UKPC parking fine - Curzon Street, Birmingham

Guys_Dad

I don't understand if I have missed something or am going loopy.

Their t&c say a charge of £90. They are charging you £100. THEY CAN'T !!!!

Where is that in the appeal??????? Hidden under poor lighting and inadequate signage when , unlike other cases where we are scrabbling for a technical defence, you have a 100% cast iron proper case without dispute......... as long as you have the evidence to prove it.

kelsall_13

Ok, apologies for spamming the same appeal multiple times. I've now added a correct point and an index at the start referring to each point, as follow;

I am the registered keeper and this is my appeal to a PCN which was issued to the vehicle just minutes after the car park opened:

1) No Notice to Keeper
2)Poor lighting/inadequate signage
3)Incorrect fee in breach of T+C
4)Lack of a grace period
5)Beavis Case vs ParkingEye
6)No authority / Landowner contract

1) No Notice to Keeper - no keeper liability possible under the POFA 2012

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.

Further, schedule 4 is dependent upon 'adequate notice' of the parking charge being communicated to the driver in advance. That would require clear and prominent signs throughout the site, carrying wording that is transparent, legible in low light and has the sum of '£100' in large letters. That was not the case, see my next point where UKPC have failed completely by having the wrong sum on the signs.

2) Poor Lighting/ Inadequate signage

The signage is poorly lighted and written in a print which becomes illegible at low light, therefore non-compliant with part 18 of the BPA Code of Practice.

The BPA Code of Practice states:

18.1 ''A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass.

In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.''

Please note that due to UKPC high positioning of the signs and the very pale colour and small lettering, they were hard to see in low light.

BPA CoP 18.3 ''Specific parking terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving.”

3) Incorrect fee in comparison to terms and conditions on site
A contract was not made clear to pay £100, not least because the signage picture shown on UKPC's website for this 'charge' shows the wording is very small but mentions only a £90 parking charge. Even if the driver had seen the terms (which is denied), a sign stating '£90 parking charge' cannot be used to create a contract to pay £100 and UKPC cannot put right this error.

The parking ticket is now in breach of both the BPA Code of practice and also UKPC terms and conditions making the charge null and void.

See attached photo as evidence.

No offer existed based on £100 charge and no consideration flowed between the parties - and no agreement to pay £100 was possible from signs that do not state that figure anywhere - therefore the elements of a contract did not exist.

4) Lack of a grace period...

The BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice Version 6, Oct 2015, states that if drivers "…decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract." (28.3).

The time the car park opened was 7.00am on monday 11th January. Ticket issued at 7:13am did not allow sufficient time to move the car. No contract was accepted by the driver.

5) ParkingEye v Beavis is not applicable to provide a rationale for a 'standard economic contract' like this one. This is a disproportionate and unconscionable penalty, not based upon the alleged quantifiable loss nor commercially justified.

The amount requested by UKPC is completely disproportionate to the overall cost of parking on site. The amount for 1 full day being £4 in comparison to the £100 charge reduced to £60. Upon requesting information on how this fee was calculated UKPC were not forthcoming with the request so they have made no attempt to justify the escalation from £4 to £100, which not even their signage supports.

UKPC seem to be under the misapprehension that POPLA Assessors might believe the BPA line that the Supreme Court judgment was a green light legitimising all frivolous parking charges. Yet there is no comparison between this case and that one; the only similarity is both operators (UKPC and ParkingEye) described the sum as a 'parking charge'.

There the similarities end. The Beavis case was entirely different and has no blanket application here, except in favour of my case as appellant to support the view that - in the absence of any other commercial justification similar to the Beavis case - this sort of consumer contract must still be proportionate to the tariff/loss. UKPC have shown no commercial justification nor 'legitimate interest' in charging £100 where the signs only refer to £90 and the tariff was just a few pounds.

The ParkingEye v Beavis decision related to those specific facts and unusual 'free parking licence' & 'complex' contractual arrangement flowing from specific landowner interests and reliant upon that 'prominent and clear' Riverside Retail Park signage only. The Supreme Court Judges tweeted on the day of the decision, to clarify that decision turned on those facts, that free car park in that case only.

Each case must still turn on its own facts.

The Beavis decision is not a silver bullet and it cannot be twisted to strike out the majority of private parking ticket appeals and certainly not those which are regarding a Pay and Display site where the alleged loss (tariff) begins as a very easy to identify, tangible sum.

In a standard economic dispute over a financial transaction between a consumer and a trader, like this one, the loss is easily calculable.

