UKPC windscreen PCN for 'leaving site'

ratechaser

As promised (and while I twiddle my thumbs for 20 days or so before appealing...), here are a few signage pics. The first was taken at my own head height (I'm 6ft tall) and you can see it's some way higher than me, with small writing.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lbtxf3mld55tqw7/2016-03-14%2015.34.59.jpg?dl=0

For anyone that is struggling to make out the detail, here's a close up. Would you say that the amounts are prominently displayed...?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/84vtjz3mm2jog94/2016-03-14%2015.36.32.jpg?dl=0

And the final one is the same sign that leads to the footbridge which presumably they regard as outside the 'site' - not seeing anything to indicate that... plus it's a 'leisure park' car park, and the footbridge leads directly to the town leisure centre.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oofxwm135jtw03t/2016-03-14%2015.36.04.jpg?dl=0

All comments welcome!

RC

trisontana

"If you leave the site"

Who is this "you"? The driver, any passengers or even a dog that happens to arrive in the vehicle?

Coupon-mad

The £100 is in tiny writing. It always is; I love UKPC signs as they make great evidence against UKPC. How POPLA can ever think they are legible (which one Assessor decided the other day) is beyond me. If you can't read the £100 or the terms from the car then you CANNOT have agreed to a contract and cannot be deemed to have made the sort of 'promise' by parking, as was found to have been the case in PE v Beavis. A consumer cannot breach unknown terms.

Even better evidence is always found by looking at UKPC's own photo of their sign which will be less clear than yours. I always embed a screenshot from UKPC's own signage evidence into an 'illegible terms on signage' point at POPLA stage and never encourage people to take any other pics as they aren't necessary - but your third one is good evidence of a sign that just looks like an unremarkable white board/advert on a stairway.

So, the case is supported by Vine v Waltham Forest (sign not legible from driver's seat before parking) and is the polar opposite of the situation in PE v Beavis where the signs were 'prominent' and the terms and parking charge were particularly in 'large letters' and Mr Beavis did not say he had not seen the signs.

At POPLA stage also have 'no evidence that the driver or any occupants of the car left the site'. This is denied so UKPC are put to strict proof...etc. And no evidence as to where the boundary of the 'site' is in any direction; where is the driver assumed to have gone and how would the driver know in the absence of any terms or boundary map, what constitutes 'leaving the site' even if the terms were legible before parking (which they are not).

There are also very few signs in that car park by the looks of it, for the size of it and number of bays.

Signs on a stairway come to late to form part of the contract, in fact, because by that time the car is parked. Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel [1949] 1 KB 532 is the applicable case law for this: Denning LJ held that a clause a Hotel guest can only learn about after the contract was allegedly formed was too late to be incorporated into the contract: 'The first question is whether that notice formed part of the contract. ... The hotel company no doubt hope that the guest will be held bound by them, but...the ticket comes too late...'

And no NTK of course = no keeper liability. And no landowner authority.

But that's all for POPLA stage.

ratechaser

UPDATE: following advice on a related thread, I wrote a polite complaint to the managing agent for the landowner (JLL), and within a couple of days got a response to confirm that the PCN was cancelled.

So great result overall, lets just hope that UKPC have got the message here.

Thanks everyone for your help. Mrs RC still thinks that I've 'got away with it' here, but there are some battles that I probably can't win!

Ralph-y

Well done ...:j

You had better tell Mrs RC that if she thinks paying scum like UKPC is wise ....

then tell her we will send Martin round to sort her out :money:
:rotfl:


Ralph:cool:

beamerguy

ratechaser wrote: »

UPDATE: following advice on a related thread, I wrote a polite complaint to the managing agent for the landowner (JLL), and within a couple of days got a response to confirm that the PCN was cancelled.

So great result overall, lets just hope that UKPC have got the message here.

Thanks everyone for your help. Mrs RC still thinks that I've 'got away with it' here, but there are some battles that I probably can't win!

Well done, another UKPC failure, it's what happens to low life scammers:T

UKPC will never get the massage until the DVLA apply a life long ban and the BPA STOPS approving scammers.