Uk cps appeal rejected

greengrass2

Hi all,

I was issued with a Parking Charge Notice on 17/04/2016 in The Plough Inn, Hykeam, Lincoln, by UKCPS LTD for apparently parking on a private land.

Before doing the right research I (wrongly) decided to appeal on the 19/04/2016 enclosing photographic evidence of several points to support the grounds of my appeal, mainly the fact that their ticket has been issued against the IPC code of practice especially in these two points:
2.1 and 2.2. This then refers to further information on page 22 and the need for Entrance signs - these signs are missing in the photos I enclosed.

Now I have received letter of (course) rejection of my appeal by UKCPS, with date 25/04/2016. As they don´t belong to BPA anymore (although their logo is on the letter), it seems that I can only appeal through IAS, and for that looks like I don´t need any code.

After contacting BMPA, British Motorists' Protection Association, they have suggested me one thing via email and another via phone:

- Email says to go ahead through IAS as I should win on the basis of the signs. In this case, what else would you advise me to add on my appeal, please?

-Phone volunteer states that going through IAS, which will be on the UKCPS side, will reassure them on feel more confident about my case if they reject my appeal too. Therefore, it is better to ignore as it is quite unlikely that they will take it to court.

Please, could you give me any advice on whether to pay, to appeal through IAS (in this case, could you please provide support on how to write this appeal) or ignore?

Thanks a lot.

beamerguy

greengrass2 wrote: »

Hi all,

I was issued with a Parking Charge Notice on 17/04/2016 in The Plough Inn, Hykeam, Lincoln, by UKCPS LTD for apparently parking on a private land.

Before doing the right research I (wrongly) decided to appeal on the 19/04/2016 enclosing photographic evidence of several points to support the grounds of my appeal, mainly the fact that their ticket has been issued against the IPC code of practice especially in these two points:
2.1 and 2.2. This then refers to further information on page 22 and the need for Entrance signs - these signs are missing in the photos I enclosed.

Now I have received letter of (course) rejection of my appeal by UKCPS, with date 25/04/2016. As they don´t belong to BPA anymore (although their logo is on the letter), it seems that I can only appeal through IAS, and for that looks like I don´t need any code.

After contacting BMPA, British Motorists' Protection Association, they have suggested me one thing via email and another via phone:

- Email says to go ahead through IAS as I should win on the basis of the signs. In this case, what else would you advise me to add on my appeal, please?

-Phone volunteer states that going through IAS, which will be on the UKCPS side, will reassure them on feel more confident about my case if they reject my appeal too. Therefore, it is better to ignore as it is quite unlikely that they will take it to court.

Please, could you give me any advice on whether to pay, to appeal through IAS (in this case, could you please provide support on how to write this appeal) or ignore?

Thanks a lot.

Were you a patron of the pub at the time or do you frequent it. ?
If yes, then a complaint to the pub requesting it be cancelled is your first step. If you were/are a patron and paid money, you can bring this to the attention of http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/
... with a warning to visitors of the pub.
Trip Advisor is another good source together with Facebook and Twitter to warn others to avoid the pub.

You clearly contacted UKCPS too quickly. UKCPS probably take no notice of an appeal, this is how the scammers work.
IPC/IAS is a defunct organsiation with the same thought patterns as their members like UKCPS.

By all means appeal to the IAS BUT FIRST, READ the NEWBIES THREAD on here so you can see your options.


With this particular pub, UKCPS could be their downfall and added to the long list of pub closures. Something the landlord needs to be aware of !

Get yourself a long drink, sit down and read all about UKCPS thanks to the Parking Prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=UKCPS

And if you want a jolly good laugh, scroll down to see
UKCPS accuse defendant of 'Internet Forum Scam'

No guesses to whom this "trev" bod refers to ?

You really must get to the landlord of this pub quickly before the public boycott him

greengrass2

Hi,
Thanks for your reply.
The pub is now closed (it was whenthe ticket was issed as well), so there is no one that can be contacted there.
It looks like someone has hired this space privately.
Does this change anything, please?
Thanks a lot.

The_Deep

This company appears to have a problem with v.a.t.
If, as they claim, this is contractual charge, it is a fee for parking, and thus vatable. Have they accounted for vat on their paper work?


