POPLA appeal unsuccessful against UKPC in my own private parking space

JFK1980

I've read these forums for tips since I first received this PCN from UKPC. I've now got to the point where I'm hoping someone will be able to give me some specific pointers and help regarding this extremely frustrating battle as it feels like I'm the only person that sees any sense in this matter.

A little backstory:

On Christmas Day 2015 I left my interior light on in my car whilst at my mother's for the day, my battery died and so I couldn't use it to get home. She lent me her car for the evening so I could get back home, as we didn't have any jump leads and it was late in the day and I didn't want to have to wait for the AA. I forgot my parking permit, attached to the inside of my windscreen and by the time I'd got home it was the last thing I even considered, just wanting to get in the flat and in bed. Boxing Day I woke up to find a PCN from UKPC on my mother's car.

(UKPC patrol the shared car park, they were appointed by the previous management company after some residents were complaining that non-residents were parking in their private spaces. Totally understandable.)

I immediately contested the charge and informed UKPC that I was in fact a resident and that the parking space was mine to use as I wish, as outlined in the property underlease, which I quoted at length. (I also requested a POPLA code.) One section from the underlease:

“The right to the exclusive use of the Designated Parking Space(s) for the purpose of parking a private motor vehicle not exceeding three tonnes gross laden weight.”

They requested I send my parking permit as proof, given the extenuating circumstances, which I did. They did not include the requested POPLA code.

They then replied informing me that they would reduce the charge to £15 and also supplied a POPLA code. So I proceeded to log an appeal with POPLA as I felt that by paying any charge I would be recognising their terms, which I do not.

I provided POPLA proof of my written communication with UKPC to support my case. UKPC provided an "Evidence Pack" containing all correspondence from both sides, along with a copy of my permit. They also supplied photos of the vehicle in question and other photos showing signage around the car park (although bizarrely some photos were of other car parks entirely). At no point have I contested that I was parked in the space.

Yesterday I received the following decision from POPLA:

"The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions as displayed throughout the site, which state, “Terms of parking apply at all times” and “Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 Parking Charge (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days) being issued to the vehicle’s driver: A valid parking permit must be clearly displayed at all times”. I acknowledge the appellant’s ground for appeal. However, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park. The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle on the date in question. From these, I can see that the vehicle does not have a parking permit displayed. The appellant has stated that he has an under lease which allows him to park in his space without the terms and conditions of the operator. POPLA is an evidence-based service and I can only assess an appeal on the evidence that I have been provided with. While I recognise the appellant has an under lease to this space, there has not been any evidence provided to demonstrate this. I note that the appellant has stated the operator has provided signage from two different sites, as well as the site in question. While this may be the case, as the operator has provided photographs from the site in question, I cannot consider this as a ground for appeal. Although the appellant holds a permit to park in the space, as this has not been displayed, I can only conclude that the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice in accordance with the conditions of the contract. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal."

I have since contacted Citizens Advice (as suggested at the end of the POPLA decision) and they have suggested I now send copies of the specific sections of our underlease to UKPC, as this seems to be the only reason the decision didn't go in my favour, but I'm starting to feel like I'm hitting a brick wall, will UKPC accept this now POPLA have made their decision?

It's really not about the money, I could still pay the £100 and it would all go away, it's the principal of having to pay anything to park on our own privately owned space. What if a situation like this happens again, a genuine mistake, am I to be held to ransom every time I don't meet their terms on, what is essentially, our own property?

As I've told them on numerous occasions, I do not recognise UKPC's conditions when parking in our space (they were instructed to patrol long after the property was bought and we had moved in), it is private property (as outlined in the underlease) and we should be free to utilise it as we need, without having to pay someone else for the pleasure. As it is our space, there can be no financial loss or obstruction to any third parties, so I cannot possibly understand how they can honestly expect me to pay to park at my own address.

I would be grateful for any suggestions or tips on where I should go with this next, are they likely to take me to court if I continue to refuse to pay? Would they even have a case if they did?

Thank you in advance.

edit: Sorry for the lengthy post, I just wanted to give as much detail as I could.

catfunt

Did you appeal on any other points - not following POFA, no contract with landowner, not a GPEOL and also explaining why Beavis does not apply in your case?

If it was a single-point appeal on what you said above then it was always likely to fail, I'm afraid.

Now all you can do is ignore any further correspondence from UKPC or their debt collectors, except a LBCCC or couert papers.

IN the meantime you could try contacting the landowner (not the managing agents, they get a cut!) and ask them to get the invoice cancelled.

