Noticed some changes? You can read all about the improvements we've made on the Forum in our latest announcement. We also have a new set of Forum rules so please take the time to give them a read and familiarise yourself.

POPLA appeal (thanks to everyone who can help to check)

edited 30 January 2016 at 7:55AM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking
26 replies 1.8K views
elvinwyelvinwy Forumite
10 Posts
edited 30 January 2016 at 7:55AM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking
I received an unfair UKPC ticket in Oct 2015, and appealed with UKPC while failed. Now there is only a few days left for me to appeal through POPLA. I am so happy to have found this forum, which is very helpful. If anyone can help to have a look at my situation and assess whether I need to put more arguments, it will be highly appreciated.

The situation was I parked a rented car in my allocated car space in my rented apartment, which are evidenced by lease agreement and landlord's email. At that time, I displayed the permit inside the car near the windscreen as required. The UKPC person took a photo that clearly showed my ticket was in the car, while the ticket number (around one third of the ticket) was somewhat blocked by the black color at the bottom of the windscreen. But through certain angle, I believe the permit number can be seen. Since I am the genuine resident, and my permit was in my car, I cannot believe it that the appealing to UKPC was not successful.

The following is my appeal contents, which I revised from some of the templates in this forum. Please help to have a look whether it is convincing, and whether I need to add more arguments (such as the sign was not clear enough).

###########
As the resident at XXX, I was allocated to the parking space XXX, as agreed in my lease agreement. On the day when the ticket was issued, I hired a car with registration No. "XXX" and put my permit inside the car, at the driver's side, close to the windscreen, which was demonstrated by the photos taken by UKPC.

Based on above, I appeal this ticket as the driver of the car and I will complain to the landowner about the matter if it is not cancelled.

1. Permit shown in the car
As shown in the photo, the permit was visible from the front of the vehicle at the time of the PCN. The photo did not show the permit number, however this is caused by the photo was not taken with an appropriate angel. Through other angels, the permit number can be seen from outside.

2. Genuine resident
In any case I am the leaseholder of the allocated parking space, and paid a consideration of £XXX per month to obtain the lease to the allocated space. The lease agreement between the landholder and the resident does not stipulate that a permit must be displayed.

3. No contract between driver and UKPC
As per the property lease signed and agreed to in 2015, there is no mention of UKPC Ltd, or any other parking company or third party to manage the car park in question. There is no mention of requiring to display a permit to park in the space provided with the property. As per appeal point 2 above, the vehicle was parked while observing the requirements of the property lease therefore there is no contract between the keeper and Secure a Space.

4. No genuine pre-estimate of loss
The charge of £90 is punitive and unreasonable, contravening the BPA Code of Practice section 19. UKPC must therefore be required to explain their 'charge' by providing a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss in this particular car park for this alleged contravention. However, with or without any 'breach', the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same and there was no loss or damage caused so UKPC has no cause of action to pursue this charge. If for example, all of the ‘resident only’ spaces were occupied by valid residents, regardless of whether permits were displayed, the landowner would still have incurred zero loss. When empty, these resident spaces cannot be re-offered in exchange for fees to those who have no association with the buildings, making the charges punitive.

In summary, the Vehicle issued with the PCN is considered to be hired by a genuine resident. With regards to the PCN, the vehicle in question is in possession of a valid permit at the time of contravention. The reason land owners employ parking companies are to stop non-residents abusing the car park in question. Genuine residents should not be deterred from using the parking spaces provided to their properties.
«13

Replies

  • Ralph-yRalph-y Forumite
    4.5K Posts
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    far more points need to be inserted ..... so wait just a little for further advice

    things like

    signage

    contract with the land owner ....

    and more

    have you been in touch with the landlord for getting this quashed ?

    what does your lease actualy say ?

    go over the photo with s fine tooth comb as this bunch have history for such fraud ..

    keep going


    and

    good luck

    Ralph:cool:
  • edited 30 January 2016 at 2:37PM
    leeda84leeda84 Forumite
    62 Posts
    edited 30 January 2016 at 2:37PM
    I would also warn the hire company in writing that you have received the parking charge and tell them that you will be dealing with it. This will also help you if the following happens, because with scumbag PPCs you just never know what dodgy scam they will try and pull next (especially UKPC):
    Even though you are appealing as the driver, UKPC may still go straight to the registered keeper who (if they are a large firm) will automatically pay the charges and then charge you for it plus a massive admin fee on top. You will then have the issue of trying to use the hire company's own terms and conditions against them to get your money back. Their T&Cs usually mention something along the lines of them paying FINES or PENALTIES on behalf of the driver. PPC tickets are neither a fine nor penalty and the hire company would have broken their end of the contract by taking money out of your account.
  • edited 30 January 2016 at 4:15PM
    Coupon-madCoupon-mad Forumite
    95.1K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 30 January 2016 at 4:15PM
    I cannot believe it that the appealing to UKPC was not successful.
    We can. Do you not know who this bunch are?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html

