UKPC appeal

NateR

Hello all

I recently received a parking ticket from UKPC on a Sunday night, I'd parked by an empty 'to let' unit in an industrial park as I went to a nearby leisure centre for 10mins.

I happened to be in a courtesy car, so when I got home I submitted an appeal using a template from donotpay.co.uk (Dailymail had taught me this was a good site to use). Irritatingly, I understand now that if I hadn't submitted an appeal, as UKPC are banned by the DVLA they wouldn't have been able to track anyone. I just acted speedily because I was worried about any additional admin charges from the courtesy car company.

Unfortunately I did not get a copy of my initial appeal, but I did adjust the template to basically state I did not see the signage because it was very dark in the area, that there were many other cars parked nearby that made it reasonable to assume it was ok to park there, and that it was a Sunday evening I had not caused any inconvenience to anybody.

A couple days later, I receive a rejection to the appeal stating that there is sufficient signage, and that if I do not pay within 35 days my fine will increase from £60 to £100 and that I will be charged an additional £60 for them passing me to a debt collection agency.

I responded stating that I did not feel they had responded to the points I raised, that I can provide photographic evidence that the area is dark so any signage is not apparent, and querying how they can implement a charge near an empty 'to let' unit on a Sunday night causing no loss of earnings. I ask that they review the matter fairly and proportionately.

Again I receive a response saying their signage is compliant with the BPA Code of Practice and that they reject the notion that it is in any way unclear or ambiguous. They state they will not respond to me again unless I provide new evidence to substantiate my case.

I replied back with a photo of how dark the area is, and that also when I took the photo there were 3 cars parked where I had not displaying permits. I stated that this was unfair and inconsistent. I wrote that I was not satisfied that their response takes into account how disproportionate the fine is for parking near an empty unit outside of working hours, and asked that if they decide they will not be cancelling the notice, I will request a copy of the contract that they hold with the landholder that permits them to charge and a contemperaneous copy of the genuine pre estimate of losses calculated when the contract was formulated.


It has now been a week since this e-mail and I have not heard back. Given they were replying every couple of days before, I think they are basically refusing to respond. Do you feel I have a case? They have advised I could go to POPLA, although state that if they refuse my appeal that I will be charged £100. The big thing I am also trying to avoid is charges from the courtesy car company. Thoughts? And thank you for your time, I know I'm new ha.

Redx

I suggest you follow the advice in the NEWBIES sticky thread, from here , both now and in the future

check the expiry date of the popla code and get one drafted asap, for submission to popla

The_Slithy_Tove

NateR wrote: »

I recently received a parking ticket from UKPC on a Sunday night
---
when I got home I submitted an appeal

Oh dear, what a waste of time. If only you'd done even a modicum of research, checking out RECENT posts (you had 28 days to look into it) you'd have realised what a foolish move that was.

NateR

I'm completely aware how naive I have been in contacting UKPC, however the reports of them being banned from the DVLA haven't exactly been mainstream news.

My POPLA code doesn't expire until 1.12.15, although I see the POPLA appeals process has recently changed and my fear is that I will appeal and end up being lumped with the £100 fine. My question really is, does it sound like I have any case? If they prove they have a contract with the landholder - aren't I stuffed? I don't know if the recent Beavis loss will have any baring on my case either.

Coupon-mad

NateR wrote: »

I'm completely aware how naive I have been in contacting UKPC, however the reports of them being banned from the DVLA haven't exactly been mainstream news.

My POPLA code doesn't expire until 1.12.15, although I see the POPLA appeals process has recently changed and my fear is that I will appeal and end up being lumped with the £100 fine. My question really is, does it sound like I have any case? If they prove they have a contract with the landholder - aren't I stuffed? I don't know if the recent Beavis loss will have any baring on my case either.

LOL! My goodness, you woud have to try VERY hard to lose at POPLA against UKPC! See examples of recent POPLA appeals linked in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread and write your own version as a draft and show us. You'll need to consider & include:

- signage unreadable (Google 'UKPC photos' and log in with your car reg & use their pics against them). I do that every time.

- in particular, the £100 charge is unreadable on the signs. Unlike the findings in Beavis which were dependent upon (apparently) clear signs.

- in particular, unreadable in the dark as the signs were unlit - impossible to see. Breach of the BPA CoP.

- therefore no contract agreed.

- The PCN says they add £1.50 for all car payments - illegal (look it up, illegal card surcharges). So the charge is in fact over £100, not supported by the BPA CoP and exceeds the appropriate amount.

