UK Parking Solutions NTK/POPLA

Zemerin1

I'll do that, thanks for the quick reply. Working on it at the moment. Their evidence pack is completely half-arsed. More spelling mistakes than I can throw a goat at and the amount of times it's contradictory I've lost count of.

pappa_golf

Zemerin1 wrote: »

"BPA reduced the maximum recommended charge for that a motorist should be expected to pay for a breach of the parking contract or for an act of trespass from £150 to 100."


Thanks

does it "really say that?


UKPS joined the IPC
UKPS Limited (Trading as UKPS Limited)

15/10/2015
www.theukps.com



was the ticket on the car before or after this date?


what date was the "offence" committed?

Coupon-mad

Different UKPS I think. The OP has been offered POPLA so I assumed this was TR Luckins t/a UKPS?

Zemerin1

@Pappa Golf. That is a direct quote, copy and paste from their POPLA evidence pack.

@coupon-mad. UK Parking Solutions (Luckins) is the one.

Their POPLA evidence contains several alleges of trespass. If you would like for me to copy/paste some more over I gladly will.

For full context of what I previously quoted, I will paste the paragraph below this.

PCN Amounts and the BPA Code of Practice
At present we are limited by the British Parking Associations Codes of Practice as to
what the level of a PCN can be charged. We chose on a business case, mindful of the costs incurred above, to levy a PCN of £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. Often it is the case that we incur charges in excess of £100 but this additional cost has to be then subsidised from other parts of our business.
During October 2012 after significant pressure from Government and motoring/consumer organisations, the BPA reduced the maximum recommended charge for that a motorist should be expected to pay for a breach of the parking contract or for an act of trespass from £150 to 100. Despite the BPA being unable, due to prevailing legislation, to fix prices at this level, the actions of the Association were welcomed by all stakeholders. In this instance the charge being levied is within (well within) the recommendations set out within Clause 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice. This sum, and the calculations which have been made in setting it, has been approved and agreed by the landowner or his agent of the site.

Coupon-mad

Their POPLA evidence contains several alleges of trespass.

Nice, shooting themselves in the foot there.

From the decision in Beavis v ParkingEye:

97. ''ParkingEye concedes that the £85 is payable upon a breach of contract, and that it is not a pre-estimate of damages. As it was not the owner of the car park, ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case it may be able to recover a small amount of damages for trespass.''

Lord Mance at 190: ''Mr Beavis... was being given a licence, on conditions, and he would have been a trespasser if he overstayed or failed to comply with its other conditions. By promising ParkingEye not to overstay and to comply with its other conditions, Mr Beavis gave ParkingEye a right, which it would not otherwise have had, to enforce such conditions against him in contract.''

Lord Mance at 192: ''The position in tort may one day merit closer examination, since it is not clear to me on what basis, other than contractual, the driver of a vehicle can incur any obligation to pay a sum in the nature of damages as a result of a trespass or other tort, however much notice was given to him or her when the vehicle was parked. If there is such a basis, however, I have little doubt that the law would also extend the penalty doctrine to cover it.''

Zemerin1

Quick update,got my result for this through today and it was successful.

"The operators case is that the vehicle was parked in a car park causing an obstructions the appellant has raised POFA and GPEOL. The operator has provided me with all the photographic evidence including the signage, signage plan and the photographic proof of the car parked. The operator has in its evidence to us has stated "warns the keeper that if after a specified time, the charges are not paid in full and we still do not know the name and address of the driver we may have the right to recover the outstanding sums from the registered keeper". I can find no evidence of this. As I can find no evidence of this I can conclude the PCN was issued incorrectly. The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but as I have allowed the appeal I will not be addressing these"

Interesting point for it to be found invalid on, felt this was a winner purely on Keeper Liability! Needless to say, thanks for your valuable advice everyone.

Until next time!

Coupon-mad

Sounds like POPLA mucked that up, unless UKPS (Luckins) were stupid enough to say their SIGNAGE said that when they meant their NTK says that.