    Not some sort of authority. No fair appeal to UKPC, but beatable at POPLA if you go for the jugular and stop concentrating on the fact you have a permit/the unfairness. You'll lose if you keep taking them so seriously and your summary is not something that wins at POPLA:
    In summary, the Vehicle issued with the PCN is considered to be hired by a genuine resident. With regards to the PCN, the vehicle in question is in possession of a valid permit at the time of contravention. The reason land owners employ parking companies are to stop non-residents abusing the car park in question. Genuine residents should not be deterred from using the parking spaces provided to their properties.

    All not relevant to a POPLA win, sorry. Set to lose. And very unfair if you do so please read the examples linked in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread and don't remove the winning points in those examples, which it looks like you have done.

    You certainly need an 'unclear signage with the amount of the parking charge not legible' appeal point because if you look at UKPC's photos of you car you will see they are white unreadable signs where the £100 can't be seen.

    You also 100% need a point about no landowner authority (never mind that you probably know the managing agents employed them, that's not the freehold owner with title). UKPC often lose on that point so it is glaringly conspicuous by its absence from your appeal.

    When you were given your permit, did you sign for it and who provided it and did they give you a piece of paper stating £100 as the sum of the parking charge for non-display? If it did not and you ahve that email or piece of paper, use it to show £100 was never communicated nor 'agreed' as a contract, neither at the time of the permit provision to you nor in the signs.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Thanks Ralph-y, leeda84, and Coupon-mad for your kind comments.

    The lease I signed says the car space number is "to be provided by the landlord". And the email from the landlord clearly stated that 136 is my allocated space, together with a drawing which shows the location of 136. In all these communications, not a single document mentioned the penalty for not displaying the permit.

    The photos taken by UKPC person are not in good quality. Basically, anyone cannot read words from the photo for the signage provided by UKPC.

    The current difficulty for me is that I am still overseas (that's why I can only post at night). I will be back home three weeks later. Since I thought I can win the appeal, I did not take photos of the signage. Maybe the signage says something like "the permit must be clearly displayed, otherwise a penalty will be charged". That's why I have not added this point in my original appeal.

    Another practical issue is that in POPLA website, there is 2000 words limit for each statement, e.g. "Please explain why you believe you were able to park in the area in which you did." So I have to address all the points succinctly than the examples.

    Anyway, I will revise my appeal letter, and post the updated version later according to your comments. Hope that you guys can help me out. Although UKPC now beg for 15 pounds, I definitely do not want to give them for something I am not wrong.

    BTW, I have added my name on the petition. Hope that we can reach 10,000 soon.
  • Coupon-madCoupon-mad Forumite
    95.1K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    You don't need any other photos because UKPC shoot themselves in the foot by providing all you need. I always use the pics UKPC kindly provide from their website and plonk them into the appeal to show POPLA how illegible the signs are from UKPC's own evidence.

    Add this below to your appeal about 'no contract' and by the way, change 'Secure a Space' (in your draft above) to UKPC (they are different companies so you need to be careful with your copy & pasting). So add all this for POPLA:
    The lease I signed says the car space number is "to be provided by the landlord". And the email from the landlord clearly stated that 136 is my allocated space, together with a drawing which shows the location of 136. In all these communications, not a single document mentioned the penalty for not displaying the permit.

    The photos taken by UKPC person are not in good quality. Basically, anyone cannot read words from the photo for the signage provided by UKPC.

    This (below) is not true, you've missed the point. I've sent hundreds of POPLA appeals and never once have I stopped at 2000 characters!
    Another practical issue is that in POPLA website, there is 2000 words limit for each statement, e.g. "Please explain why you believe you were able to park in the area in which you did." So I have to address all the points succinctly than the examples.

    In the NEWBIES thread I tell you NOT to answer POPLA's questions, do NOT tick 'I did not see the signs' or 'I was not correctly parked'.