- Does the PCN give a 0844 or 0845 number for payments & contact? Illegal, look it up!

- This charge is a penalty because it is disproportionate and UKPC cannot rely upon the Beavis case which was nothing like it. UKPC do not have the same commericial justification arrangements with the landowner and they granted no 'licence to park free' that could then 'justify' a charge after that (not like in Beavis so not comparable).

- no grace period, breach of the BPA CoP.

- no landowner authority (they almost always omit it).

- CCRs - cancellation and additional payments regs 2014. No supply to the consumer, of statutory information by durable medium in advance, or at all.

- Aziz test (still applies, Beavis has not wiped out such arguments in OTHER cases).

- unfair terms under the UTCCRs (look them up) they still apply to contracts never mind Beavis which was 'different'. You must show why yours differs.

- no GPEOL nor justification a la Beavis case (must be one or the other). If UKPC say it's a matter of liquidated damages IMHO they must still show the charge was based upon a GPEOL. PE sidestepped that in Beavis by convincing the Judges that their charge wasn't about 'damages' flowing from a breach, but some other convoluted justification.

- you would have had 'no keeper liability' as a strong point too, if you'd not said you were driving. Could and should have called yourself the hirer/day to day keeper in the first appeal (or not appealed at all if it was after UKPC were banned, but you reliase that now).


I think your 'unlit signage = no contract agreed' point or 'no landowner authority' will win, make them good. Show us your draft.

NateR

Coupon-mad wrote: »

- Does the PCN give a 0844 or 0845 number for payments & contact? Illegal, look it up!

It appears UKPC use a 0344 number, so I suppose this is ok?

POPLA APPEAL

I write this appeal following being issued with a £100 parking charge notice (PCN) from UKPC for vehicle XXXX XXX.

I have spent several hours researching about the charges from UKPC and found this appears to be an all-too-common occurrence, and I now feel strong enough to exercise my right to appeals this to POPLA.

The grounds for this appeal are the following:
• Unlit signage – no contract agreed
• No genuine pre estimate of loss
• No landowner authority

a) Unlit signage – no contract agreed

On Sunday X XXXX 2015, the driver entered an empty ‘to let’ unit and turned immediately right, parking in a sensible manner. There were no immediate signs upon entering the unit, or nearby where the car was parked. With it already being dark, the signs were impossible to see with them being unlit, and as such in breach of the BPA Code of Practice. The photo UKPC have provided of the sign is clearly illuminated by the car lights of the person who ticketed the vehicle, taken with a camera flash on, and it still remains unreadable.

The PCN also refers to XXXX XXXX Industrial, which clearly does not relate to this particular empty 'to let' unit, but rather the entire [large] industrial area – not all of which appears to be covered by UKPC, as demonstrated by the many other vehicles parked in other units.

b) No genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. In its parking charge notice, UKPC has failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the £100 loss the landowner might have incurred for the time the car was parked on its property. For this charge to be justified, a full breakdown of the costs UKPC has suffered as a result of the car being parked at the car park, is required and should add up to £100. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business should not be included in the breakdown of the costs, as these are part of the usual operational costs irrespective of any car being parked at that location.

This charge from UKPC is a third party business agent is an unenforceable penalty. The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area.

POPLA and UKPC will be also familiar with the well-known case on whether a sum is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or a penalty: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v New Garage and Motor Company [1915] AC 79. Indeed I expect UKPC might cite it. However, therein is the classic statement, in the speech of Lord Dunedin, that a stipulation: “… will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach.'' There is a presumption... that it is penalty when "a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation, on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage". My case is the same and POPLA must be seen to be consistent if an appellant raises similar arguments.

I would also dispute how any loss can be caused from an empty ‘to let’ unit, that is not operating any business, especially on a Sunday night outside of working hours. No inconvenience has been caused, and the PCN feels entirely disproportionate.

c) No landowner authority

UKPC has not provided enough evidence of their interest in the land, as they have no legal possession, which would give UKPC any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and to pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor. Therefore this Operator has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs), which could be BPA Code of Practice compliant.

I therefore put UKPC to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between UKPC and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to UKPC.


I also wish to raise some additional points. UKPC says that they add £1.50 for all card payments (an illegal card surcharge) and as such the charge is in fact over £100. This is not supported by the BPA CoP and exceeds the appropriate amount. There was also no grace period given, which is in breach of BPA CoP.

Under Cosumer Contract Regulations – Cancellation and additional payments regulations 2014 – there has been no supply to the consumer, of statutory information by durable medium in advance, or at all. I also believe the penalty to be unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations.