Also, do a search on here for "UKPC v Davy" for more info on dealing wityh a "parked in own space" ticket. Loads of issues here.

Marktheshark

Who told you to mess about with POPLA if you have a contract which supersedes the parking firms offer.
Get stuffed, see you in court would have saved a lot of time and effort.

The_Deep

They would be mad to issue a claim, but if they do, issue a counyer claim. This is about as divorced from Beavis v PE as you can get. Some reading, and something to show the judge.


[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]
[/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]htttp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5390608&highlight=ukpc+fraud[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/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]

Coupon-mad

I have since contacted Citizens Advice

Sadly they are clueless and advised by the BPA (UKPC's own Trade Body) about these charges! No doubt they told you that you had little chance and due to the Beavis case - if the adviser knew about it - you would not win in small claims and that showing your proof was just an attempt to stop the inevitable? They are wrong about these charges so ignore what the CAB said.

It's really not about the money, I could still pay the £100 and it would all go away

Good attitude - no need to pay unless the fat lady sings (if you lost in court, not at POPLA as that is not binding) because there is no effect on your credit rating even if you did lose in the end. No CCJ and no bailiffs, nothing except the worst 'harassment by letter/text/phone' that WH and other debt collectors might try.

You can sit tight, because even if they tried a rare small claim and actually won it in the small claims track against your defence - and you would then get to have your full defence heard properly - you would only be required after judgment to pay about £150 all told. That's what small claims is all about (no huge legal costs can be added). As long as you defended it reasonably and robustly you would have a good case and this is nothing like ParkingEye v Beavis, although the subsequent letters you will now receive will scream that it applies.

If you want to go on the attack and if you now agree with us that UKPC are predatory and disreputable, not the sort of firm to allow to run a practice akin to a protection racket near the resident's cars, ruining the peaceful enjoyment of those residents and their legitimate visitors, then:

- send a robust letter to UKPC and to your managing agents along the lines shown in post #30 here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4777418

You can tone it down if you like but once you've started to receive the deluge of letters from Debt Recovery Plus and Zenith, pretending you have to pay (and probably texting you too):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/89511704@N03/8145428304/

or if Wright Hassall send one of their debt collector demands and or phone/text repeatedly:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=103993

..then you may see why we feel the way we do about scum like UKPC:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html

They are not worthy of your money and I always say people who pay a fake (private) PCN are perpetuating the scam and funding the next few PCNs issued against a vulnerable family or pensioner for some equally trumped up 'contravention'. If the British public woke up and smelt the coffee and stopped paying private PCNs completely, then the entire industry would be wiped out within months.

JFK1980

Thank you for all the replies guys, I really appreciate it.

I'm going take some time reading through everything you've said and all the links you've supplied then I'll come back if I have any other questions (I'm sure I will!).

Again, thank you, you've given me a little bit more hope than I had earlier today.

JFK1980

So, I took the advice above from Coupon-mad and composed the below letter dated 14th April. I have since received one letter from UKPC demanding payment due to unsuccessful POPLA appeal and, in a short space of time, a further two letters from DRP notifying me of intended court action.

Based on what I've said below, where do I stand with this now? They've predictably ignored everything I've said in my letter. What can I expect to happen next?

More importantly, should I reply?

Dear UKPC,

LETTER BEFORE CLAIM AND FORMAL WARNING TO CEASE AND DESIST WITH HARASSMENT

This is not an appeal.

We, the current tenant and the current underlease holder of the property ‘XXXX’, are sending this communication with regard to vehicles XXXX and XXXX and to any other relevant vehicles connected to the above property whilst utilising the Designated Parking Space (Plot X), from this date onwards.

The purpose of this letter is to warn of potential court action and to clearly instruct UKPC and any of its agents to cease and desist with the following behaviour, which we consider serious, persistent and unwarranted harassment:

- placing 'Parking Charge Notices' (or other similarly named) tickets on, or in the vicinity of, the above named vehicles or any other named vehicles utilising the Designated Parking Space of the above property.
- placing 'Parking Charge Notices' (or other similarly named) tickets on, or in the vicinity of, any vehicles connected to the above property whilst utilising the Designated Parking Space.
- sending letters or making any further contact with us, regarding 'Parking Charge Notices' (or other similarly named) tickets relating to any vehicles connected to the above property whilst utilising the Designated Parking Space.
- threatening court action over the above matters.