By stark contrast, the contract offered to Mr Beavis in the Chelmsford car park in the Beavis case was described by the Judges as a 'complex' contract which Moore-Bick LJ at the Court of Appeal remarked was 'entirely different' from this sort of financial contract flowing from alleged non-payment of a quantifiable sum to UKPC.

As regards the Beavis case, it was made plain that the 'penalty rule' is certainly 'engaged' in parking ticket cases and the facts of each case will determine if the penalty rule has been disengaged. The penalty rule could have been abolished in the Beavis case but abolition of that 'useful tool' was very deliberately NOT the case.

In complex contracts (in that case, a free car park with a licence to park but no monetary sum paid per hour) the trader must demonstrate a 'legitimate interest' in enforcing a disproportionately high charge, to avoid such a charge in each individual case from being an unenforceable penalty. UKPC have failed to demonstrate any other wider commercial or socio-economic justification for this exorbitant escalation clause and POPLA cannot make their case for them, therefore the charge remains unenforceable under the penalty rule.

But this case can easily be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis because this case is not a 'complex' contractual arrangement at all. So the same leap cannot be made to disengage the penalty rule by arguing 'legitimate interest'. If that was the case, then every alleged underpayment of a quantifiable sum between any trader and consumer could be escalated x 100. If you underpay your paper bill by £1 - the amount due remains at £1, same as in this case - it cannot escalate to £100 and this is because the Beavis case rationale does not apply to 'standard' financial contracts. The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court Judges made that very clear.

In Beavis, a major difference which made it more complex than standard contracts, was that there was no small sum owed and so, to reach their decision, the Judges had to consider other interests. None of the reasons that gave Parking Eye a legitimate interest which disengaged the 'penalty rule' in their case against Mr Beavis are present in this material case, in which the penalty rule remains firmly engaged and where there is a quantified tariff in play.

The appellant respectfully submits that the assessor carefully reads the Supreme Court judgment and the preceding Court of Appeal judgment from the same case.

The Judges set apart the Beavis contract from this type of 'simple financial contract'. This is one the Judges had seen many times before, where there is a quantified small sum at stake in the first instance as a result of a primary obligation.

This sort of contract was not under discussion in the Beavis case.

The penalty rule is clearly engaged in this case of a standard contract with a quantified tariff, but unlike in Parking Eye v Beavis it is not disengaged by UKPC merely pointing to the Beavis case as if it has blanket relevance (otherwise your local paper shop could point to the Beavis case regarding that £1 underpaid paper bill, as could any trader over any small sum owed). Clearly the 'tweet' from the Supreme Court on the day that their decision was handed down, made it clear that was not the intention of the judgment which turned on its own facts regarding a complex set of circumstances, relevant to a complex contract of its kind only.

At the Court of Appeal stage, when addressing the issue of pre-estimate of loss versus commercial justification, Lord Justice Moore-Bick agreed with HHJ Moloney QC’s findings, and opined at paragraph 27 that: “The application in a case of this kind of a rule based on a simple comparison between the amount of the payment and the direct loss [...] is inappropriate.”

In agreement with Moore-Bick LJ, and distinguishing the contract formed between ParkingEye and the motorist from a commercial contract, Sir Timothy Lloyd stated at paragraph 47 that, “[...] the principles underlying the doctrine of penalty ought not to strike down a provision of this kind, in relation to a contract such as we are concerned with,...”.

The Judges were only discussing ''a contract such as we are concerned with'' which was a far more complex one than ''all the previous cases shown to us {which} have concerned contracts of a financial or at least an economic nature.''

Here, this is one of those cases Courts have seen many times before, a simple contract of a 'financial/economic nature' and the only interest UKPC has in enforcing their £100 charge instead of any 'outstanding tariff' for 13 minutes - which falls within any reaonable grace period anyway - is profit alone.

This position is reinforced in the earlier findings in the Beavis case from the Court of Appeal, where the judgment states:

"44. All the previous cases shown to us have concerned contracts of a financial or at least an economic nature, where the transaction between the contracting parties can be assessed in monetary terms, as can the effects of a breach of the contract...

45. The contract in the present case is entirely different. There is no economic transaction between the car park operator and the driver who uses the car park, if he or she stays no longer than two hours; there is no more than (for that time) a gratuitous licence to use the land...''