    You just tick 'OTHER' like the NEWBIES thread post #3 tells you to, and attach your PDF appeal which is why I say you can add a nicely zoomed in cropped screenshot of UKPC's own sign picture as your evidence. And you can use as many words & pictures in a word document saved as a PDF and attached under 'other', as you wish.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • edited 1 February 2016 at 2:02AM
    elvinwyelvinwy Forumite
    10 Posts
    edited 1 February 2016 at 2:02AM
    Thanks a lot for your helps. Now I have drafted the following appeal letter. Please let me know what I need to add or polish. I need to submit it by 3 Feb, so your helps will be appreciated.

    Another question is whether I should submit my lease contract and email from landlord to POPLA. They are kind of private.
    Re: UK Parking Control Ltd PCN, {PCN Reference}
    POPLA Code: {POPLA Reference}

    Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

    As a law abiding resident who always pays his way, I was extremely upset to hear of a £90 ‘parking charge notice’ displayed on the vehicle of which I hired. The vehicle in question (Registration No.: XXX) was parked in a residential car park and does hold a valid permit. The space in which it was parked is for sole use of the resident (me) and at the time in question, the permit can be seen from the photos taken by UKPC. The photo did not show the permit number, however this is caused by the photo was not taken with an appropriate angle. Through other angles, the permit number can be seen from outside.

    {Image of UKPC photo that show the permit is inside the car}



    How a £90 ‘fine’ can arise from a resident’s vehicle being parked in that same resident’s allocated parking space, without being unlawful, is beyond me.

    I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:
    1. Vehicle issued the PCN is considered to be a genuine resident
    2. Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £90. Inadequate signage
    3. No genuine pre-estimate of loss
    4. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
    5. No contract between driver and UKPC



    1. Vehicle issued the PCN is considered to be a genuine resident
    With regards to the PCN, the vehicle in question is in possession of a valid permit at the time of contravention. If for example all of the ‘resident only’ spaces were occupied by valid residents, regardless of whether permits were displayed, UKPC Ltd would still have incurred zero loss. When empty, these resident spaces cannot be re-offered in exchange for fees to those who have no association with the buildings, making the charges punitive. The reason land owners employ parking companies are to stop non-residents abusing the car park in question. Genuine residents should not be deterred from using the parking spaces provided to their properties.

    2. Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £90. Inadequate signage
    The only notices are up on walls, away from the single light source in the car park area, which is not a 'sign' nor does it communicate full contractual terms & conditions. At the time of the contravention it was very dark and no signage was clearly visible by the vehicle. The photos supplied by UKPC Ltd show that sign is placed on the girder of the car park, without any suitable light to make it readable.

    {Image of UKPC photo that show the signage}


    Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.

    3. No genuine pre-estimate of loss
    The charge of £90 is punitive and unreasonable, contravening the BPA Code of Practice section 19. UKPC Ltd must therefore be required to explain their 'charge' by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss in this particular car park for this alleged contravention. However, with or without any 'breach', the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same and there was no loss or damage caused so UKPC Ltd have no cause of action to pursue this charge. The fact that the recommended maximum level in section 19.5 (“we would not expect this amount to be more than £100”) has not been exceeded merely means that the operator does not have to justify the amount in advance. In no way does it absolve the operator of their responsibility to base the figure on a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or to comply with section 19.6 which states that the charge “cannot be punitive or unreasonable”.

    UKPC Ltd cannot include their operational tax-deductible business running costs - for example, costs of signage, staffing and dealing later with the appeals, or hefty write-off costs. This would not represent a loss resulting from a breach of the alleged parking contract and in any case I believe UKPC Ltd are likely to be paid by their client - so any such payment income must be balanced within the breakdown UKPC Ltd supply and must be shown in the contract, which leads me to appeal point 5 below.

    4. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
    I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, UKPC Ltd must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put UKPC Ltd to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between UKPC Ltd 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 Ltd.

    5. No contract between driver and UKPC
    In any case I am the leaseholder of the allocated parking space, and paid a consideration of £XXX per month to obtain the lease to the allocated space. As per the property lease signed and agreed to in 2015, there is no mention of UKPC Ltd, or any other parking company or third party to manage the car park in question. The lease I signed says the car space number is "to be provided by the landlord". And the email from the landlord clearly stated that 136 is my allocated space, together with a drawing which shows the location of 136. In all these communications, there is no mention of requiring to display a permit to park in the space provided with the property, nor does it communicate any penalty for not displaying the permit. As per appeal point 3 above, the vehicle was parked while observing the requirements of the property lease therefore there is no contract between the driver and UKPC Ltd.

    Below you will find a picture of the permit the vehicle holds.

