We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
Parking Charge UKPC, Stevenage Leisure Park, July 2015
px3ltd
Posts: 21 Forumite
Hi,
I have received parking ticket from UKPC on 17 July 2015 where the car was parked at Stevenage Leisure Park with the reason of "vehicle owner/driver left site". I was in KFC Stevenage in the Leisure Park that they but haven't kept the receipt from KFC.
A first NtK sent on 18 Sep 2015 and a final NtK sent on 02 Sep 2015. I've sent the standard appeal letter on the Newbies page by post to UKPC on 11 Sep 2015 with receipt.
However, without any response to the appeal within the BPA CoP timescales, no popla code either, UKPC has straightly gone to debt collectors. DRP letter was sent out to me on 18 Sep 2015. Complaint letter has been sent to Steve at BPA afterwards, and around the same time the initial response letter to my first appeal from UKPC has been received which was sent on 28 Sep 2015. The response letter was asking me to provide receipt at Leisure part at that day for their further decision.
My complaint has been investigated by BPA, that UKPC has admitted my first appeal letter has been RECEIVED on 14 Sep 2015 however they didn't scan it to their system until 17 Sep 2015 and on that day the case has been transferred to Debt collect company automatically.
I have challenged UKPC breach of CoP to BPA however BPA believes that UKPC was in compliance to CoP - they have replied to my appeal within 14 days when they receive my appeal in their SYSTEM, and as a result of this, the PCN was frozen by UKPC until I either advise them of additional evidence or they reject my appeal. :mad::mad::mad:
Now I can only find my bank statement which clearly shows the transaction at KFC stevenage on that day - not sure whether this is enough as an evidence or in reply to the request from UKPC of copy of receipts from the Leisure park.
Do you think I should send a copy of bank statement to them as a response to their letter?
Even I send this to them, I am assuming that UKPC will still reject appeal. I have seen several successful case wining at POPLA appeal by the reason like - 'I find that the operator has not provided sufficient evidence that they have authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charge notices in respect of the site'.
However, from the response letter from UKPC, I have seen their explicit statement of 'We can confirm, however, that UKPC has the authority to issue and enforce Parking Charge Notices, for breach of contract in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. ' Do you think I still have the strong ground to fight back and win at POPLA stage?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
I copy their reply to me at the end of my post.
Thanks
The initial feedback to my appeal from UKPC - seems they are well prepared for it
Thank you for your recent correspondence in relation to the above Parking Charge.
In order to make a final decision regarding your appeal, please can you provide a copy of your receipts from the leisure park on the day in question to our Appeals Department within 21 days of the date of this letter.
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’. 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. The Court made reference to the indirect losses that parking contraventions can cause to operators, the need for large charges to deter breaches, the benefit to the community that that such deterrence can create and the intention of Parliament for such charges to be enforceable.
This ruling now represents the most authoritative judgement in the area of parking law and must be strictly adhered to.
Following the ruling in Beavis, 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. As per our photographic evidence which you may view online there were multiple signs in clear view of your vehicle clearly stating the parking terms and conditions on site.
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) contains a confidentiality clause and as such we are not in a position to provide the contract to you.
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. UKPC will provide the court with a copy of this in full if they require it, or can provide a written statement to this effect from those party to the contract. We are also more than happy to provide confirmation to the independent assessors that we are authorised to manage parking at this site.
We can confirm that parking management at this site has been contracted to UK Parking Control Ltd.
The Parking Charges issued by UK Parking Control Limited (“UKPC”) are levied on the basis of a contract with the driver, as detailed on the signage displayed in the car parks. The signage sets out the terms and conditions of parking under which a driver is authorised to park, be that by pre-payment of a parking tariff, or by parking only for a maximum period of time, or by adhering to other terms and conditions (such as being parked within a marked bay), and that a Parking Charge will be payable if the conditions of parking are not met by the driver. We ensure that signage containing the terms and conditions of parking is ample, clear, visible and in line with the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice to ensure the driver is bound by them when they enter and remain on site, so that all users of the car park are obliged to follow these terms and conditions of parking. It is settled law that a
driver is deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of parking by the act of parking in the car park.
