforceable (see para 28). Following the test of extravagance and unconscionability, as well as taking into account the applicable public policy factors, it is without doubt that your parking charge is wholly valid and fully enforceable. All of our signage is fully compliant with the guidelines set out within the BPA Code of Practice and we reject the notion that it is in any way unclear or ambiguous. (See attached a signage plan) The BPA Code of Practice depicts that we should provide at least 28 days between providing the parking charge and serving the Notice to Keeper. See Appendix E. Further, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, does not appear at any stage to depict that there is a requirement of providing a Notice to Keeper within 28 days. We reject the notion that this charge is unlawful or that we have now forfeited the right to pursue it. There are sufficient signs warning drivers that parking outside of a marked bay may lead to a Parking Charge being issued. [My] vehicle was parked outside of a marked bay and consequently the Parking Charge was correctly issued. A letter was sent to [Me] informing them of our decision on 18/08/2015.