Ask them for a vat invoice. If they ignore your request, (which they probably will), it is a useful stick with which to beat them if it ever gets to court.

More reading here



https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5033796=

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5195437

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5087925=

If you suspect tax evasion report it to the fraud hot line here

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5087925&highlight

greengrass2

Hi
Thanks for your reply
How do I ask for VAT? Phone call or writing?
Thanks

pappa_golf

greengrass2 wrote: »

Hi
Thanks for your reply
How do I ask for VAT? Phone call or writing?
Thanks

you can ask and ask but you will not be given.


2 opinions on the IPC appeal


1: don't bother


this is because you know that 80% of appeals will not even be looked at , and automatically failed


2: appeal , as per 1: however the appeal reasons you get will be so funny that a judge would laugh his head off , and a IPC member is frightened of ridicule in court, (they get enough practice with gladstones representing them




I suggest 2: , please publish your reply under the jokes section on this website

beamerguy

greengrass2 wrote: »

Hi,
Thanks for your reply.
The pub is now closed (it was whenthe ticket was issed as well), so there is no one that can be contacted there.
It looks like someone has hired this space privately.
Does this change anything, please?
Thanks a lot.

Ah, OK, you then need to find out who ?
If it is private does the new owner have planning permission for signage .... very doubtful, check with the council.

beamerguy

pappa_golf wrote: »

you can ask and ask but you will not be given.

And that's when you advise HMRC, Customs and Excise

There is NO getting out of it

pappa_golf

beamerguy wrote: »

And that's when you advise HMRC, Customs and Excise

There is NO getting out of it

yes they are vat registered , can you find their number?

Coupon-mad

After contacting BMPA, British Motorists' Protection Association, they have suggested me one thing via email and another via phone:

- Email says to go ahead through IAS as I should win on the basis of the signs. In this case, what else would you advise me to add on my appeal, please?

-Phone volunteer states that going through IAS, which will be on the UKCPS side, will reassure them on feel more confident about my case if they reject my appeal too. Therefore, it is better to ignore as it is quite unlikely that they will take it to court.

The BMPA is right on both counts and there is no simple answer. Yes you could appeal to IAS but you are likely to lose. That does NOT mean you pay but a loss at IAS is possibly more likely to buoy them into pushing you and you will feel you 'have no case' and might be more likely to pay up.

That's why many here say DO NOT ACTUALLY APPEAL, go under the radar now. Come back if they try a (fairly rare) court claim.

Before doing the right research I (wrongly) decided to appeal on the 19/04/2016 enclosing photographic evidence of several points to support the grounds of my appeal, mainly the fact that their ticket has been issued against the IPC code of practice especially in these two points:
2.1 and 2.2. This then refers to further information on page 22 and the need for Entrance signs - these signs are missing in the photos I enclosed.

A breach of a Code of Practice doesn't win an IAS appeal. And are entrance signs required in smaller car parks or those not 'open' for general public parking (as opposed to restricted permit car parks)? Not sure but a breach of a CoP in itself will not win. The barista will say 'I am satisfied there were signs up' because they are always satisfied with what the scumbags say and treat the appellant like something they've scraped off their shoe.

You also need lots of evidence for an IAS appeal and will still likely lose.

However, what you can do in order to see their 'prima facie case' (evidence) is to 'register intent' to appeal to the IAS, which doesn't need an appeal up front. Then have a look at the cards they declare in their evidence. Keep screenshots and copies of all letters because I doubt you will be able to access the IAS system for long if you don't proceed to appeal.

In most cases I would then STOP and ignore them but TBH this is discussed every day on every IAS thread and you'd learn so much more just by searching the forum for the keyword 'UKCPS' and reading what's been said in more details in thread after thread, week in, week out.

The entire forum is here with everything already covered already, every other day the same things are discussed so for the want of a decent keyword search you are missing out right now.

greengrass2

Thanks a lot for your replies.

I have now contacted the landowners which are Lincoln Co-Op and they say they can not do anything about it and they feel UK CPS will take it to court. However, I am convinced to go ahead as I have photographic evidence that is on my side and I am thinking on making the IAS appeal:

Please find my text attached as well as links to the photos to see if you could advise me on that.