A key legal precedent for England and Wales was set in 1996 in the case of Arthur v Anker. In that case the judge ruled that Mr Arthur parked in breach of the terms and conditions prominently displayed at the car park. He was liable to pay the charges levied.
A number of other cases, such as Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000], refers to the creation of a contract with the driver. This is again reiterated in Section 7.1 of the Department of Transport’s guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This refers to the fact that if the terms and conditions of parking are sufficient it will be considered that the driver has entered into a contract to park on the land. Also see Combined Parking Solutions v Dorrington (2012), Combined Parking Solutions v De Brunner (2007), Combined Parking Solutions v Blackburn (2007) and Combined Parking Solutions v Rees (2007).
We can confirm, however, that UKPC has the authority to issue and enforce Parking Charge Notices, for breach of contract in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Further evidence that parking charges cannot be viewed as penalties, can be found in Mayhook v National Car Parks and Fuller [2012], Combined Parking Solutions v Mr Stephen James Thomas [2008], Combined Parking Solutions v De Brunner [2007] and in a High Court / Court of Appeal case of (ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011]).
We note that you have not expanded on why you believe our notices fail to comply with POFA or how we have breached the Consumer Contracts Regulations . As such we cannot respond directly to your assertions, but can confirm that we have complied fully with both POFA 2012 and the 2013 Regulations
Failure to provide this information will give us no alternative other than to make our final decision based on the previous information received, at this stage a POPLA verification code will be provided.
Further correspondence can be sent to our postal address below or on our website at
Please can you ensure that your parking charge details are attached when sending further correspondence. The Parking Charge has been on hold whilst under appeal and may be settled in full at the reduced rate of £60.
PLEASE DO NOT IGNORE THIS LETTER. UKPC REGULARLY TAKES MOTORISTS TO COURT WHO IGNORE THEIR PARKING CHARGES. PLEASE SEE:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.
I have received parking ticket from UKPC on 17 July 2015 where the car was parked at Stevenage Leisure Park with the reason of "vehicle owner/driver left site". I was in KFC Stevenage in the Leisure Park that they but haven't kept the receipt from KFC.
A first NtK sent on 18 Sep 2015 and a final NtK sent on 02 Sep 2015. I've sent the standard appeal letter on the Newbies page by post to UKPC on 11 Sep 2015 with receipt.
However, without any response to the appeal within the BPA CoP timescales, no popla code either, UKPC has straightly gone to debt collectors. DRP letter was sent out to me on 18 Sep 2015. Complaint letter has been sent to Steve at BPA afterwards, and around the same time the initial response letter to my first appeal from UKPC has been received which was sent on 28 Sep 2015. The response letter was asking me to provide receipt at Leisure part at that day for their further decision.
My complaint has been investigated by BPA, that UKPC has admitted my first appeal letter has been RECEIVED on 14 Sep 2015 however they didn't scan it to their system until 17 Sep 2015 and on that day the case has been transferred to Debt collect company automatically.
I have challenged UKPC breach of CoP to BPA however BPA believes that UKPC was in compliance to CoP - they have replied to my appeal within 14 days when they receive my appeal in their SYSTEM, and as a result of this, the PCN was frozen by UKPC until I either advise them of additional evidence or they reject my appeal. :mad::mad::mad:
Now I can only find my bank statement which clearly shows the transaction at KFC stevenage on that day - not sure whether this is enough as an evidence or in reply to the request from UKPC of copy of receipts from the Leisure park.
Do you think I should send a copy of bank statement to them as a response to their letter?
Even I send this to them, I am assuming that UKPC will still reject appeal. I have seen several successful case wining at POPLA appeal by the reason like - 'I find that the operator has not provided sufficient evidence that they have authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charge notices in respect of the site'.
However, from the response letter from UKPC, I have seen their explicit statement of 'We can confirm, however, that UKPC has the authority to issue and enforce Parking Charge Notices, for breach of contract in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. ' Do you think I still have the strong ground to fight back and win at POPLA stage?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
I copy their reply to me at the end of my post.
