UK Parking Patrol

nurse-money

So I've appealed to POPLA for a PCN received from UKPP.

These were my 5 main reasons:
1. A non-compliant, and erroneous Notice To Keeper (NTK), failing to meet the conditions of Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, therefore there is no keeper liability.
2. The signage on the site is inadequate and was either not seen or not understood by the driver, so no contract could have been formed.
3. The lack of UKPP’s proprietary interest in the land at the site and no contractual authority from the landowner.
4. Unreasonable and unfair terms.
5. The Charge levied is not a Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss, nor is it proportionate or commercially justifiable, and is nothing more than a disguised penalty.

They have submitted a very detailed counter-argument to POPLA which I very surprised at. They have provided detailed photographs, although the pictures are outdated and the gates to the property have now change as well as the signs from blue to yellow at this site. Which I will comment on.

They have submitted a customer licence agreement, signed by someone, unsure who, saying they are able to issue PCN's to people who park in the car park. This appears to be a suitable contract?

They are also arguing GPELO on the grounds of the Beavis case

grrrr

any other ideas? I have 7 days to comment on what they have submitted

PPC_hater

1: take your own currant photos


2: able to issue PCNs , or permission to charge people for there acts?

HO87

Would you care to let us know the location? Would it be by chance Newcastle Airport or QA Hospital, Cosham?

As for the agreement they have produced does it actually say that they are authorised to issue PCN's or does it say that they may enforce PCN's that have been issued? A subtle difference but potentially an important one.

beamerguy

nurse-money wrote: »

So I've appealed to POPLA for a PCN received from UKPP.

These were my 5 main reasons:
1. A non-compliant, and erroneous Notice To Keeper (NTK), failing to meet the conditions of Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, therefore there is no keeper liability.
2. The signage on the site is inadequate and was either not seen or not understood by the driver, so no contract could have been formed.
3. The lack of UKPP’s proprietary interest in the land at the site and no contractual authority from the landowner.
4. Unreasonable and unfair terms.
5. The Charge levied is not a Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss, nor is it proportionate or commercially justifiable, and is nothing more than a disguised penalty.

They have submitted a very detailed counter-argument to POPLA which I very surprised at. They have provided detailed photographs, although the pictures are outdated and the gates to the property have now change as well as the signs from blue to yellow at this site. Which I will comment on.

They have submitted a customer licence agreement, signed by someone, unsure who, saying they are able to issue PCN's to people who park in the car park. This appears to be a suitable contract?

They are also arguing GPELO on the grounds of the Beavis case

grrrr

any other ideas? I have 7 days to comment on what they have submitted

Due to the Beavis case all PPC's will use this so claiming unfair charges for the moment is not a reason.
Signs in car parks are important and how they are displayed and if you can show or suggest that they have since been changed, it lays a doubt on the validity of the claim.

Hang loose until Coupon-mad READS THIS, you will get the best advice

In the meantime we need to get legal independent regulation,
and not one that is financed by the same industry

Please sign this
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/111925

Tell everyone you can to do the same

nurse-money

Thanks for your responses, I really do appreciate it. I look forward to coupon-mad to make a comment too :-)

Here is the agreement from UKPP http://tinypic.com/r/huhdzd/9

Interesting to see the bits they have chosen to block out!!!

Any thoughts?

nurse-money

And here is a copy of the sign from the site.

I don't think they are allowed to charge a £1.50 admin fee or have a premium telephone number?

http://tinypic.com/r/5zfrzq/9

Castle

What was your "Offence"; as the agreement appears to relate to private land, where normally no offer of parking is made to the general public.

nurse-money

here is the 'ticket' with personal details removed

http://tinypic.com/r/107teab/9

the offence is 'no permit'

zardoz70

Legal entities on the sign and 'customer license' are different. One is ltd. the other is not.

Castle

nurse-money wrote: »

And here is a copy of the sign from the site.

I don't think they are allowed to charge a £1.50 admin fee or have a premium telephone number?

http://tinypic.com/r/5zfrzq/9

I note that the sign simply says "UK Parking Patrol Office" and doesn't include the "Ltd" or any details of the company. Since you cannot enter into a contract with a non legal entity or unknown party; the only claim would be damages under trespass by the landowner, which isn't UKPPO.

You're right about the admin fee and phone number.

nurse-money

Thanks everyone :-)

Is there a sample paragraph/letter about charging more than £100 and the premium rate telephone number? And not mentioning the LTD bit above?