UKPC parked in permit area without valid permit

peter129

I've read the newbies guide and have looked at a few threads, but nothing matched my current situation so here I am...

The supposed contravention took place on a private residential estate. My grandfather has a blue badge and was being dropped by to visit his great grand daughter. We didn't take notice of the small signage that was attached under a speed limit sign at the beginning of the road.

Oblivious to the parking restrictions that were in operation, we parked up and put the blue badge on the dashboard. Looking back now at the sign, there was mention of free permits available to blue badge holders at request. However the signage is only as big as the speed limit sign, but packs a huge amount of information on it. You would have to get really close to read it (as in stand right before it). So parking without this permit on display, we returned to a PCN slapped on the windscreen. Photographic evidence was also taken, all within a minute duration.

I think it's quite unfair to make disabled people go out of their way, physically, to request a special permit at the concierge's office. The road has no markings and there are a few parking bays which looked like they were reserved for permit holders. I did an Internet search on possibly appeal an unfair PCN and landed here. On the advice I read in the newbie guide, I ignored the PCN stuck to the car by the notorious UKPC and waited (live in England)...

A NTK letter and final reminder were sent in the post to the registered keeper's address. As advised on this forum, I sent an appeal based on the template provided and using their online system just before the end of the 28 day period.

I've not read a similar case on any forum so I'm not sure what to expect next. Any thoughts and advice would be greatly appreciated :A

Coupon-mad

You don't need a similar case because it all ends up the same. As this was a BPA firm - UKPC you say - then you will probably get some rubbish letter first begging to be told who was driving but you ignore that.

Then after you ignore the begging letter asking for 'further info' you will eventually get a POPLA code in a rejection letter.

Just search the forum for 'UKPC POPLA' to read recent examples. Please stop looking for similar circumstances because you don't need them; the circumstances are not relevant. The appeal will follow the usual pattern, signs not being readable etc (take a look NOW on UKPC's own website and click on 'photos' and see how unreadable the wording and £100 'charge' is, in their 'evidence photo' which I recommend gets copied into your POPLA appeal.

Have a look now for those photos on UKPC's website and search this forum for 'UKPC POPLA' and read a few, in readiness (only from 2016).

pogofish

There is nothing different at all here. Follow the advice in the Newbies Sticky and remember that Blue Badges actually mean nothing on private property.

Its the Equality Act that matters and once informed, the landowner/managing agent/concierge should be required to have this cancelled for you. They cannot impose special conditions on a disabled person over an able bodied - regardless of their having a badge or not!

If they don't oblige easily, then POPLA is your next stop with the advice outlined here.

peter129

With the aid of someone Minilopmad's post, I have prepared this for my appeal. Can I get any comments on this before I submit?
-TIA

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from UKPC on <date/time> at <street>. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
2) The signage was not readable so there was no valid contract formed.
3) No contract agreed and no legitimate interest nor clear signs.

1) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.

I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, UKPC must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right, which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land and to enforce charges in the courts in their own name.!

In addition, Section 7.3 states:

“The written authorisation must also set out:!

a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined!

b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement!

d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs!

e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.''

I therefore put UKPC to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between UKPC and the landowner, not another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to!UKPC.!

2) The signage was not compliant so there was no valid contract formed between UKPC and the driver.

Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.

Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires operators to fully comply with the following on entrance signage:

18.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use.

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 their vehicle. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.

18.4 If you intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, your signs must give ’adequate notice’. This includes:
• specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking
• adequately bringing the charges to the attention of drivers, and
• following any applicable government signage regulations.

18.10 So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there should be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign should be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists.

UKPC’s reason for issuing the parking charge was, “Parking in a permit area without displaying a valid permit”. As per Appendix B, “There must be at least one item from Group 1. In this instance, that would apply to text mentioning “Permit holders only”

Also as per Appendix B, “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times.” Contrary to this, you can see from UKPC photographic evidence, their signage required the use of flash on the camera – evident from the reflection and higher brightness coming from the lower part of photo. Also evident from the angle of the signage photo, is that the signage was above eye-level at standing height.

As you can see from UKPC’s photographic evidence, a blue badge was clearly on display so section 18.10 comes into effect which states that the terms should be visible without needing to leave the car.