47. ...When the court is considering an ordinary financial or commercial contract, then it is understandable that the law, which lays down its own rules as to the compensation due from a contract breaker...should prohibit terms which require the payment of compensation going far beyond that which the law allows in the absence of any contract provision governing this outcome.

The classic and simple case is that referred to by Tindal CJ in Kemble v Farren (1829)6 Bing. 141 at 148: “But that a very large sum should become immediately payable, in consequence of the non-payment of a very small sum, and that the former should not be considered a penalty, appears to be a contradiction in terms, the case being precisely that in which courts of equity have always relieved, and against which courts of law have, in modern times, endeavoured to relieve, by directing juries to assess the real damages sustained by the breach of the agreement.”

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 shows this case law still holds because it includes the fact that a consumer cannot lawfully be expected to pay a disproportionate sum in compensation for a small sum owed. This is the fundamental legislation relating to standard contracts between traders and consumers and it is undoubtedly applicable to this case.

The ParkingEye v Beavis judgment makes clear that the Court of Appeal would have considered the disproportionate charge in this case (but not the more complex Beavis case or cases 'of its kind') a clear penalty. They found the contract in Beavis 'entirely different' from simple, commercial 'monetary transaction' cases such as they had seen before.

'ENTIRELY DIFFERENT'. So without displaying intellectual dishonesty or copy/pasting skewed 'guidance' from the BPA or another parking industry interested party, I suggest that it would be impossible to apply ParkingEye v Beavis to this standard economic contract. As UKPC have shown no other compelling reason or rationale for escalating a small sum parking tariff to £100, they fall foul of the penalty rule...just as ParkingEye would have, if they had taken a 'standard contract' case to Supreme Court level.

6) No Authority / Landowner Contract

As UKPC do not have proprietary interest in the land then I demand that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner that authorises them to offer contracts for parking in their name, issue Parking Charge Notices and take legal action in their name for breach of contract.

---

The Deep - Could i use those case studies as a backing point? it seems like dredging up their past discrepancies would only be viable if they were in direct relation to their actions at this site?

It seems like UKPC are just a bunch of thugs with their disloyal fining and collection methods in all honesty, cant really see how these companies have been able to get away with this for so long!

Regards!

Guys_Dad

Better. But have some pity on the poor adjudicator who has loads of these to read. Most of the points in your appeal are "forum standard" and imagine you had to read these over and over. (Oh No! Not another War and Peace Forum appeal !!!)

But you have an almost unique point on the £90/£100. If you put it at the beginning as point 1, then the adjudicator need not wade through all the stuff they have read before and can save time by going with your 1st point and can then add (See POPLA DECISIONS) " I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them."

So, save our adjudicators, make your killer point first one. :rotfl::rotfl:

beamerguy

kelsall_13 wrote: »

It seems like UKPC are just a bunch of thugs with their disloyal fining and collection methods in all honesty, cant really see how these companies have been able to get away with this for so long!

Regards!

They are much more than a bunch of thugs, UKPC are common fraudsters

The BPA and the DVLA allow this low life to operate.
Try asking the BPA and the DVLA about UKPC and you will get ignored or fobbed off suggesting therefore that the scam goes deep into the woodwork.
There is currently a need for an in depth investigation as to "who pays the ferryman"
It needs a bright media reporter to expose this

Guys_Dad

beamerguy wrote: »

There is currently a need for an in depth investigation as to "who pays the ferryman"
It needs a bright media reporter to expose this

Usually those on their way to their demise. We can but hope !!

Redx

kelsall_13 wrote: »

1)
I wasn't sure what you meant with the;

1) -pofa2012 failures

2) -not a gpeol (but different to the Beavis case)

3) -anpr or camera photos not valid or suspect

Reading through the noob guide got me a little lost with regards to these points.

EDIT: Forgot to mention,
4) I have a photo of the sign saying £90 and the ticket photocopied with £100 printed

1) you have NOW addressed this with the lack of an NTK, but had you received one you would have addressed the issues where it failed to meet POFA2012 , hence no keeper liability

however, the lack of an NTK means you can cite NO KEEPER LIABILITY as they failed to follow the rules under POFA2012

2) you have now addressed this because you dont want popla to assume you failed because they are swallowing the beavis case hook , line and sinker , so you point out why your case is DIFFERENT to the Beavis case , and why, which you now seem to have done

3) as pointed out earlier, UKPC have been defrauding people with doctored photos , so if your case has photos you question their legality and timings, if you dont you are deemed to have accepted them, by questioning them you are asking for them to be dismissed as incorrect or possibly fraudulant, which they have form for