This concludes my POPLA appeal.
Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

UKPC says that they add £1.50 for all card payments (an illegal card surcharge) and as such the charge is in fact over £100. This is not supported by the BPA CoP and exceeds the appropriate amount.

Look it up! You need to quote the Act that makes it illegal, which you can find in seconds by Googling it. Keywords like 'card surcharges' would do it.

What happened to the Aziz test? Still arguable -and you must say your case is not like the Beavis case.

What happened to the charge is a penalty becasue it is disproportionate to any loss and is not based upon the same premise as the Beavis case, i.e. no 'licence to park free' being offset against a change, no similar commercial arrangement or social justification. This UKPC 'charge' is just a penalty imposed in lieu of liquidated damages, by excuse that it arises from a breach. So there must still be evidence that the charge (being nothing like the Beavis case where it was unusually found that the charge was not about 'damages' from breach) is based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

And in your signage argument did you do what I suggested and log on to UKPC photos, and copy their own pics and embed them into your word document as evidence of unreadable terms? I know you can't show that bit here but I want to check you are using their own pics against them.

I also think the sign is more likely to be lit up by the staff member's torch, shone right at it. I would say that, rather then 'headlights' because that suggests that your headlights would also have lit the sign.

NateR

Thank you for your assistance, I really must admit I wouldn't know what I was doing otherwise.

I have updated the last paragraph of 'b' to read;

I would also dispute how any loss can be caused from an empty ‘to let’ unit, that is not operating any business, especially on a Sunday night outside of working hours. No inconvenience has been caused, and the PCN feels entirely disproportionate to any loss with ‘no license to park free’ being offset against a charge, with no similar commercial arrangement or social justification, so there must be evidence that the PCN is based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

And updated the closing additional comments to read;

I also wish to raise some additional points. UKPC says that they add £1.50 for all card payments (an illegal card surcharge under the Consumer Rights (Card Surcharges) Regulations 2012) and as such the charge is in fact over £100. This is not supported by the BPA CoP and exceeds the appropriate amount. There was also no grace period given, which is in breach of BPA CoP.

I also wish to reference the Aziz test (as my case is different to that of Beavis v ParkingEye) “…in order to assess whether the imbalance arises ‘contrary to the requirement of good faith’, it must be determined whether the seller or supplier, dealing fairly and equitably with the consumer, could reasonably assume that the consumer would have agreed to the term concerned in individual contract negotiations.”

Under Cosumer Contract Regulations – Cancellation and additional payments regulations 2014 – there has been no supply to the consumer, of statutory information by durable medium in advance, or at all. I also believe the penalty to be unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 5.—(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

The reason I mention the car lights illuminating the sign is (I know it's going to be hard to picture), in the photos of the front of the car you can see that the person has parked into the entrance so his lights are going across the back of the car. This has in turn lit up a wall, which has the sign on. I am happy to change it though for the avoidance of doubt. I also completely see what you mean about the photos they provide of the sign on my case file, unreadable!

forgotmyname

I used a carpark yesterday and had to walk upto the sign to see who the parking company was.
It was UKPC and the writing was so small i thought how on earth are you supposed to read that. Signs also unlit, but it was fairly light when i visited.

I didnt get a ticket, just curious.

Coupon-mad

I reckon just a typo and some capital letters to address now:

Under Consumer Contract Regulations – Cancellation and Additional Payments Regulations 2014

And maybe a sentence to add to the Aziz section to clarify what you are saying as regards your case:

I also wish to reference the Aziz test (as my case is different to that of Beavis v ParkingEye) “…in order to assess whether the imbalance arises ‘contrary to the requirement of good faith’, it must be determined whether the seller or supplier, dealing fairly and equitably with the consumer, could reasonably assume that the consumer would have agreed to the term concerned in individual contract negotiations.”

The sum cannot even be read on the signs which the staff member had to artificially 'light up' in order to take the pictures UKPC have provided, so it is a fact that I did not even know about the charge let alone had a fair opportunity to agree to it. And as for whether average consumers 'would have agreed' to pay £101.50 (with illegal surcharge) had there been negotiations in advance, the answer here is obviously no. One could have parked free on street at this time of night. There would have been no justification or negotiation that could have possibly have persuaded an average consumer to pay £101.50 to a notorious parking firm currently being investigated for alleged fraudulent doctoring of evidence. Their charge relies upon unseen terms, not clear contracts, and should not be upheld.

Ian011

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Consumer Contract Regulations – Cancellation and Additional Payments Regulations 2014

The correct title is

The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013
[SI 2013/3134]