Staples Parking Ticket Hull - UKCPS

trf688

Hi guys,

I've been using the newbies thread and other forum posts but I've got a little confused with where to go next so decided to start a new thread.

I received a PCN on 4/12/2015 as I was witnessed leaving the site. I could see no clearly marked sign saying I couldn't park and on my return to the site I actually went into one of the shops on the complex. I was gone around 20 minutes. The ticket says I arrived at 10.38 and the ticket was issued at 10.39. There is no other information.

I waited for 28 days, received the NTK and sent them the letter (see very bottom) which I used from a similar case on this forum:

I have since received a letter stating that the appeal has been rejected: The opening paragraph is as follows:

Thank you for your appeal regarding the above parking charge notice. The driver of the vehicle was issued with a Parking Charge for parking the vehicle and leaving the site. Numerous signs at this site state that parking vehicles and leaving/walking off the site will result in the issue of a parking charge. By parking the vehicle and the occupants not remaining on the site the driver contractually agrees to pay a parking charge of £100 (reduced to £60 for early settlement if paid with 14 days from the day of original ticket issue), which remains unpaid. Whilst we sympathise with the situation, the parking charge was correctly issued.

I've been given 3 options.

1. Pay the fine of £60 within 14 days or £100 thereafter.
2. Appeal to IAS within 21 days of the letter
3. Do nothing and they will take me to court and revover monies owed.

They did not provide me with a POPLA number which I was expecting.

Can anyone offer the next step please? I've read lots of the letters suggested on here but don't know which angle to play at. Do I request the POPLA number from them?!

Thanks in advance

Dear Sirs,

Re: PCN No. xxxx

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on the following grounds:

a) The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is an unrecoverable penalty and not commercially justified

b) The signage is insufficient, the risk of a charge is not transparent and the wording is ambiguous.

c) There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.

d) Your written 'notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012.

e) There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.

The purpose of this communication is threefold:

1. Formal challenge

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn in the absence of evidence. As such, you must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge if you cannot claim keeper liability. Please uphold this challenge or send a rejection letter, so I can escalate this appeal to the independent appeal service offered by your Trade Body.

2. ''Drop hands'' offer

The extravagant 'parking charge' is baseless but I realise that you may have incurred nominal costs. Equally, I have incurred costs to date, for researching the law, reading your Notice and responding, despite a lack of contract. I calculate both my costs and yours to be under £15 at this early stage, therefore, this is a formal “drop hands” offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days without further expense and I will not pursue you for my costs. If you persist then I will charge in full for my time at £18 per hour plus my expenses.

3. Notice of cancellation of contract

I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged contract which was never properly offered or explained by you. The charge is not acknowledged, is not due and no 'service' from you was ever expressly requested by the driver or by me. Neither the driver nor myself gave 'prior express consent' or any consent at all for the alleged contract and it is not for me to reimburse you for foisting an unexpected and non-negotiated contract upon any driver of my vehicle. This 'contract' is hereby cancelled and any obligations now end. If you offer - and if I decide to use - your IAS or POPLA, then the contract still ends immediately on the date of their decision (whatever the outcome) so my notice of cancellation still applies.

As well as not meeting the requirements of the POFA 2012, it is my view that you have breached the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Payments) Regs 2013. In replying, you will also be acknowledging receipt and understanding of points 2 and 3 above. Where sent by post I have obtained proof of posting; where submitted online/by email it is deemed received by you unless proved otherwise. I look forward to your considered reply within 35 days.

Yours faithfully

pappa_golf

vcs v Ibbotson


have a laugh

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjl_JXW3dbKAhWHVh4KHcqdDOkQFgggMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnebula.wsimg.com%2Fe3da92cb966c72de63ec1f98605c2954%3FAccessKeyId%3D4CB8F2392A09CF228A46%26disposition%3D0%26alloworigin%3D1&usg=AFQjCNGw8mZv8taB3Kixqq9HXxQaJMscKQ&sig2=my2USXqkdScliQAl2Vhqig

Coupon-mad

Can anyone offer the next step please? I've read lots of the letters suggested on here but don't know which angle to play at. Do I request the POPLA number from them?!

It's already covered in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread. There is no next step worth trying but don't pay either. PLease read what's already in the sticky thread about IAS stage.

trf688

I appreciate it's frustrating guys, the Newbies thread is very helpful but there is just endless information and I've got myself in a muddle. I just wanted to be sure that I was right in doing nothing from now as IAS is pointless?