4) proof like this is gold dust because the paperwork doesnt match the signage, so the parking contract is flawed or invalid , so the discrepancy should be highlighted

5) you need to elaborate on the grace periods, you cannot just quote the BPA CoP without explaining why it is relevant to your case

kelsall_13

I am the registered keeper and this is my appeal to a PCN which was issued to the vehicle just minutes after the car park opened:

1)Incorrect fee in breach of T+C
2) No Notice to Keeper
3)Poor lighting/inadequate signage
4)Lack of a grace period
5)anpr or camera photos not valid or suspect
6)Beavis Case vs ParkingEye
7)No authority / Landowner contract

1) Incorrect fee in comparison to terms and conditions on site
A contract was not made clear to pay £100, not least because the signage picture shown on UKPC's website for this 'charge' shows the wording is very small but mentions only a £90 parking charge. Even if the driver had seen the terms (which is denied), a sign stating '£90 parking charge' cannot be used to create a contract to pay £100 and UKPC cannot put right this error.

The parking ticket is now in breach of both the BPA Code of practice and also UKPC terms and conditions making the charge null and void.

See attached photo as evidence.

No offer existed based on £100 charge and no consideration flowed between the parties - and no agreement to pay £100 was possible from signs that do not state that figure anywhere - therefore the elements of a contract did not exist.

2) No Notice to Keeper - no keeper liability possible under the POFA 2012

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.

Further, schedule 4 is dependent upon 'adequate notice' of the parking charge being communicated to the driver in advance. That would require clear and prominent signs throughout the site, carrying wording that is transparent, legible in low light and has the sum of '£100' in large letters. That was not the case, see my next point where UKPC have failed completely by having the wrong sum on the signs.

3) Poor Lighting/ Inadequate signage

The signage is poorly lighted and written in a print which becomes illegible at low light, therefore non-compliant with part 18 of the BPA Code of Practice.

The BPA Code of Practice states:

18.1 ''A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass.

In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.''

Please note that due to UKPC high positioning of the signs and the very pale colour and small lettering, they were hard to see in low light.

BPA CoP 18.3 ''Specific parking terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving.”


4) Lack of a grace period...

The BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice Version 6, Oct 2015, states that if drivers "…decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract." (28.3).

The time the car park opened was 7.00am on monday 11th January. Ticket issued at 7:13am did not allow sufficient time to move the car. No contract was accepted by the driver.

5) anpr or camera photos not valid or suspect

UKPC are required to provide evidence that their ANPR systems are fully calibrated in accordance with the criteria laid down with the ICO and BPA code of practice and that the system is also calibrated with any payment options available on location.Without such there is no proof that these timings are accurate for evidential purposes.

6) ParkingEye v Beavis is not applicable to provide a rationale for a 'standard economic contract' like this one. This is a disproportionate and unconscionable penalty, not based upon the alleged quantifiable loss nor commercially justified.

The amount requested by UKPC is completely disproportionate to the overall cost of parking on site. The amount for 1 full day being £4 in comparison to the £100 charge reduced to £60. Upon requesting information on how this fee was calculated UKPC were not forthcoming with the request so they have made no attempt to justify the escalation from £4 to £100, which not even their signage supports.

UKPC seem to be under the misapprehension that POPLA Assessors might believe the BPA line that the Supreme Court judgment was a green light legitimising all frivolous parking charges. Yet there is no comparison between this case and that one; the only similarity is both operators (UKPC and ParkingEye) described the sum as a 'parking charge'.

There the similarities end. The Beavis case was entirely different and has no blanket application here, except in favour of my case as appellant to support the view that - in the absence of any other commercial justification similar to the Beavis case - this sort of consumer contract must still be proportionate to the tariff/loss. UKPC have shown no commercial justification nor 'legitimate interest' in charging £100 where the signs only refer to £90 and the tariff was just a few pounds.

The ParkingEye v Beavis decision related to those specific facts and unusual 'free parking licence' & 'complex' contractual arrangement flowing from specific landowner interests and reliant upon that 'prominent and clear' Riverside Retail Park signage only. The Supreme Court Judges tweeted on the day of the decision, to clarify that decision turned on those facts, that free car park in that case only.

Each case must still turn on its own facts.

The Beavis decision is not a silver bullet and it cannot be twisted to strike out the majority of private parking ticket appeals and certainly not those which are regarding a Pay and Display site where the alleged loss (tariff) begins as a very easy to identify, tangible sum.