Thanks a lot in anticipation:

Site Signage not compliant with Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practice (COP):
First mentioned in page 10 of the IPC:
Points 2.1 and 2.2: signage doesn’t meet the minimum standards required in size and specifically it fails use the required language to identify PCM as ‘the creditor’.
The sign fails to comply with the ‘Contrast and Illumination’ section of Schedule 1; specifically it is inadequately lit (in fact, not lit at all) and not made of retro reflective material.

The IPC code of practice states the following on page 22:
Entrance Signs should:
a) Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land
b) Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms and conditions.
c) Identify yourself (where you are a limited company. This should be by reference to your full company name, your company number and the jurisdiction within which your company is registered).
d) Contain text appropriate to the position of the sign and the relative position of the person who it is aimed at. It is obvious that a sign facing the road will be unlikely seen by the motorist. Furthermore, a signal fixed below a Pub signal can never be considered as easy to see.

28.2 Entrance signs should:
a) Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land
b) Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms and conditions.
c) Identify yourself (where you are a limited company. This should be by reference to your full company name, your company number and the jurisdiction within which your company is registered).

Signs should, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to a site. Otherwise the signage within the site must be such as to be obvious to the motorist. Neither one nor the other are taking place here as you can see in the photos enclosed. The only two signals you one can find there are on the following photo, both facing the road and not the driver and not visible at all.

Be clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site. I enclose a photo where you can see as the signals are facing the road and not the driver. They also should contain text appropriate to the position of the sign and the relative position of the person who it is aimed at (a signal facing the road and not the driver is unlikely to be seen).

Repeater Signs
You are required to provide a sufficient number of signs on each site commensurate with its size and other characteristics to ensure that any parking conditions are adequately brought to the attention of the motorist. There is one only signal on the front that faces the road.

The size of text on a sign will be determined by a number of factors such as the position of it, to whom it is aimed and the information that it needs to convey. Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign. In the following photo you can see as this sign facing the road is not matching all these criterias.

Contrast and illumination
The colours used on signage should be such that the contrast between the background and the text makes the wording on the sign clearly legible. Black text on a white background or white text on a black background will provide a suitable contrast. Other colour combinations
can be adopted at your discretion but you should avoid combinations which might cause difficulties for the visually impaired.
If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. You will need to ensure all signs are readable during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge. There is no light in this place to be able to see the signals at night.

1. Please, I request photographic evidence showing that the car was parked there when the PCN was issued.
2. According to my rights and if you decide not to withdraw the PCN after reading this letter I will submit an N1 form to a Court Hearing Centre. Should they decide I am right you will have to face the costs of that.
3. The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by UKCPS. The loss is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because UKCPS have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include business running costs nor the IAS fee). I will expect you to provide evidence to counter this for IAS to adjudicate should you decline my second appeal

4. I do not believe that the operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give UKCPS any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, UKCPS’s lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of your charge? I’m happy to let IAS adjudicate on this should you decline my second appeal

5. I contend that UKCPS are only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS -v- HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model. I’m happy to let IAS adjudicate on this should you decline my second appeal and would expect UKCPS to provide evidence to the contrary

6. I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to UKCPS. I’m happy for IAS to adjudicate on this matter should you decline my second appeal and expect UKCPS to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code

7. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between UKCPS and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that UKCPS can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

8. The parking charge notice is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor . The operator is required to specifically "identify" the creditor not simply name them on it .This would require words to the effect of " The creditor is ..... " . The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. This they have failed to do and thus have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.

http:i1262.photobucket.com/albums/ii604/pandorino/C4_zpsncni81nw.jpg
http:i1262.photobucket.com/albums/ii604/pandorino/c1_zpsjle3zvqv.jpg
http:i1262.photobucket.com/albums/ii604/pandorino/C2_zpsl7hhp0la.jpg
http:i1262.photobucket.com/albums/ii604/pandorino/C5_zpsvn0oawiu.jpg
http:i1262.photobucket.com/albums/ii604/pandorino/C3_zpsispo44ss.jpg

Please notice I removed the // in the links to be able to post them here.
Thanks