UKPC Parking Fine - Query re: appeal please?

Redx

yep, friday this week will be fine for the initial blue text appeal, so take it slowly and carefully and always check back for help, that way you should succeed, its the impatient ones that dont read and digest information that come unstuck

Fruitcake

Rich1234a wrote: »

Many thanks for your responses and for clarifying that in my mind. It is day 23 today, so I will wait until day 25 appeal online.

Many thanks for your time and help, it is greatly appreciated,

Kind regards,

Copy and paste the BPA appeal but before you click submit on the UKPC website make sure you have selected keeper, not driver. It defaults to driver and does so again if you make any amendments.
So, triple check the online form is selected to keeper before you send it.

The_Deep

Know your enemy

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]UKPC are former clampers who have been involved in quite a number of sordid scams, for example[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Hull Trading Standards took them to court on 15 counts of fraud. UKPC won all but one, but only because they had a better lawyer, a Q.C. If I recall correctly[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=63597[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]They were bested by a Winchester barrister [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]They were involved in a large scale scam which resulted in a DVLA suspension[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Then they had another go, this one is still being investigated[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5390608[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]And then of course there was Tracey Kiss[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.tracykiss.com/product-reviews/my-ukpc-parking-charge/[/FONT]

Rich1234a

Many thanks for all of your help and advice to date. Things have moved forward and I have a couple of questions please.

After sending the template I received a letter from UKPC asking me to forward a valid parking permit (which I read on the forum to be a standard letter)... is this letter also the NTK?

I have now received a further letter from UKPC advising me of my POPLA reference and giving me 3 options: i) pay £50 ii) appeal to POPLA iii) don't pay, the fine goes up and be taken to court.

So now, I guess I am going to try to draft my POPLA. I also have a copy of a valid parking permit from my ill friend that I was dropping off at the time.

Many thanks in advance,
Richard

beamerguy

Rich1234a wrote: »

Many thanks for all of your help and advice to date. Things have moved forward and I have a couple of questions please.

After sending the template I received a letter from UKPC asking me to forward a valid parking permit (which I read on the forum to be a standard letter)... is this letter also the NTK?

I have now received a further letter from UKPC advising me of my POPLA reference and giving me 3 options: i) pay £50 ii) appeal to POPLA iii) don't pay, the fine goes up and be taken to court.

So now, I guess I am going to try to draft my POPLA. I also have a copy of a valid parking permit from my ill friend that I was dropping off at the time.

Many thanks in advance,
Richard

Of course go to POPLA with a copy of your valid permit.

Might fail as the new POPLA are a bit short in the intelligence mode at present

If it fails then apart from the stupid debt collectors who UKPC employ just timewasting and to ignore, they might try court but you have a valid permit to show the judge and UKPC are overdue another whooping in court, the last whooping was over 2 weeks ago, far too long so we need another whoopng

Rich1234a

Many thanks for your advice.

I am unsure if I have received a valid NTK or not?

I received the PCN on my windscreen on 13/2/16.

I received this first letter dated 10/3/16.



And this second letter dated 28/4/16.



Are either of these official NTK letters?

Many thanks in advance.

Richard

Castle

Rich1234a wrote: »

Are either of these official NTK letters?

No; so they cannot use POFA.

Rich1234a

Many tanks, what are the implications of that for my appeal?

Rich1234a

Hi,

I wonder if someone would be kind enough to review my first draft popla appeal please?

Many thanks in advance for your help and time.


Re: UK Parking Control Ltd PCN, {PCN Reference}
POPLA Code: {POPLA Reference}

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxx and am appealing a parking charge from UKPC.

I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:
1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 – no keeper liability.
2. Genuine visitors parking permit.
3. Inadequate signage or lighting, forming no contract with drivers
3. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers


1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 – no keeper liability.

To date I have not been issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK) by UKPC. As a notice to driver was provided on the vehicle, an NTK is required to be issued no sooner than 28 days after, or no later than 56 days after the service of that notice. This stipulation is laid out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

The alleged infringement occurred on xx/02/2016 and from my understanding the NTK was required to reach me by xx/04/2016 . As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore, there can be no keeper liability.

The keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with, where the appellant is the registered keeper, as in this case. One of these requirements is the issue of a NTK compliant with certain provisions. This operator failed to serve any NTK at all. As there has been no admission as to who may have parked the car and no evidence of this person has been produced by the operator, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2015 that a parking charge with no NTK cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.

Relevant details of PoFA 2012, Schedule 4 are provided for your reference here:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle

4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—

(a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met

Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4

6(1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—

(a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8...

(2)If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper must be given in accordance with paragraph 8.

8(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.''

2. Genuine visitors parking permit.

The driver parked for 20 minutes only, in order to take a colleague with severe food poisoning back into their property (Flat **, ***** Tower, served by the carpark). Subsequently to receiving the PCN, the driver’s ill colleague informed them that they have a valid visitors permit. The driver was a first time visitor to the property. A copy of the visitors permit which is auditable to flat *** is enclosed.

3. Inadequate signage or lighting

At the time of the alleged contravention it was very dark and raining. The only notices are high up on posts, and very poorly lit. Being high up the signs are difficult to read (as can be seen in the photos supplied by UKPC).

It is not clear anywhere that the driver could not park in this particular bay.

Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice (the BPA CoP)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.

The BPA CoP also requires that signs must be visible and all terms prominent and legible at night, if an operator enforces terms in the hours of darkness. This was not the case.

Also I would point out that keeper liability under the POFA Schedule 4, requires 'adequate notice of the charge' so that a driver has every opportunity to have terms and the 'parking charge' prominently and unequivocally drawn to his/her attention before parking. This was not the case in this dark car park where the terms were illegible and not in a position to be lit by headlights before the act of parking, so no contract was capable of being formed.

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 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 to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between UKPC 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.

Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. Section 7.1 states:

“If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

Section 7.3 states: “The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.''

I do not believe that this operator's mere site agreement as a contractor issuing PCNs and letters 'on behalf of' a landowner gives the parking firm any rights to sue in their own name. This is insufficient to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and not enough to hold me liable in law to pay UKPC.

I put UKPC to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.

---

END OF DRAFT APPEAL

I planned to send the photo of the sign that UKPC had on 'my photos' :-



Many thanks for your help,

Coupon-mad

I planned to send the photo of the sign that UKPC had on 'my photos'

A perfect example! Exactly why I tell people with UKPC tickets to always look at UKPC's own photos and use the signage pic in a POPLA appeal. I have NEVER seen a readable one except once, on pepipoo forum, when the sign showed the 'charge' was £90 yet the PCN was £100!

Because POPLA are a bit daft about the law (POFA) and have made some stupid decisions telling people to pay even when the driver has not been identified and no NTK has ever been served, I would add in a point #2:

No driver liability.

I realise from previous complaints made to ISPA, regarding wrong decisions about liability which are in the public domain, that POPLA might be about to consider the matter of 'driver liability' instead. I would point out that in the absence of a NTK, I cannot be held liable in law under ANY circumstances, absent evidence from UKPC as to who parked the car. The driver has never been admitted nor evidenced, so there can be no 'driver' nor 'keeper liability' and their case demanding money from me, MUST fail.

If UKPC should try to suggest that a lack of NTK 'doesn't matter' or that there is any method outside of the prescribed statute (POFA) whereby a registered keeper can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I would remind them of the words of Henry Greenslade.

Mr Greenslade was the 2015 POPLA Chief Adjudicator who ensured consistency of decisions since 2012, whereby POPLA never found against a registered keeper where a clearly non-POFA Notice to Keeper was served, as in this case. The Lead Adjudicator reminded operators of the following facts about a keeper's right not to name the driver and, of course, still not be held in law as liable under Schedule 4:

https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/parking-review/news/46154/there-is-no-50-50-rule-for-private-parking-appeals-says-popla-s-michael-greenslade

Understanding keeper liability

“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.

Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver.”




I fished that wording from this one which might assist you in terms of beefing up your 'unclear signage' point (which is also a potential winner):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70636374#Comment_70636374

You could also use the recent court wins regarding cases where the signs offer no contract and are forbidding, as discussed here re a PCM case:

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/208607905--Forbidding-Signs

The BMPA gives you the full transcript of a very relevant case.

There was also this UKPC case:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/bargepole-spanks-ukpc-in-court-no.html

I think the transcript for that one is available now too.




HTH