In a standard economic dispute over a financial transaction between a consumer and a trader, like this one, the loss is easily calculable.

By stark contrast, the contract offered to Mr Beavis in the Chelmsford car park in the Beavis case was described by the Judges as a 'complex' contract which Moore-Bick LJ at the Court of Appeal remarked was 'entirely different' from this sort of financial contract flowing from alleged non-payment of a quantifiable sum to UKPC.

As regards the Beavis case, it was made plain that the 'penalty rule' is certainly 'engaged' in parking ticket cases and the facts of each case will determine if the penalty rule has been disengaged. The penalty rule could have been abolished in the Beavis case but abolition of that 'useful tool' was very deliberately NOT the case.

In complex contracts (in that case, a free car park with a licence to park but no monetary sum paid per hour) the trader must demonstrate a 'legitimate interest' in enforcing a disproportionately high charge, to avoid such a charge in each individual case from being an unenforceable penalty. UKPC have failed to demonstrate any other wider commercial or socio-economic justification for this exorbitant escalation clause and POPLA cannot make their case for them, therefore the charge remains unenforceable under the penalty rule.

But this case can easily be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis because this case is not a 'complex' contractual arrangement at all. So the same leap cannot be made to disengage the penalty rule by arguing 'legitimate interest'. If that was the case, then every alleged underpayment of a quantifiable sum between any trader and consumer could be escalated x 100. If you underpay your paper bill by £1 - the amount due remains at £1, same as in this case - it cannot escalate to £100 and this is because the Beavis case rationale does not apply to 'standard' financial contracts. The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court Judges made that very clear.

In Beavis, a major difference which made it more complex than standard contracts, was that there was no small sum owed and so, to reach their decision, the Judges had to consider other interests. None of the reasons that gave Parking Eye a legitimate interest which disengaged the 'penalty rule' in their case against Mr Beavis are present in this material case, in which the penalty rule remains firmly engaged and where there is a quantified tariff in play.

The appellant respectfully submits that the assessor carefully reads the Supreme Court judgment and the preceding Court of Appeal judgment from the same case.

The Judges set apart the Beavis contract from this type of 'simple financial contract'. This is one the Judges had seen many times before, where there is a quantified small sum at stake in the first instance as a result of a primary obligation.

This sort of contract was not under discussion in the Beavis case.

The penalty rule is clearly engaged in this case of a standard contract with a quantified tariff, but unlike in Parking Eye v Beavis it is not disengaged by UKPC merely pointing to the Beavis case as if it has blanket relevance (otherwise your local paper shop could point to the Beavis case regarding that £1 underpaid paper bill, as could any trader over any small sum owed). Clearly the 'tweet' from the Supreme Court on the day that their decision was handed down, made it clear that was not the intention of the judgment which turned on its own facts regarding a complex set of circumstances, relevant to a complex contract of its kind only.

At the Court of Appeal stage, when addressing the issue of pre-estimate of loss versus commercial justification, Lord Justice Moore-Bick agreed with HHJ Moloney QC’s findings, and opined at paragraph 27 that: “The application in a case of this kind of a rule based on a simple comparison between the amount of the payment and the direct loss [...] is inappropriate.”

In agreement with Moore-Bick LJ, and distinguishing the contract formed between ParkingEye and the motorist from a commercial contract, Sir Timothy Lloyd stated at paragraph 47 that, “[...] the principles underlying the doctrine of penalty ought not to strike down a provision of this kind, in relation to a contract such as we are concerned with,...”.

The Judges were only discussing ''a contract such as we are concerned with'' which was a far more complex one than ''all the previous cases shown to us {which} have concerned contracts of a financial or at least an economic nature.''

Here, this is one of those cases Courts have seen many times before, a simple contract of a 'financial/economic nature' and the only interest UKPC has in enforcing their £100 charge instead of any 'outstanding tariff' for 13 minutes - which falls within any reaonable grace period anyway - is profit alone.

This position is reinforced in the earlier findings in the Beavis case from the Court of Appeal, where the judgment states:

"44. All the previous cases shown to us have concerned contracts of a financial or at least an economic nature, where the transaction between the contracting parties can be assessed in monetary terms, as can the effects of a breach of the contract...

45. The contract in the present case is entirely different. There is no economic transaction between the car park operator and the driver who uses the car park, if he or she stays no longer than two hours; there is no more than (for that time) a gratuitous licence to use the land...''