I've actually drafted another letter questioning the terms of the contract (mention Beavis) as well as highlighting that £100 for twenty minutes does not reflect a fair value. I've found a car park close by and compared costs.

Also I was going to ask for contracts for the owners of the land?

Letter below but maybe this is pointless?

Dear Sirs,

Following the letter dated the 27th January 2016 I have summarized some additional arguments below.

1. You the claimant states that there was a contract in place between myself as the driver of my vehicle and UKCPS Limited. I do not accept this for the two reasons. Firstly, the signage is unclear and misguiding upon entry to the car park but in any event I submit that such a contract would have been unfair. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 state amongst other things:

Unfair Terms

5.—(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

(5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.

Assessment of unfair terms

6. (1) Without prejudice to regulation 12, the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract or of another contract on which it is dependent.

(2) In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate –
(a)to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract, or
(b)to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange

2. I submit that if the Court were to find that there was a contract in place it was clearly not individually negotiated and it caused a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract to my detriment. Looking at the nature of any service which was allegedly provided to me, this amounted to parking for 20 minutes in a half empty car park of which the driver visited one of the retail units on site which, too my knowledge is what the car park is intended for. My car did not cause any loss to the owners or occupiers of these retail units and I subsequently have established that there is a nearby car park for a charge of £1.90 for two hours which indicates a fair value of parking at that time. In real terms this would equate to 32p for the above time in the car park in question.

3. In view of the above I assert that the contract which UKCPS claims to have been in place would in any event have been an unfair contract under the terms of the above regulations.

4. The hearing in this case was delayed until judgment had been given in the case of ParkingEye Limited (Respondent) v Beavis (Appellant) in the Supreme Court. This case was in relation to a parking charge which Beavis argued was a penalty charge and was unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

5. The Supreme Court rejected Beavis’s appeal by a majority decision.

6. However, I believe there are important distinguishing factors in this case which the Court should consider. The ParkingEye v Beavis case involved a retail parking area in the middle of the day. The landowners in the case therefore had a legitimate interest in charging motorists who overstayed the allowed free time as this may have prevented other motorists from using the car park to purchase goods or services. I submit that in this case there was no such interest since it was a near-deserted area at a time when the landowners were not using it themselves, had no interest in visitors or customers using it and were not in any way disadvantaged by me parking there. This means that the £100 (or £60) charge was a penalty and should be considered unfair.

7. Whilst UKCPS might argue that they had an interest in enforcing a penalty charge in furtherance of their business, I submit that this interest should not be interpreted to mean that parking enforcement companies can, with the agreement of landowners, put up notices anywhere that is not public land in order to earn a profit. This would amount to a law to provide such companies with profit through unfair penalties even when there was no legitimate interest of the landowner to control parking.

8. I submit that under the 1999 regulations there was, in my case, an unfair term which arose contrary to the requirements of good faith. A summary of the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis stated: -
“Any imbalance in the parties’ rights did not arise ‘contrary to the requirements of good faith’, because ParkingEye and the owners had a legitimate interest in inducing Mr Beavis not to overstay in order to efficiently manage the car park for the benefit of the generality of users of the retail outlets. The charge was no higher than was necessary to achieve that objective.”

9. Since there was no such legitimate interest in my case, I submit that the Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis is not a precedent which applies here.

The_Deep

I would not devote too much time to this. "Leaving site" is almost impossible to prove by a PPC, and, if you read the Ibbotson case, you will see that mitigation looms large. No mitigation, no win.

There is also the distinct possibility that UKCPS may be trying to avoid v.a.t.

If, as they claim, this is contractual charge, it is a fee for parking, and thus vatable. Have they accounted for vat on their paper work?

Ask them for a vat invoice. If they ignore your request, (which they probably will), it is a useful stick with which to beat them if it ever gets to court.

More reading here
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5033796=

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5195437

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5087925=

If you suspect tax evasion report it to the fraud hot line here

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5087925&highlight

Umkomaas

I just wanted to be sure that I was right in doing nothing from now as IAS is pointless?

You have the choice whether to appeal to the IAS or not. Coupon-mad, the author of the newbies sticky, kindly linked my post highlighting the options - here's the 'lift' from the sticky with the link.

Here Umkomaas explains your options:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/69418259#Comment_69418259

So 'making sure l'm right' isn't a black and white case, you need to make a decision. The proposition that if you lose at the IAS they wouldn't risk issuing court proceedings can't be substantiated, especially based on this case:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=103983

What, however, is a pointless exercise, is any further communication with UKCPS - what are you hoping for from your letter to them?

trf688

Thanks - The Deep. Very interesting on the VAT front. There is no mention of VAT on any of the correspondence. All there appears to be is a company number....also on HMRC website it doesn't mention they are VAT registered.

Umkomass - Thanks, I am grateful for the links and I have read them. A bit like the gentleman and his son I've just got a bit lost with all the acronyms. UKCPS state on their letter they are a member of the BPA which is why in my letter I have asked for a POPLA number. In terms of what I will achieve I am not sure. Part of me just wanted to cause them extra work and the other half wanted it ticked off and done. I've not mentioned the driver of the car still and also added a footnote that I would like to see any contracts and land registry information as the car park itself is for Staples, Monster Supplements, Maplins and American Golf. I actually went into Monster Supplements for a browse around which is the frustrating part.

I'll combine both our advice and send the above letter and ask for a VAT invoice. If they respond I'll just ignore until/if I get a LBCCCC/LBA/real court papers.

Thanks again to you both

The_Deep

If you want to cause them extra work you are in a good position to do so.


Report them to Trading Standards and Tax Evasion Hotline for claiming contractual charge when clearly they mean Breach of Contract. Get on to the local Planning Department to see that all permissions for ANPR cameras and Advertising signs are in place, Complain to the BPA that they are representing themselves as members, and write to all the retail outlets in the park that they are harassing their customers.


You can cause them to spend a fortune defending their actions.

trf688

I'll send this back to them for now and see how it goes. See below.

I've removed the bit about Beavis as I was parked in a retail area. Should I state (as I have done) that the car was parked for 20 minutes outside Monster Supplements? Also should I compare other car parking costs locally?! See bold paragraph

Following the letter dated the 27th January 2016 I have summarized some additional arguments below.

1. You the claimant states that there was a contract in place between myself, as the owner of the vehicle, and UKCPS Limited. I do not accept this for the two reasons. Firstly, the signage is unclear and ambiguous upon entry to the car park but in any event I submit that such a contract would have been unfair. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 state amongst other things:

Unfair Terms

5. (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

(5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.

Assessment of unfair terms

6. (1) Without prejudice to regulation 12, the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract or of another contract on which it is dependent.

(2) In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate –
(a)to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract, or
(b)to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange

2. I submit that if a Court were to find that there was a contract in place it was clearly not individually negotiated and it caused a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract to my detriment. Looking at the nature of any service which was allegedly provided to the driver, this amounted to parking for 20 minutes in a half empty car park which in this time frame the driver visited one of the retail units on site. As a visitor and potential buyer to one of these retail units the driver would not expect to be charged. I will be writing to the stores on the site to state that I will not be visiting their shop anymore should I be harassed. The car did not cause any loss to the owners or occupiers of these retail units and I subsequently have established that there is a nearby car park for a charge of £1.90 for two hours which indicates a fair value of parking at that time. In real terms this would equate to 32p for the above time in the car park in question.

3. In view of the above I assert that the contract which UKCPS claims to have been in place would in any event have been an unfair contract under the terms of the above regulations.

Should you take this matter further I would be grateful if you could provide me with a POPLA number given that your correspondence states that you are a member of BPA.

To accompany this, I would be grateful if you could provide me with a VAT invoice given that this is a contractual charge.

Finally, I would be grateful for any and all contracts and land registry information you have with the retail units located on this land. Should you own the land I would like to see deeds so I can look into the authority provided to you.

I await your considered response within 7 days otherwise I will regard the matter as closed and the appeal being marked as successful.

Regards

pappa_golf

UKCPS could very well be "corporate" members of the BPA , but use the IPC for AOS , they are neither obliged to show or hide this fact from the public


having said that , they are not BPA members and are to tight to buy new stationary , they moved to the IPC on 18/11/2014 , so a complaint should be made and a lot of fuss kicked up about those cowboys

ManxRed

Which BPA logo do they use on their letter?

If it's the rectangular one then this is OK, as they are corporate members. If it's the round one, then this is the BPA AOS membership logo which they are NOT members of.

Confusing, I know, but there you go.