    {Image of Permit}


    Neither the permit itself nor the form the resident signed adequately (or at all) warned of the AMOUNT of any parking charge nor drew attention to any further terms which could apply to the contract at the time of the permit being handed over. It is too late to bring other terms into a contract (not even those on a sign) if these terms were not part of the agreement made at the time of the permit being provided. They were not. The residents had no idea that a 'fine' of £90 could possibly apply.

    In any case, even if POPLA consider signage to be relevant in this instance, the driver was not adequately informed of the terms nor warned 'prominently in large letters' of the actual sum of the parking charge anywhere, which fails 2(3) of Schedule 4 outright.

    The lease contract, the email from landlord, and its attachment (map of the car park), are attached in this application, as the evidences.

    This concludes my POPLA appeal.

    Yours faithfully,

    {Name of Driver}
  • Coupon-madCoupon-mad Forumite
    95.1K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    :D You don't need Devine intervention:
    The photo did not show the permit number, however this is caused by the photo was not taken with an appropriate angel. Through other angels, the permit number can be seen from outside.

    Should be:
    The photo did not show the permit number, however this is caused by the photo was not taken with an appropriate angle. Through other angles, the permit number can be seen from outside.

    And I would remove the word 'clearly' which is a word I tend not to use when talking about a PPC's pictures:
    The photos supplied by UKPC Ltd [STRIKE]clearly[/STRIKE] show

    Here I would just change 'and' to 'nor does it communicate any':
    In all these communications, there is no mention of requiring to display a permit to park in the space provided with the property, [STRIKE]and[/STRIKE] nor does it communicate any penalty for not displaying the permit.

    I would show POPLA the email from the landlord which basically offers and allocates a specific bay to you with no caveats.

    Finally, can I check, did your first appeal give away who was driving by saying something like 'I parked' or by choosing 'driver' in UKPC's drop-down menu?

    Or did you use a careful template as the keeper? If the driver has NOT been given away earlier then you can add 'no keeper liability' if you appealed only as keeper/lessee/hirer.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • edited 1 February 2016 at 11:26AM
    elvinwyelvinwy Forumite
    10 Posts
    edited 1 February 2016 at 11:26AM
    Thanks a lot, Coupon-mad. You are so kind and helpful.

    I wish I found this forum earlier, but I think I already admitted that I am driver. So "No Keeper Liability" does not apply to my case. Is it correct?

    I have edited the typos and the expressions above (#7). I hope now I have a high chance to win it.

    Another issue is that I have not contacted with the car rental company. I need to send them a letter or email to state that I am dealing with the ticket and ask the company to ignore this. Am I correct?

    Since I will be submitting this tomorrow, all the comments are welcomed and appreciated. Thanks in advance!
  • edited 1 February 2016 at 1:54PM
    leeda84leeda84 Forumite
    62 Posts
    edited 1 February 2016 at 1:54PM
    Before contacting the hire company, check the Ts & Cs of your hire agreement carefully. It should have something like this in it (this is from the Hertz website):
    If you purchase any optional products or services that are not expressly to be provided under the terms of the prepaid rental transaction or incur any other additional charges (such as additional time charges if the vehicle is not returned on time, additional mileage/kilometer charges if the vehicle is driven more than a mileage/kilometer limit disclosed at the time you agreed to enter into the transaction, a service charge for failing to return the vehicle to the agreed return location or with the agreed amount of fuel in the tank, charges for loss or damage to the vehicle and charges for fines assessed against the vehicle’s owner resulting from the use of the car by you or another person with your permission), then you will be solely responsible to the Renting Company for the charges for such optional products or services and for such other additional charges.

    If similar Ts & Cs exist with the hire company you used, you would be better to write to them and explain that you have received a parking charge from a private parking company, for whatever vehicle you hired, on whatever date you received the charge and tell them you are in the process of dealing with it. Ask the hire company to inform you if UKPC approach them for payment (this may also help you further down the line as UKPC have not only gone after the driver for payment but also the registered keeper... again, wouldn't put it past UKPC to do this.)
    The charge is neither a fine nor penalty so kindly remind the hire company that they will be breaking its contract with you if UKPC approach them and they subsequently pay the parking charge and recoup the costs from you.

    PPC charges are not fines but the hire companies don't differentiate, they just pay and charge you for the privilege and it is a royal pain in the !!!! to try and get your money back from them. My ex had issues with UKPC and a hire company van. UKPC issued a ghost ticket and he didn't know anything about it until £145 was removed from his account by the hire company!
  • Thanks, Leeda84. I believe that the renting company I used also has similar Ts&Cs.

    I will write them an email about this.

    Thanks again for your information.
This discussion has been closed.