Help! Ukpc have 'photographic evidence' which isn't real

enfield_freddy

the whole private parking setup has been left to get in such a bad state over the last 3 yrs , something , and I mean something BIG is going to happen , and the UK dole numbers are going to rize


it was never the intention to use glorified "apps" , and not issue tickets , the method was mandated as ANPR or ticket on car

g0wfv

OK, so I've finally bitten the bullet and contacted my MP - coincidentally, that'll also be the MP for Lincoln, which is very relevant to these cases - below is a copy of the communication.

6 September 2015

Mr K McCartney JP MP
House of Commons
Westminster
SW1A 0AA

Sir,

PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012 AND REGULATION OF THE PRIVATE PARKING BUSINESS SECTOR

I am writing to you as concerned constituent. By now I am sure you are aware of the alleged fraudulent evidence supplied in at least three parking charge cases at the Tritton Retail Park, Tritton Road, Lincoln.

This has been the topic of extensive discussion on numerous internet forums, including social media and has also been covered by BBC Radio Lincolnshire, BBC Look North, the Sunday Times and other local media outlets over the past week.

If you are not aware of this, may I take the liberty of providing you with a precis of this saga?

It was alleged by UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC) who manage the parking at the retail park on behalf of the landowner that motorists had overstayed the 2 hour free parking limit and submitted photographic evidence to back up their allegations. They also demanded a parking charge of £100 (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days) presumably under breach of contract legislation.

This photographic evidence has been contested by the motorists in question as they are of the firm belief the evidence has been doctored to show them as being in the car park when they were elsewhere, indeed the evidence produced by UKPC in two of the cases when viewed alongside each other is contradictory and shows that at least one of the vehicles was not where UKPC claimed it to be at a certain date and time.

This incident has prompted me to write to you as I am currently involved in appealing albeit on behalf of my partner, against a parking charge (in Grantham) which has been extremely eye-opening.

As a magistrate I am sure you are aware the whole basis of a parking company’s claim (in England) rests upon the [STRIKE]Freedom of Information[/STRIKE] Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 and contract law. The POFA 2012 lays out the procedures and time limits to be adhered to by a parking operator and that they are able to claim the charge from the registered keeper of the vehicle should the driver remain unidentified.

To claim keeper liability under POFA 2012, the parking operator must obtain the registered keeper details from the DVLA. In turn, the parking operator must belong to a membership body that belongs to the DVLA’s approved operator scheme (AOS), at this time either the British Parking Association or the Independent Parking Committee. At all stages, the parking operator must agree to abide by the relevant AOS’ code of conduct or practice and any relevant legislation or guidance in force whilst carrying out their business practices.

Whilst researching my own appeal, following the above highlighted appeal and watching the outcome of other appeals, it is obvious that this sector is woefully in need of further regulation.

For instance, and in the case I find myself appealing, the parking operator concerned has failed to seek the relevant planning and/or advertising consents under planning and advertising legislation, thus breaching their AOS’ code of practice and in turn breaching their contract with the DVLA to request keeper details. This is something that is apparently not isolated to our case!

Little, if anything, seems to be done to ensure that these companies comply with any rules, guidance, legislation etc and they seem to be just left to carry on with their highway robbery until caught out by the innocent motorist who decides to fight the often outrageous charge.

When asked to step in during the appeals stage, the DVLA often fob the motorist off. By charging for each request a parking company makes to them, the DVLA makes money. This in my opinion is a conflict of interest; if the keeper details requests wane, so will the cash flow. There is a lot more the DVLA as a government department could be doing to protect the motorist from these fly-by-night companies.

I would like to respectfully ask you to look into this business sector and raise the question of its further regulation in Parliament. Whilst the POFA 2012 Sch 4 is an admirable attempt to regulate these modern day !!!!!! Turpins (indeed it did away with clamping) it falls short of that which is needed to kerb these companies harassing and bullying the motorist into parting with their cash through the employ of badly (and inaccurately) quoted case law, falsehoods and threats etc. Often the first correspondence from a parking company alleges CCJs and debt recovery procedures – very intimidating, I am sure you will agree.

If you would like to discuss this matter further, you need only contact me; I look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

Marktheshark

You should have asked him to request the chief constable orders an investigation in to the company and what is likely to be a fraud of substantial value

g0wfv

Dag nam it! I meant Protection of Freedoms Act, not Freedom of Information Act!

g0wfv

Marktheshark wrote: »

You should have asked him to request the chief constable orders an investigation in to the company and what is likely to be a fraud of substantial value

Hmmm yes, a missed opportunity there - I shall bring it up when he (hopefully) replies.

trisontana

Just a slight correction. It's "curb" and not "kerb". Some people on here use the former when meaning the edge of the pavement. So it makes a change to see this reverse misspelling! Otherwise an excellent letter.

g0wfv

trisontana wrote: »

Just a slight correction. It's "curb" and not "kerb". Some people on here use the former when meaning the edge of the pavement. So it makes a change to see this reverse misspelling! Otherwise an excellent letter.

hahahaha! Oh well, we're not perfect! It's gone complete with kerb rather than curb, although I did have to re-send with the correct act quoted

Northlakes

Well said. I must admit since I gained an interest in the subject I have found the whole business a far worse scandal than PPI or the rigging of FOREX markets. In terms of extortion, it's the perfect crime. Letter through the door , baffle the majority of people with legal terms and half-truths. Then threaten CCJ's. Even a POPLA appeal could be daunting to average man in the street, then IPC appeals, well that's something else!
The worrying thing is that the DVLA appears to be complicit in this. Even when told a site is operating unlawfully they still want to take the money rather than withhold driver information.

g0wfv

Northlakes wrote: »

Well said. I must admit since I gained an interest in the subject I have found the whole business a far worse scandal than PPI or the rigging of FOREX markets. In terms of extortion, it's the perfect crime. Letter through the door , baffle the majority of people with legal terms and half-truths. Then threaten CCJ's. Even a POPLA appeal could be daunting to average man in the street, then IPC appeals, well that's something else!
The worrying thing is that the DVLA appears to be complicit in this. Even when told a site is operating unlawfully they still want to take the money rather than withhold driver information.

Which is pretty much what I want to highlight to my MP if/when he contacts me for further comment.

trisontana

Another thing that has happened in the last few years is the misuse in my opinion of the Small Claims Court by PPCs. When it was introduced it was supposed to be cheap and informal means for the "ordinary" person to take on the big boys such as large companies and organisations.

Instead, the PPCs use these courts as a a debt collection agency. As for the "ordinary" citizen. They now find themselves in these courts having to defend themselves with no or very little help compared to the paid professionals the PPCs us.