"Final Reminder"

SeaCreature

Vehicle received charge for "leaving site".


Appealed using the blue text on the sticky.


Appeal acknowledged by parking company by letter which also asked for name of driver. Ignored the request as I want a POPLA code.


Now have had "final reminder" threatening "debt recovery" despite outcome of appeal not yet known.


My instinct is to ignore and wait for outcome of appeal.


Correct ???

The_Slithy_Tove

Which PPC?

Assuming it's BPA, then send a complaint to the BPA that the PPC is not adhering to their code of practice, in that
1. They are pursuing debt collection activities while an appeal is still pending
2. They are meant to reply once and once only to your appeal, either accepting it, or supplying a POPLA code. No batting back and forth for extra info
3. They cannot demand the driver's details; if you have appealed as keeper, that is sufficient
4. If it's been more than 35 days since your appeal went in, then that's another failure

Umkomaas

Sounds a lot like UKPC. @OP, please confirm name of PPC so we can give you more targeted advice.

SeaCreature

Yep, it is indeed UKPC !

The_Deep

Do not ignore, engage them, ask questions, complain, report them to Trading Standards, complain to the landowner.


Make life as difficult as you can for them, cost them money.

Umkomaas

Do not respond to UKPC with any driver information - it's become UKPC's strategy over the past few months to try to wheedle the details out of the registered keeper after the initial appeal has been made.

If there is no response from the RK, UKPC will issue a rejection and a POPLA code without further prompting. They generally run right up to the wire in responding with the POPLA code - they have 35 days to meet with the requirements of the BPA CoP in this regard.

So just a question of waiting, but use that time profitably by doing plenty of research on POPLA appeals. Try a forum search on 'UKPC POPLA' and read posts from the past 3-4 months only.

SeaCreature

I have now had my initial appeal rejected, as expected, and I'm contemplating my next move. Any suggestions ?


However, the rejection letter is dated 41 days after my appeal was acknowledged (by e-mail) therefore exceeding the 35 days of the BPA CoP. Can I use this as ammunition ?

pappa_golf

yes the BPA need to be informed and UKPC sanctioned (again)

Umkomaas

SeaCreature wrote: »

I have now had my initial appeal rejected, as expected, and I'm contemplating my next move. Any suggestions ?

How did you get on in the last month with the research I suggested you undertake?

SeaCreature

I have drafted the following POPLA appeal for a 'leaving site' charge issued by UKPC (though I can't seem to upload the photos]. If anyone cares to review it, I would appreciate some feedback. I need to submit this week.

Re: Parking Charge reference number: xxxxxxxxx
Vehicle registration: xxxxxxxx
POPLA reference number xxxxxxxxx

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I wish to appeal the above parking charge from UKPC issued at xx:xx on xxx, xxxxx. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge.

1) No evidence that the occupants of the car and/or driver left the site.
2) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
3) The signage was not readable so there was no valid contract formed.


1) The said parking charge was given because the “vehicle owner / driver” were alleged to have “left the site”. The operator has provided no evidence to support this, nor that this is a contravention authorised by the landowner. I therefore put UKPC to strict proof of “leaving site” and to provide POPLA and myself with the evidence or cancel the charge.


2) No standing or authority from landowner to pursue charges.

It is my view that UKPC has no proprietary interest in the land in question and therefore have no automatic 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 and in order to comply with the strict requirements of section 7 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice (BPA CoP), UKPC must have assignment of rights from the landowner or their appointed agents in the form of a specifically worded written contract to pursue charges for breach in their own right, otherwise they have no authority to do so.

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 require UKPC to provide POPLA and myself with a full unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between UKPC and the landowner or their appointed agents as laid down in the above. It is my view that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA CoP and therefore does not allow UKPC to charge and issue proceedings for this sum and for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this, it will not be sufficient for UKPC merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement as these do not show other necessary details such as restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements with the landowner.

I also request that UKPC provide the specific details of the land boundary which applies to the car park in question.


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

Unreadable signage breaches section 18 in Appendix B of the BPA CoP. Section 18.2 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.”

This clearly requires that the entrance signs and the terms written on them must be in clear view of the driver without he/she having to turn away from the road ahead. The entrance to this car park has no signs that are in direct view of the driver as he/she approaches the car park entrance (see photo).


Section 18.3 requires operators to fully comply with the following on specific parking-terms signage:

“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.”

If a driver cannot read the sum of the parking charge (£100) before parking - because the font is too small and the sign too high to read from a driver's seat - then they cannot have agreed to it. The signs in this car park are placed in an elevated position on poles and, as such, are not sufficiently prominent that they can be seen by the occupants of a car. Indeed, the photo supplied by UKPC themselves (see below) clearly shows the angle of elevation of the signs and the inadequate font size used to describe the details on it. The Operator's 'parking charges' were therefore not 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.


This concludes my POPLA appeal. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Yours faithfully,

xxxxxx

Coupon-mad

You are the keeper and the driver has not been identified, so your first points should certainly be 'no keeper liability' (especially if there was no 'Notice to Keeper' posted to you in time or at all) and then 'the appellant has not been shown to be the individual liable for the charge'.

Both are written as templates in 'POPLA Decisions' near the end of that thread, posted by me there about 2 weeks ago. And you will also find a stronger version of some of the points you have already (in my viewing of the forum the templates are on page 79 of the POPLA Decisions thread, currently the penultimate page of it).

Show us draft #2 as we want it to be a winner and you may be short of time now (28 days or so from the rejection letter date).