We have been subjected to receiving intimidating letters from UKPC demanding payment of ‘parking charges’, which were received whilst vehicle XXXX was parked in the Designated Parking Space at the property above on 26/12/2015 at 1:16am. We have continued to dispute and deny all charges and in good faith, so far in our own time, we have attempted to resolve this ongoing issue on many occasions. UKPC will be aware that we have attempted to address the issue by:

- speaking with UKPC about this groundless intimidation which we view as attempting to obtain money with menaces.
- writing letters in response to the invoices and threats of court action.
- challenging UKPC's unsolicited invoices.
- appealing via POPLA (unsuccessfully due to lack of supporting evidence, said evidence now enclosed).

It is, and has been, contended that UKPC has no legal title in the land, at present or in the future (without amendments to the property underlease), and UKPC have produced no evidence to the contrary, which renders any current and future 'Parking Charge Notices' non-compliant and unenforceable; in other words, an unwarranted threat.

UKPC will be familiar with the small claim case Davey v UKPC, (January 2013) where Mr Roger Davey was forced to take out an injunction against UKPC, who issued tickets on a private development in Winchester where Mr Davey lived, demanding £100.00 for each alleged 'breach'. Despite warnings from Mr Davey, UKPC continued to ticket his vehicles and were served with an injunction and successfully sued for trespass, having to pay Mr Davey's substantial costs.

We find ourselves in a similar position and, following UKPC’s eventual offer of reduction in cost of the 'Parking Charge Notice' to £15.00, we are certain that UKPC realises there is no lawful cause of action. We neither accept nor recognise any 'permit scheme' or ‘terms’, nor have we signed any paperwork regarding UKPC, nor does the underlease currently contain any mention of UKPC or any other ‘parking management company’. This has been outlined several times by quoting the underlease directly and, to avoid any further confusion, copies of the relevant sections of the underlease are included with this letter (highlighted for your convenience) along with a copy of the tenancy agreement, as full and final proof of the right for any persons or vehicles connected to the above property to utilise the Designated Parking Space as required.

There has not been any evidence produced to suggest that there is a legally binding contract directly between UKPC and ourselves and we do not recognise that we have, in the past or in the future, entered into any ‘contract’ simply by utilising the Designated Parking Space at the property above. The legal right, as outlined in the underlease, to utilise the Designated Parking Space supersedes any implied ‘contract’.

If a ‘contract’ were to exist, and that ‘contract’ was between ourselves and UKPC, then the ‘terms’ would be deemed unfair as the charge cannot possibly represent a genuine pre-estimate of UKPC losses. With reference to The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, under group 5 paragraph 1(e)** “Terms may be unfair if they have the object or effect requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionate high sum in compensation“. This would allow owners or managers of the Designated Parking Space to only charge a penalty which accurately reflects the loss of income they suffered arising from that ‘breach’. As we currently hold the right to the exclusive use of the Designated Parking Space, the grand total for this loss to UKPC can be precisely £0.00.

Having taken advice regarding this matter we are now issuing this, our formal warning, instructing you to cease and desist with the above behaviours. If we have cause to contact UKPC about any 'Parking Charge Notice' (or other similarly named) tickets issued from the date of this letter onwards, including handling any letters, or any contact whatsoever concerning any ‘Parking Charge Notice’ (or other similarly named) tickets on any vehicles connected to the above property whilst utilising the Designated Parking Space, we may seek an injunction and may sue for damages for distress caused by the crime of harassment.

The only exempt contact will be one written communication; the acknowledgement of this Letter before Claim and a Formal Response or Undertaking to cancel any current or future charges on the grounds outlined above, OR any evidence which proves that UKPC currently hold any level of jurisdiction over the usage of the Designated Parking Space which supersedes the details outlined in the property underlease. This communication is to be served to us before 14/05/16 only, communications received after this date will be considered as harassment and the above action will be taken.

Yours sincerely,


XXXX
(Tenant)

XXXX
(Underlease Holder)

Quentin

JFK1980 wrote: »

So, I took the advice above from Coupon-mad and composed the below letter dated 14th April. I have since received one letter from UKPC demanding payment due to unsuccessful POPLA appeal and, in a short space of time, a further two letters from DRP notifying me of intended court action.

You can safely ignore drp letters.


See this thread:


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5035663

JFK1980

Thank you, and apologies for not searching before posting, I guess I just wanted to post my progress as well.

Redx

IGNORE anything unless its an LBC or an actual MCOL from Northampton (or Salford)

IGNORE the debt collectors completely (they are powerless)