Thanks
The initial feedback to my appeal from UKPC - seems they are well prepared for it
Thank you for your recent correspondence in relation to the above Parking Charge.
In order to make a final decision regarding your appeal, please can you provide a copy of your receipts from the leisure park on the day in question to our Appeals Department within 21 days of the date of this letter.
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’. 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. The Court made reference to the indirect losses that parking contraventions can cause to operators, the need for large charges to deter breaches, the benefit to the community that that such deterrence can create and the intention of Parliament for such charges to be enforceable.
This ruling now represents the most authoritative judgement in the area of parking law and must be strictly adhered to.
Following the ruling in Beavis, 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. As per our photographic evidence which you may view online there were multiple signs in clear view of your vehicle clearly stating the parking terms and conditions on site.
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) contains a confidentiality clause and as such we are not in a position to provide the contract to you.
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. UKPC will provide the court with a copy of this in full if they require it, or can provide a written statement to this effect from those party to the contract. We are also more than happy to provide confirmation to the independent assessors that we are authorised to manage parking at this site.
We can confirm that parking management at this site has been contracted to UK Parking Control Ltd.
The Parking Charges issued by UK Parking Control Limited (“UKPC”) are levied on the basis of a contract with the driver, as detailed on the signage displayed in the car parks. The signage sets out the terms and conditions of parking under which a driver is authorised to park, be that by pre-payment of a parking tariff, or by parking only for a maximum period of time, or by adhering to other terms and conditions (such as being parked within a marked bay), and that a Parking Charge will be payable if the conditions of parking are not met by the driver. We ensure that signage containing the terms and conditions of parking is ample, clear, visible and in line with the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice to ensure the driver is bound by them when they enter and remain on site, so that all users of the car park are obliged to follow these terms and conditions of parking. It is settled law that a
driver is deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of parking by the act of parking in the car park.
A key legal precedent for England and Wales was set in 1996 in the case of Arthur v Anker. In that case the judge ruled that Mr Arthur parked in breach of the terms and conditions prominently displayed at the car park. He was liable to pay the charges levied.
A number of other cases, such as Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000], refers to the creation of a contract with the driver. This is again reiterated in Section 7.1 of the Department of Transport’s guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This refers to the fact that if the terms and conditions of parking are sufficient it will be considered that the driver has entered into a contract to park on the land. Also see Combined Parking Solutions v Dorrington (2012), Combined Parking Solutions v De Brunner (2007), Combined Parking Solutions v Blackburn (2007) and Combined Parking Solutions v Rees (2007).
We can confirm, however, that UKPC has the authority to issue and enforce Parking Charge Notices, for breach of contract in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Further evidence that parking charges cannot be viewed as penalties, can be found in Mayhook v National Car Parks and Fuller [2012], Combined Parking Solutions v Mr Stephen James Thomas [2008], Combined Parking Solutions v De Brunner [2007] and in a High Court / Court of Appeal case of (ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011]).
We note that you have not expanded on why you believe our notices fail to comply with POFA or how we have breached the Consumer Contracts Regulations . As such we cannot respond directly to your assertions, but can confirm that we have complied fully with both POFA 2012 and the 2013 Regulations
Failure to provide this information will give us no alternative other than to make our final decision based on the previous information received, at this stage a POPLA verification code will be provided.
Further correspondence can be sent to our postal address below or on our website at
Please can you ensure that your parking charge details are attached when sending further correspondence. The Parking Charge has been on hold whilst under appeal and may be settled in full at the reduced rate of £60.
PLEASE DO NOT IGNORE THIS LETTER. UKPC REGULARLY TAKES MOTORISTS TO COURT WHO IGNORE THEIR PARKING CHARGES. PLEASE SEE:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.
0
Comments
-
Ignore DRP.