47. ...When the court is considering an ordinary financial or commercial contract, then it is understandable that the law, which lays down its own rules as to the compensation due from a contract breaker...should prohibit terms which require the payment of compensation going far beyond that which the law allows in the absence of any contract provision governing this outcome.

The classic and simple case is that referred to by Tindal CJ in Kemble v Farren (1829)6 Bing. 141 at 148: “But that a very large sum should become immediately payable, in consequence of the non-payment of a very small sum, and that the former should not be considered a penalty, appears to be a contradiction in terms, the case being precisely that in which courts of equity have always relieved, and against which courts of law have, in modern times, endeavoured to relieve, by directing juries to assess the real damages sustained by the breach of the agreement.”

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 shows this case law still holds because it includes the fact that a consumer cannot lawfully be expected to pay a disproportionate sum in compensation for a small sum owed. This is the fundamental legislation relating to standard contracts between traders and consumers and it is undoubtedly applicable to this case.

The ParkingEye v Beavis judgment makes clear that the Court of Appeal would have considered the disproportionate charge in this case (but not the more complex Beavis case or cases 'of its kind') a clear penalty. They found the contract in Beavis 'entirely different' from simple, commercial 'monetary transaction' cases such as they had seen before.

'ENTIRELY DIFFERENT'. So without displaying intellectual dishonesty or copy/pasting skewed 'guidance' from the BPA or another parking industry interested party, I suggest that it would be impossible to apply ParkingEye v Beavis to this standard economic contract. As UKPC have shown no other compelling reason or rationale for escalating a small sum parking tariff to £100, they fall foul of the penalty rule...just as ParkingEye would have, if they had taken a 'standard contract' case to Supreme Court level.

7) No Authority / Landowner Contract

As UKPC do not have proprietary interest in the land then I demand that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner that authorises them to offer contracts for parking in their name, issue Parking Charge Notices and take legal action in their name for breach of contract

---

Ok, so I've moved the incorrect fee to the beginning and highlighted my points with regards to the grace period, I've also added a copy/paste selection with regards to the photos supplied by UKPC, also highlighted for your ease.

Will that suffice?

Regards!

Redx

reading your thread I see no evidence of anpr being used but if it was then your anpr paragraph is valid, but as you have photos its likely an operative took them on a handheld camera and the timings rely on the accuracy of that camera , the app being used and the security to prevent fraud on that hand held camera , plus they they didnt photoshop the pictures later too

so as I believe you have hand held camera pictures, NOT ANPR pictures, then if I am correct you major on the possible inaccuracy or fraud that that hand held camera could be subject too, as they are relying on the timings in those pictures

so if its hand held camera pictures, then no anpr section is used, but a section on cameras , accuracy and possibly fraud should be given , which UKPC have been investigated for on other sites and are known for

so if we suppose a pic was taken at 0713 am , is it valid , or could it have been taken at 0703 am and the camera altered by ten minutes ? could it have been photoshopped etc ?

you get the point ? those timing are what they are relying on in their case against you, so you totally question their accuracy, their legality , their honesty

kelsall_13

Got It, to save re-sending the whole appeal see as follow;

5) camera photos not valid or suspect

UKPC are requested to provide evidence that their supporting photos are accurate and valid. It has been known on past cases for UKPC to alter their photos to gratify their own purpose.

Source: -- URL link to the telegraph link provided by T-D earlier -- (wont let me post the link on here for spam purposes)

Furthermore, no neutral party was known to be present at the procurement of the photo's provided by UKPC. This leads me to trust the legitimacy of any provided photographic evidence.

---

I can't think of how else to word that without providing evidence of the article. That being said, I think it covers the point.

Thanks again, seems like we're almost there!

Regard!

Fruitcake

kelsall_13 wrote: »

Got It, to save re-sending the whole appeal see as follow;

5) camera photos not valid or suspect

UKPC are requested to provide evidence that their supporting photos are accurate and valid. It has been known on past cases for UKPC to alter their photos to gratify their own purpose.

Source: -- URL link to the telegraph link provided by T-D earlier -- (wont let me post the link on here for spam purposes)

Furthermore, no neutral party was known to be present at the procurement of the photo's provided by UKPC. This leads me to trust the legitimacy of any provided photographic evidence.

---

I can't think of how else to word that without providing evidence of the article. That being said, I think it covers the point.

Thanks again, seems like we're almost there!

Regard!

I think you mean distrust.


BPA CoP states that where ANPR is used, the PPC's signage must state what the data will be used for. I doubt that UKPC's signage mentions it at all.