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

bod1467

Wall of text ... nobody is going to try and read that.

peter_the_piper

Did the OP get confirmation whether or not t
ukpc have permission to ticket land outside of the tarmac car park?

Kevok6

Apologies, I'll shorten the full email;

They said I can buy a permit holder for the bike to hold the permit. This was their counter for me saying that I can't display a permit without it being stolen.

They said they were unable to investigate the fact that it was outside their jurisdiction because I only mentioned it in the POPLA appeal, not the UKPC appeal.

It mentions the contract they have with the occupier of the land to counter what I said about them not having Proprietary interest, Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss, Signage and POFA 2012.

Then it goes on to say that I was not in a marked bay and I was in the wrong, followed by a load of pictures of my bike with amateur "paint" drawings highlighting things.

Kevok6

Peter,

I didn't find out because I have had no contact with the actual land owner and my housemates have discussed it and we would rather not get the letting agents involved. They mentioned in their argument that they didn't investigate if they are within their jurisdiction.

Now that POPLA have both sides to the argument, can POPLA request that UKPC find that out? or do they only base their decision on what they have currently?

Umkomaas

POPLA won't request the PPC to do anything. You need to require the PPC to prove everything to POPLA - point by point. There will be nothing proactive or investigative from POPLA (based on the London Council's model), and I can't see it being much different, on this front, from the new Ombudsman Service.

ampersand

Hello again Kevok, why did you do this?
'So after ringing UKPC,'?....

No, don't answer. Rhetorical question and what's done is done.
#
Here's that reply, lisible:-)

'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 (where is closure bracket?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. [proof won't be forthcoming. 'Commercially sensitive' or some such piffle]

[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[really?], 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 landowner's 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 COLOR=Red]deliberate untruth[/COLOR and the subsequent Appeal which is currently being considered by their Lordships - omitted

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 judg[STRIKE]e[/STRIKE]ment in the area of parking law and must be strictly adhered to.[LIE] 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). [Nonsense, doubt they know what this means; probably have some skewed sense of 'depreciated' in their little peabrains]

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[tragedy] with the landowner (see para 25)[whose identiity remains undisclosed to you].

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)[which clearly equates to punitive charges, pursued for profit, VATable.] .

Further, the Court appreciated that charges must be large enough to act as a ‘deterrent’ and large enough to ‘justify collection’ (see para 30).:D

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.
[Complain about any reliance on Beavis while Appeal is still under consideration, wherever it appears in this garbage. This is serious misrepresentation]
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)[if only they were].

Following the test of extravagance and unconscionability, as well as taking into account the applicable public policy factors, it is without doubt[meaningless, actually means 'without our slightest 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[doubt it. Type size? Eyeline parameters?] and we reject the notion that it is in any way unclear or ambiguous. (See attached a signage plan - [unredacted? contemporaneous with each and every parking event?])

The BPA Code of Practice depicts?[oh well, if that's the word they want] 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. [but appearances can deceive, as UKPC well know]

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'
#
'can POPLA request that UKPC find that out?'
That certainly isn't in their remit.

Kevok6

Thanks a million for going through that Ampersand!!

I have time to comment on this to POPLA, is there anything I should write? I am nervous and feel very out of my depth at this stage!

Thank you again!

Umkomaas

You need to rebut anything you disagree with and definitely anything that is plain wrong. Failure to rebut a point could be construed by POPLA as you not disagreeing with it.

Here's an excellent example of how one poster dealt effectively and comprehensively with a PPC's Evidence Pack. I'm sure this will give you plenty of ideas on how to handle your case.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/67385911#Comment_67385911

And another one to consider.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67402366&postcount=26

And a further one.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13uLICVZ13MeT7Q_4qzJUIyAn-jtVJUIVeCaaINpI2U8/mobilebasic