UKPPO PCN through Post

bennjiboy

surprise surprise the IAS rejected my appeal!!

is it worth responding to it or is now the time to ignore :-)

the most interesting point is the signs are all "UK Parking Patrol Office" yet the invoice for payment is to "UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd" - different names, and UKPPO Ltd is a dormant company according to companies house?

also, for the 5 days to reply, my appeal was 12.40pm last tuesday and they replied at 16.40 this tuesday - is 5 days until end of day or to the time the appeal went in?

Coupon-mad

Can we see the rubbish rejection decision please, from IAS? These farcicial 'adjudications' are worth a look every time and a complaint to certain bodies if the decision-making is perverse. Always is.

I don't think you can show us the 'evidence' (LOL) but I think you can publicly show the IAS decision.

Kangaroo court.

System

The IAS cannot rule on Bylaw offences - only the Magistrates can do that.

I would complain about both UKPPO and the IAS to your local Trading Standards as aggressive and misleading practices.

It's like having a speeding fine (statutory) and asking the local Comedy club to decide for you. There may be similarities between the IAS and the Comedy club but neither have the (statutory) authority to decide.

bennjiboy

sorry, my bad! read this quickly while leaving work...not rejected yet, UKPPO have put in their prima facie, i now have to put in my appeal against in the next 10 days, then they give a verdict...sorry!

but among the many points of appeal are the sign / company invoice, and there is no proof that the land of the hotel is covered. i have put in a FOI request to newcastle city council so waiting on that :-)

Coupon-mad

This isn't the IAS that you've paid £15 for is it? I hope not.

bennjiboy

no, this is the free kangaroo court :-)

Castle

bennjiboy wrote: »

sorry, my bad! read this quickly while leaving work...not rejected yet, UKPPO have put in their prima facie, i now have to put in my appeal against in the next 10 days, then they give a verdict...sorry!

but among the many points of appeal are the sign / company invoice, and there is no proof that the land of the hotel is covered. i have put in a FOI request to newcastle city council so waiting on that :-)

Have UKPPO given you a copy of the contract?

bennjiboy

no, they have not, even though I requested it in my original appeal letter!

bennjiboy

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 19/01/2016 16:47:02.

The Operator Reported That...

The appellant was the keeper.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 19/12/2015.
A response was recieved from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 11/12/2015.
The charge is based in As the land is subject to Byelaws the charge was issued under these Byelaws .

The Operator Made The Following Comments...

The UK Parking Patrol Office
Dept 309,
Great Northern House,
275 Deansgate
Manchester
M3 4EL

Dear Sir/Madam,

Vehicle Registration:
PCN –
We enforce the parking restrictions at: Roads surrounding Newcastle Airport, Woolsington, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE13 8BZ via CCTV footage that is taken by airport security. We have a signed contract with the landowner that enables us to go to the DVLA and request registered keeper details and then write to the keeper informing them they have incurred a notice.

The above vehicle was captured whilst stationary and unloading in clear view of a sign stating “No Stopping/Loading/Unloading In This Area”.

Please see the attached files:

1. The initial parking form issued by the CCTV operator.
2. The Notice to Keeper.
3. The appeal and rejection.
4. Further correspondence.
5. Stills of the CCTV footage showing the vehicle stopped and unloaded in a clearly signed Restricted Area.
6. Site photographs showing the position of the warning signs.
7. The wording of the warning signs.
8. Landowner Agreement.
9. Copy of airport bye-laws.

We have recently changed the way in which we issue and enforce the parking restrictions at the Airport. As the land is subject to Byelaws we are now issuing Penalty Charges under these Byelaws. We took legal advice and were informed that this was the correct route to take and that offering the option for independent arbitration was also correct as: “The reason is that under the Airport Byelaws at Newcastle Airport, there is no facility to offer an independent appeals service after the initial appeal. Therefore you are providing the motorist with the same opportunity, that the rest of the private parking industry provides (ATA members only). This is being seen as fair to the motorist”.

The Appellant is contesting this parking charge (please note the term “parking charge” is used based on the terminology set out in the bylaws, notwithstanding the fact the parking charge was issued as a penalty).

The parking charge was issued pursuant to an offence committed under the Newcastle International Airport Bylaws 2009 (‘the Byelaws’), a copy of which is attached. As the parking charge was issued under these byelaws and not contract law, the Protection of Freedom Act does not apply and the registered keeper is held liable.

The driver “waited and unloaded” in a vehicle where this is strictly prohibited by notice pursuant to clause 6.3 of the Bylaws. The notice to which is referred is the sign at the location where the offence took place, a copy of which is attached together with a site plan as to where they were located.

The charge is not issued under contract law and is not an attempt to recover damages for breaching a contract. The charge is an alternative to prosecution in the Magistrates Court for breaching the byelaws. As a result of the charge being permitted under the byelaws Genuine Pre-estimate of loss is not a consideration which is relevant.

The Respondent to this appeal, as an agent to Newcastle International Airport Limited (i.e. The Company), was entitled pursuant to clause 3.3 of the Bylaws to apply a parking charge (as it did). For the avoidance of doubt, pursuant to clause 3.3 the Respondent could have alternatively applied a wheel clamp or removed the vehicle but elected not to.

In accordance with clause 3.3.1 of the Bylaws the Respondent was obliged to send to the Registered Keeper a ‘Parking Charge Notice’ that specified;

i. The sum the Registered Keeper is required to pay

ii. The time within which the payment must be made

iii. The address to which the payment must be sent

iv. That court action may be commenced to recover the sum

The Respondent complied with this clause, yet payment was not forthcoming.

The motorist parked on land which is governed by Byelaw 6.3. The Byelaw gives permission for Newcastle International Airport Ltd or its agents to issue parking charges to Registered Keepers of vehicles who breach the Byelaws. We are acting as an agent of Newcastle International Airport Ltd.

In summation the vehicle stopped and proceeded to unload whilst in a clearly signed restricted zone. The vehicle caused an obstruction to the entrance to the hotels official car park preventing a legitimate customer from entering by allowing the passenger to disembark in this area, see attachment 5. The stills taken from the CCTV footage clearly indicate that no attempt was made to enter the official car park either by the driver or the passenger, who is seen to walk away from the vehicle in the direction of the airport terminal/train station.

Therefore we believe that the parking charge was correctly incurred.

Kind regards



S Froggatt
UK Parking Patrol

Coupon-mad

And yet UKPPO have now reverted to calling them parking charge notices...