UKPC won't dare go near a court ... they've been caught taking fraudulent actions and are wriggling desperately like worms on a hook.0 -
yes, use a redacted copy of the bank statement to prove patronage of KFC, or alternatively tell them you will pass the evidence to popla when they provide the popla code
dont believe all the bluster, they can say they own the moon but it doesnt mean its true, they are a fraudulent company being investigated by the police and the BPA and are currently banned from the dvla database
they regularly fail to provide owner contracts to popla and their signage and procedures have been found to be wanting on many occasions, they regularly fail at popla when challenged correctly
legal arguments are as follows
no contract
poor signage
NTK flaws
camera flaws , inaccuracy and fraud
not a gpeol (subject to the Beavis case this month)
IGNORE DRP, DRP are powerless and can only send out nasty letters, use them as hamster bedding0 -
yes, use a redacted copy of the bank statement to prove patronage of KFC, or alternatively tell them you will pass the evidence to popla when they provide the popla code
dont believe all the bluster, they can say they own the moon but it doesnt mean its true, they are a fraudulent company being investigated by the police and the BPA and are currently banned from the dvla database
they regularly fail to provide owner contracts to popla and their signage and procedures have been found to be wanting on many occasions, they regularly fail at popla when challenged correctly
legal arguments are as follows
no contract
poor signage
NTK flaws
camera flaws , inaccuracy and fraud
not a gpeol (subject to the Beavis case this month)
IGNORE DRP, DRP are powerless and can only send out nasty letters, use them as hamster bedding
Hi Redx
Many thanks for your instant reply.
Some further questions -
1. Do you mean I don't need to show the name & address or bank account of the bank statement, but just show the transactions occurred on 17 July 2015 to UKPC?
2. Apart from this, do I need to send those legal arguments to UKPC? Or just wait till they reject my appeal and send these legal arguments to POPLA?0 -
1) they already know the name and address so no need to redact those out
redact the account number and sort code , plus any other transactions that are none of their business
tell them the unredacted version will be produced later (either to popla or in the county court)
2) if or when they have rejected the appeal, they should issue a popla code, then you produce a bespoke popla appeal based on all of those legal arguments and evidence of patronage
3) complain to KFC or the landowner as well, tell them to cancel the charge and call off the dogs , use the redacted bank statement as evidence of patronage too
4) use the fact that they are being investigated for warden fraud as proof that wardens falsify evidence and have done so in this case0 -
That's brilliant. I will sent off the reply tomorrow - and talk to KFC and landowner as well!0
-
If you were in KFC all the time UKPC will have no evidence that you left site, their attendants have been shown to be liars at other sites motivated only by incentives, and if you were seen by them leaving site it would have been their duty to the land owner to point out the error of your ways to mitigate their loss!
They would not dare to try court for this I believe they did once and lost.
Edit: Sorry it was not UKPC that tried court and lost, it was some other muppets called VCS but the outcome was quite amusing and still relevant:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231%290 -
"If there is another case in the S!!!!horpe County Court, Grimsby County Court or Hull County Court live by four pm on 26 Friday, you will be coming to see me and I suggest you bring a toothbrush. Am I clear?"
This line. Absolutely this line.0 -
UKPC - seems they are well prepared for it
LOL - you couldn't be more wrong! UKPC are a joke.
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Hi all,
Just let you know that after I sent them my redacted bank statement and wait for couple of weeks finally I've received their charge cancellation letter.
LOL - thanks for all your help and also hope this helps more people!0 -
UKPC may well be able get info from the DVLA again and it will be very interesting if they attempt to abuse the ban by obtaining info for all the tickets they issued within the ban period.
Let's face it, what UKPC did was fraud and there is no guarantee from the DVLA that they will not do it again.
As coupon-mad has said "UKPC are a joke"
UKPC have no credibility left and I see no reason why anyone should take any notice of them despite their threats.
I will NOT enter a car park that employs UKPC as they are no longer trustworthy and I have told retailers the same, the retailers should examine this as it makes their credibility bad for employing them.
As they say, "what goes round, comes round"0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 349.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453K Spending & Discounts
- 242.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 619.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.4K Life & Family
- 255.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards