Ukpc pcn.

Randomhero

Hey guys, read the newbie sticky after receive a £100 (£60) charge for 'not parking correctly within the markings of the bay or space.'

I appealed saying I was registered keeper saying -

Dear Sirs

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car and I will complain to the landowner about the matter if it is not cancelled.

I believe that the signs were not seen/are ambiguous and the terms unclear to drivers before they park. Further, I understand you do not own the car park and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. So please supply that policy as I believe the driver may well be eligible for cancellation.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

Started the thread so I can update so hopefully someone can guide me through the appeal.

Car was not parked on any yellow lines, was not blocking any access/egress and was in a free car park (Crawley leisure park).

My main argument will be that they cannot justify this amount. Have I done everything correctly so far?

Thanks.

Redx

if you used the blue template then you have done it correctly so far

but I dont think you have thought through your reasons for appealing, no

in theory they dont have to justify the amount, because the BPA CoP has an amount, plus the Beavis court case decided £85 was not unreasonable

read post #3 and the examples to see what your legal gounds for appeal will be, when you appeal to popla

ps:- yellow lines mean nothing on private car parks , the fact that it was free to park does not mean there are no rules on parking

Coupon-mad

Yes that's fine, be ready for UKPC to send a holding letter asking for 'more info' whcih you must ignore. Look out only for the rejection letter with POPLA code which will come anyway, in a few weeks.

You can also now Google 'UKPC photos' and put in your VRN and PCN number to get their picture of the sign, which you can use at POPLA stage to show how pale and illegible the terms are, even in the photo taken by the UKPC goon.

I love their evidence of signs...it always helps the POPLA appeal!

Randomhero

Ok I've had a read through and will continue to do so. Not really sure what to base my argument on now however. Do I have any legal grounds to claim? have found -

Basic mitigating circumstances

The car park itself is marked in relevant areas with double yellow lines. Any competent and qualified driver would, in accordance with the Highway Code, understand these areas to represent some form of restricted parking. The car park itself offers free parking. Therefore, any driver that parks their vehicle in carefully, thoughtfully and seemingly lawfully in an unrestricted area, then it would be fair and reasonable to consider it a suitable place to park.

The area where the vehicle was parked had no solid white or single/double yellow restrictive markings whatsoever. In addition, other areas of the car park, of the same layout, and in fact areas that would first be seen by drivers upon initial entry to the car park, do have double yellow lines representing restricted parking. If these yellow lines represent restricted parking in certain areas, then they should be in use in every area of the car park where parking is prohibited. This inconsistency is unfair on customers and misleading.

Photographs 1, 2, 3 and 4 show the area where the vehicle was parked when the alleged breach occurred and highlight the complete lack of any restrictive road marking.

Photograph 5 shows other areas of the car park that clearly have double yellow lines to represent prohibited parking.

The signage in the car park is unlit, non-reflective and found at a height of approximately 8 feet in the air. The full wording is not easily readable from head height unless in extremely close proximity. Photograph 6 shows the view of the signage from adult head height at a distance of just 3 feet and illustrates that the terms and conditions are exceptionally difficult to read. In a free car park, a driver would not be in any way inclined to approach such a sign as there would be no reasonable expectation of incurring any penalty, especially when also taking into consideration the above detailed inconsistencies regarding double yellow lines being utilised throughout the area.
2. The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

The demand for a payment of £100 (£60 minimum at prompt payment) is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to any loss that could have been suffered by the landowner. The car park is a free car park. There is therefore no loss flowing from this parking event because there can be no loss of potential income when a car is parked in an area that is not marked as a space.

I put UKPC to strict proof of the alleged loss including a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. UKPC parking charge notice refers to 'breach of terms and conditions' so the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss - and I contend this charge certainly is not based on any such calculation.

This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event by a driver who was fully authorised to be parked at that site at no cost.

The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no PCNs were issued. Therefore, the sum they are seeking is not representative of any genuine loss incurred by either the landowner or the operator, flowing from this alleged parking event and the operator should make the terms of proving the car is 'exempt', much clearer to the onsite staff and to drivers in order to mitigate their alleged losses and to avoid genuine customers being inappropriately ticketed.

Thoughts?
Thanks for response

Coupon-mad

Nope, you are reading old POPLA appeals. Read the newer ones in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread.

Yes you have grounds for appeal and the point of waiting till day 26 (as I hope you have) is deliberate, to set them up for a fall on the banana skin of the POFA 2012.

Randomhero

Crap I didn't wait

Coupon-mad

What do you mean? You've already got to POPLA stage?

OK, so have you had their evidence pack?

That gives you another bite at the cherry, you can rebut POPLA evidence and add more words in your favour.

Or do you mean you appealed quickly, not around day 26?

Randomhero

I appealed too quickly.

Coupon-mad

OK, just means that you might not be able to string the POPLA appeal out to reach day 56 but that's not the end of the World and you MUST still include the fact that UKPC won't have sent any NTK (because they won't).

Please do not rush your POPLA appeal. The closer it gets to day 56 the better and you have thrown away 2 or 3 weeks by appealing too fast.

Not the end of the World though.

Randomhero

Ok, noted. I'm assuming my appeal will be initially rejected and will go to a POPLA appeal. When this happens I assume I take the steps cited in the newbie thread about the POPLA appeal.

I had a look at the photos they provided but the camera is too out of focus to make out any actual words on the sign. Guess I'll go back and take a photo myself.

Coupon-mad

Randomhero wrote: »

I had a look at the photos they provided but the camera is too out of focus to make out any actual words on the sign. Guess I'll go back and take a photo myself.

No you are missing the point!! That illegible sign is EXACTLY what you use in your POPLA evidence.

And at that time we would like to see your POPLA draft to make sure you don't miss a trick, we all want everyone to win.