New UKPC circular - next step?

born_3

I got a "RE: Notice to keeper" letter from those delightful scamps UKPC. I wasn't aware of getting neither a PCN nor a NTK so I fired off this and expected that to be an end to the matter:

p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120%; } Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. XXX

Thank you for your letter ref “Re: Notice to Keeper” PCN No. XXX dated XXX/xx/15. This is the first communication the vehicle's registered keeper has received, and the keeper has no knowledge of the event to which this pertains. As this is the first communication, the keeper is treating this as a Notice to Keeper as per the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so is appealing on the following basis:

a). The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified.
b). As keeper I believe that the signs were not seen, the wording is ambiguous and the predominant purpose of your business model is intended to be a deterrent.
c). There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.
d). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms regulations.
e). There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.

Your clients should be thoroughly ashamed of the shoddy way you treat consumers visiting their premises. The landowner will be made fully aware of this matter and your response, which I will forward to their CEO when I complain in writing and via social media, as appropriate. Parking firms like yours fail to demonstrate even a basic understanding of customer service. The reputation of your business model appears to be more akin to a protection racket than 'parking management'. Your ATA may offer sound-bites about driving up standards or fight for motorists' rights but in reality they are not a regulator; they merely exist to represent the interests of paying members, in order to gain access to DVLA data. The public have no faith in the private parking industry and, as far as I have seen, your firm has not shown itself to be any different than the ex-clampers with whom you share a membership.

The purpose of this communication is:

1. Formal challenge
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. As such, you must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I suggest you uphold this challenge now or alternatively, send a rejection letter - subject to accepting my claim for costs as clearly stated below, since you have no case.

2. ''Drop hands'' offer
The extravagant 'parking charge' is baseless but I realise that you may have incurred nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs to date, for researching the law and responding to your junk mail dressed up to impersonate a parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15. Therefore, this is a formal “drop hands” offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days without further expense and I will not pursue you for my costs. If you persist then I will charge in full for my time at £18 per hour plus my out-of-pocket expenses and damages for harassment.

3. Notice of cancellation of contract
I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered by you and certainly was not expressly agreed. This 'contract' is hereby cancelled and any obligations now end. If you offer - and if I decide to use - IAS or POPLA, then the contract ends immediately on the date of their decision (whatever the outcome) so my notice of cancellation still applies. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations apply now to every consumer contract, save for a few exemptions, which parking contracts are not. It is the will of Parliament following the EU Consumer Rights Directive, that express consent is obtained for consumer contracts now - not implied consent - and that information is provided in a durable medium in advance.

You have failed to meet these requirements. The foisting of unexpected contracts like this on consumers, by stealth, is a thing of the past.

By replying to the challenge you are acknowledging receipt and acceptance of points 2 and 3 above. If you decide to persist with this unwarranted threat, I will be put to unnecessary expense and hours of time in appealing or defending this matter. As such, you will be liable for my costs and a pre-estimate of my loss - and in contrast with yours, mine is genuine - is that this sum will be likely to exceed £100.


I have kept proof of submission of this challenge. I look forward to your considered reply within 35 days.

Yours faithfully,

I thought that would be the end of it and I would never hear from them again (apart from some communication informing me that in the goodness of the hearts they have kindly decided to cancel the "debt"). What I did get is three pages of legalese mainly pertaining to GPEOL:






I'm assuming that this "threatogram" (TM) with all of it confusing references to previous cases is worth little more than the paper its printed on namely becuase of the "reduced" offer?

Coupon-mad

Why have you copied all that out? Seen it loads of times, no need to read that drivel. You thought that would be the end of it? That's their holding letter - ignore it - there is no next step re that letter, it's time wasting bluster from UKPC. They are fishing for 'more info' but they will then follow it next month with a POPLA code when they don't hear from you.

You are nearly at POPLA stage and you need to wait for their standard, boring rejection letter. So now search 'UKPC POPLA' to find threads with example POPLA wording and read the newbies thread again about POPLA stage.

Be careful not to try to answer POPLA's questions which are geared towards drivers, remember you are appealing as registered keeper about the charge, not about 'what happened'.

Show us you POPLA draft once you've cobbled it together - clue: 'no keeper liability' will feature, as well as Beavis, no loss, no GPEOL and lack of landowner authority.

You will have a POPLA code by next month so you need to write your appeal to win.

born_3

Thanks. I've been off these fora for a while and thought this was a new tactic. A, very, quick search using UKPC (an organization I've got "form" with) didn't show up anything about this letter. Just to make sure we're singing from the same hymn-sheet:

I received no PCN.
I received no NTK.
I got a "Re: Notice to Keeper letter" (not shown here).
I replied with my quoted letter.
I received that "information" from UKPC (which is the first time I've seen that in all my "dealings" with them) - apologies for re-printing it.

So it's to be given a "stiff" ignoring?

Ozne

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Why have you copied all that out? Seen it loads of times, no need to read that drivel.

You may have seen it "loads of times", but I hadn't, and it's of interest to me because UKPC have recently taken over the running of a car park I often use.

It's very good of you to spend so much of your time on these matters, but please remember that most people don't have your experience, and try not to be so irritable with us.