If a driver can't read the sum of the parking charge (£100) nor the terms before parking - because the font is too small/the sign unremarkable and too high to read from a driver's seat - then they cannot have agreed to it. Also, a keeper appellant cannot be bound by inadequate notice of the charge either (POFA Schedule 4 requires 'adequate notice' of the sum of the parking charge, not just vague illegible small print, however near the car).

The well-known and often used 'Red Hand Rule' in the binding case of J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] applies, where Denning LJ stated: ''Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink...with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient''. In Mendelson v Normand and Thornton v Shoe Lane which were both about parking, this was also clearly stated by Denning LJ:

‘The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue…was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it – or something equally startling.’!

i.e. even if a document or notice is ostensibly under the nose of a consumer, the onerous term (e.g. £100 charge for not displaying a valid ticket in a car park) needs to be VERY explicit and prominent. Not hidden among small print on a sign, regardless of whether that sign is in the vicinity of the car. This was reiterated by Denning LJ in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] where he held that the courts should not hold any man bound by such a condition unless it was ''drawn to his attention in the most explicit way''. Small print on an illegible, unremarkable and pale sign on a wall is not enough and is not on a par with the very clear signs 'with the charge in large lettering' as was explored and vital to the decision in Parking Eye v Beavis.!

The signs are up on poles, higher than normal line-of-sight nor do they communicate full contractual terms & conditions visible to the occupants of the car. Any upright signs were not so prominent among all the other signage on site that they were ever seen by the occupants of the car. Any photos supplied by UKPC to POPLA will show the signs with the misleading aid of a close up camera and the angle may well not show how high the sign is. As such, I require UKPC to state the height of each sign in their response and to show contemporaneous photo evidence of these signs, taken at the same time of day without photo shopping, cropping or lighting aids (including lighting adjustments made by camera or software) and showing where the signs are placed.

3) No contract agreed and no legitimate interest nor clear signs.

I also wish to reference the Aziz test (as my case is different to that of Beavis v Parking Eye) in order to assess whether the imbalance arises ‘contrary to the requirement of good faith’, it must be determined whether the seller or supplier, dealing fairly and equitably with the consumer, could reasonably assume that the consumer would have agreed to the term concerned in individual contract negotiations.”!

And as for whether average consumers 'would have agreed' to pay £100 had there been negotiations in advance, the answer here is obviously no. There is no justification or negotiation that could have possibly have persuaded an average consumer to pay £100 to this parking firm. Their charge relies upon unseen terms, not clear contracts, and should not be upheld.

I have made my detailed submission to show how the applicable law (POFA) supports my appeal, which I submit should now be determined in my favour.

This concludes my POPLA appeal.

Yours faithfully,

peter129

Any advice at all?

peter129

I have already appealed and received my POPLA code. I am now preparing my submission for POPLA appeal. I have already read and NEWBIES sticky thread, but just want affirmation that there's nothing I've left out or could improve to my appeal letter.

The_Deep

This is not an honest company, they would struggle to convince a judge that you owe them money.

http://www.driving.co.uk/news/dvla-stamps-on-parking-company-that-cheated/

Just play letter ping pong with them until they throw in the towel.

Fruitcake

I doubt that UKPC's NTK was POFA 2012 compliant. Check the relevant requirements against the NTK and point out where they fail. For example, the NTK must state the period of (alleged) parking. Not just arrival time, departure time, but the actual time parked. If they haven't stated this period then they have failed to meet POFA.
For the NTK to be valid they must meet each and every one of the requirements, not just some of them.

So, you should check the NTK and add non-POA 2012 compliance as an additional point.

Have you complained to the landowner?

peter129

I'm familiar of past dishonest activities of this PPC. But does that have any bearing now in relation to my case? Is it worth even mentioning this in my POPLA appeal?

beamerguy

peter129 wrote: »

I'm familiar of past dishonest activities of this PPC. But does that have any bearing now in relation to my case? Is it worth even mentioning this in my POPLA appeal?

The whole scum industry is dishonest, your job with POPLA is to prove they are

peter129

Fruitcake wrote: »

For example, the NTK must state the period of (alleged) parking. Not just arrival time, departure time, but the actual time parked. If they haven't stated this period then they have failed to meet POFA.
For the NTK to be valid they must meet each and every one of the requirements, not just some of them.

That's an excellent point, the only one I think I missed that proves the NTK is invalid according to POFA 2012. I'm pretty sure the NTK I received only mentioned the time that the PCN was issued.