UKPPO PCN through Post

bennjiboy

the main points of appeal as far as i can see (for what it is worth with IAS judging by the info on here!)

1. Signs state "Penalty Charge Notice" NTK is for a "Parking Charge Notice"
2. Signs state "UK Parking Patrol Office" payment is to be to "UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd". In any case that is a dormant company so cannot take money!
3. UKPPO state the NTK was SENT on the 19th December, however NTK is stated as issued 21st December - sent before it was issued?! Issued after it was sent??
4. No visibility of the contract they have with the airport?
5. No proof the entrance to the hotel is within their "boundary" of their alleged "contract"

all fun and games :-)

Guys_Dad

These byelaws on the airport web site are dated 2009. I wonder if with POFA in 2012 (I know that this excludes land governed by byelaws) would have any affect on the airport's byelaw that allows clamping and whether or not these should have been revised following the government's clear intentions re clamping.

Also, is it right that the byelaw makes the registered keeper (not driver) liable and, if so, good luck to them if they try a claim against Warburton or any other company owned vehicle !


http://www.newcastleairport.com/Media/about-your-airport/byelaws/airport-byelaws-2009.pdf

Castle

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Also, is it right that the byelaw makes the registered keeper (not driver) liable and, if so, good luck to them if they try a claim against Warburton or any other company owned vehicle !
http://www.newcastleairport.com/Media/about-your-airport/byelaws/airport-byelaws-2009.pdf

The byelaws actually allows the Airport to take the driver to the Magistrates court for a penalty and the "agent" can also issue the RK with a parking charge notice for a breach of the byelaw.
I'm still waiting to read about the first court action by UKPPO.

bennjiboy

So, the land of the Hilton Hotel, where the CCTV shows the vehicle, is under leasehold by Hilton Hotels. Therefore, the question remains if UK Parking Patrol has the legal right to film on this land, especially if it is not covered under their contract?

Is it illegal to film on property you do not own / have legal rights to?

Perhaps I can sue UK Parking Patrol for illegal use of cctv :-)

Coupon-mad

They use 'Park & Fly' employees with a shaky CCTV system which comes out with blurred images. Signage unreadable.

And the time on the photos rarely matches the time on the PCN so it can usually be argued that no contravention occurred at the time shown on the PCN. And if it is a penalty how come they require payment to be made to UKPPO, a private firm? Not a real byelaws penalty then.

And not forgetting this relevant advice from IamEmanresu which is spot-on:

IamEmanresu wrote: »

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

As expected IAS rejected the appeal - some strange reasons but all expected! Their response below:

The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site, which make it clear that any driver stopping parking loading or unloading in the area is in breach of bye-laws and may be issued with the charge. The Operator has provided photographic evidence to show the vehicle stopped in clear view of the signs. I am therefore satisfied the Operator has a prima facie case that the charge is lawful.

The Appellant raises a number of issues. I will respond to them in turn using the Appellant’s number reference.

1. The Appellant provides no evidence of this. I am satisfied, based on the evidence of the Operator that the signs could be read. They do not have to identify the boundary. If the Appellant parks within sight of the sign the terms of the sign apply to where they are parked.

2. This is explained in the Operator’s submission, but does not affect the lawfulness of the charge in any event.

3 & 4. This is again answered by the Operator and is again irrelevant to the lawfulness of the charge.

5. The Operator admits this is a clerical error; again it does not affect the lawfulness of the charge.

6. There is no evidence who owns the land. I agree there is no sign in sight of the driver at the time of stopping. However, they have passed other signs to get to this point.

7. The Operator’s relationship with the landowner is has no bearing in this case. The charge is brought through the airport’s bye-laws. Without evidence to show the land is not subject to bye-laws, I cannot allow the appeal on this basis.

8. I cannot see on the Appellant’s evidence where they are parked.

9. The RTA does not apply.

10. The Operator has the right to issue the charge.

11. The definition of the verb I found is “to place or leave a vehicle in a certain location for a period of time.” I am satisfied the vehicle was parked.

12 & 14. Any issues with the correspondence subsequent to the parking charge notice being issued is not relevant to the lawfulness of the charge, and should be raised through the normal complaints procedure.

13. This has been answered above.

The appeal is dismissed.
"

As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

The Operator must now allow you 14 days to make payment before they commence any action to enforce the charge.

Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service

bennjiboy

The appeal letter:

1. The signs in the Airport are small, difficult to read, and do not clearly identify where the alleged boundary is relating to the signs.
2. These sign also state that they will issue a “Penalty Charge Notice”, however on all documentation they have sent states “Parking Charge Notice”. Clearly they have not followed their own rules!
3. The photo of the sign sent by UK Parking Patrol, shows it is managed by UK Parking Patrol Office, however, the payment slip states UK Parking Patrol Office “Ltd”. UK Parking Patrol on their rejection of my appeal, stated the creditor is named clearly as UK Parking Patrol, however expect the payment to go to an entirely different company namely UK Parking Patrol Ltd?? This can clearly be seen on the NTK that they have uploaded, and I have uploaded as well for avoidance of doubt.
4. UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd is a dormant company – A dormant company cannot carry out any kind of trading activity or receive any form of income, how can they then request payment to be made to a dormant company?
5. They detail the NTK was sent on the 19th December 2015, however, the issued date on the NTK is 21st December? How can they send an NTK before they issue it / issue it after it was sent? Again they have not followed the law in this matter and brings into doubt any credibility they have over the issue of this NTK
6. The alleged incident of parking occurred in the driveway to the DoubleTree Hotel, not on double red lines, nor on a yellow box junction. There is no evidence to suggest that this is part of the roads covered by the alleged contract with Newcastle Airport, and no signage within that driveway into the hotel which is owned and operated by the hotel. From the position the car is in, there are no signs in clear view of this area from within the vehicle. Despite this, the vehicle did not park for any period, merely stopped for a few seconds.
7. There is no evidence to suggest the operator has the authority of the landowner to issue parking charge notices or take court action in their own name to recover them. This is a requirement of the British Parking Association Code of Practice to which the operator must adhere. We demand that the operator discloses a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of the contract between themselves and the landowner to show that they do. Failure to do so must result in this appeal being upheld.
8. The attached file named “Hilton” shows that the location is actually has a leasehold tenure by Hilton Hotel, and at no time has UK Parking Patrol Office provided evidence that they have a legal right to issue an NTK. Within the rejection letter submitted by UK Parking Patrol, they claim to include, as attachment 8, the landowner agreement – this has not been uploaded, which is clearly a breach of their rejection as you cannot adjudicate on a rejection without the full and clear details and documents that they have not included. There is also no evidence given that UK Parking Patrol has a legal right to film on Hilton Hotels property.
9. Road Traffic Laws are in effect on any road the public has access; however UK Parking Patrol claims the Road Traffic Act is not applicable. The airport roads, being publicly accessible, are subject to the road traffic enactments (see the definition of "road" in section 192(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988; the ownership of the road is irrelevant, if it's publicly-accessible then it's subject to all the usual laws of the road). No byelaws are applicable to airport roads where the road traffic enactments apply (see the Airports Act 1986 63(2)(d), and the preamble to Section 6 of the Newcastle Airport byelaws). Furthermore, the Newcastle Airport byelaws as published appear to have been neither signed/sealed by the airport, nor signed off by the Secretary of State. Evidently, then, the byelaws are not effective at all?
10. The NTK is issued under bylaw, only a Magistrate can rule on a Bylaw.
11. UK Parking Patrol have obtained the registered keeper's data from the DVLA under the auspices of this being in relation to a PARKING incident, 6.3 parking in a prohibited area, however at no point in time did the vehicle park.
12. Upon first appeal UK Parking Patrol offered POPLA as a route of appeal, however they have since refused 3 times to offer POPLA. This is despite evidence to show that the appeal route for UK Parking Patrol would be via POPLA as stated on their company documentation which is attached to this appeal
13. The appeal was put in with the IAS on the 12/1/16 at 1240, giving 5 working days meaning the deadline for the primafacie was the 19/1/16 at 1240 – however the primafacie was not submitted until 19/1/16 at 1647 – this is 4 hours over the given 5 working days therefore should be dismissed as late submission.
14. The primafacie case starts with the response from “The UK Parking Patrol Office”, ends being signed off by “UK Parking Patrol” and to revert to point 3 they want payment to “UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd” which is a dormant company and cannot receive any form of income????
15. Please find attached original appeal letter, many points raised have been ignored, or not answered in full. These answers, and others raised subsequently, need to be answered in full, with contractual evidence to prove UK Parking Patrol have the legal right in full accordance with all laws and regulations, to issue this NTK

Trust you will find this appeal successful, if not , the same questions and any subsequent further questions and request for documentation will be raised in court.

Zero_Gravitas

I would suggest the chances of UKPPO (ltd or otherwise) trying court after that dog's breakfast of a rejection are really quite small...

fisherjim

Is that a rejection or a poor attempt at a comedy script, what a complete dogs breakfast, do they give these to school kids as a project!

Umkomaas

It's clear from the total annihilation of every point made by the OP, that the adjudication was utterly partial. There wasn't one single acknowledgement that maybe there were points that had merit (other than the laughable 'clerical error' brush-off).

The whole IPC/IAS show is exceeding the boundaries of being a joke!