POPLA - can this ruling be right?

Coupon-mad

JFC77 wrote: »

Yes the not insigniicant sum of £101.50 is deemed a reasonable charge by UKPC and POPLA indirectly.
UKPC offered to settle the case for £15 when i raised the issue of the reg plate being incorrect but i wasn't paying them a penny for their mistake. I thought i had a no lose case. Not according to POPLA!

The offer of £15 even shows their culpability. On UKPC letter regarding their offer of settlement they stated that if you appeal through POPLA and lose you owe us a ton basically!

Seems completely unfair to me.

Yes we know/we agree.

And a Judge would be more likely to agree with you, as advised, there is a persuasive case to support your defence now. Stop chewing it over, you do NOT have to pay. Come back to this thread if/when you get a SCS Solicitor letter or a claim, do not panic, that will be your FAIR hearing.

JFC77 wrote: »

I pursued the POPLA appeal thinking it was a stonewall invalid PCN.
Now you are suggesting i pursue through the courts??!
Any idea how much that will cost?
Many thanks

Wow, you need to read other court defence threads. This is not a biggie, no huge costs - you pay nothing if you win (and you can claim YOUR costs if you win and maybe more). We are not telling you to take it to court but we are saying let it go there if UKPC do!

YOU don't 'pursue it' through the court, UKPC might and you simply defend (and it is easier than you might think). Costs you zero to defend a claim, no risk of a CCJ as long as you do not ignore it, nothing terrible. Only pay if a Judge tells you to in the end (a typical lost case costs defendants £150 instead of a £90 or £100 PCN so not a huge risk at all and certainly a life experience - ask Lamilad - read his thread!).

We are saying this is defendable in which case - should you win - you can claim your costs. UKPC cannot add on huge solicitors costs by the way and you need no solicitor for this. Indeed a counter-claim might well be in order and it may be worth you setting this out now, be proactive and tell UKPC your position that you intend to counter-claim (DPA breach plus disregard for your rights of way/easements under your lease)*.



*hence why I told you about the Jopson case and to read it - told you what to search for and this is why others here are advising you to dig your tenancy agreement or lease out. Do you own the flat or rent it?

pappa_golf

JFC77 wrote: »

Yes the not insigniicant sum of £101.50 is deemed a reasonable charge by UKPC and POPLA indirectly.
UKPC offered to settle the case for £15 when i raised the issue of the reg plate being incorrect but i wasn't paying them a penny for their mistake. I thought i had a no lose case. Not according to POPLA! The offer of £15 even shows their culpability. On UKPC letter regarding their offer of settlement they stated that if you appeal through POPLA and lose you owe us a ton basically!

Seems completely unfair to me.

might be , but not under currant UK law!

fisherjim

You seem to be treating this charge as a legitimate fine or penalty it is not, and scammers like UKPC make up their own rules as they go along all of which are in their favour.

POPLA is paid and appointed by the trade body that UKPC belong to so don't expect any fairness there.

No one is suggesting you take this to court, they are saying one of your options is to wait and see if UKPC take it there, where a judge can decide a proper outcome.

JFC77

I rent from a lease holder. Don't think theres anything on my tenancy agreement re parking but i'll ask the landlady if she can give me her lease agreement. See if theres anything useful on there.

pogofish

You made the mistake of appealing to them and basing that appeal on fact - With a wrong reg, they are highly unlikley to get your details from the DVLA - and they can't go back and change anything after the fact, whilst POPLA don't really deal in fact. The arguments that work best with them are dealt with in the Newbies Sticky.

What you have now is a choice of sitting it out and see if they go to court, which is a pretty small chance or depending on what your lease says, taking it up with your landlord/their agents

Coupon-mad

And if UKPC now try this as a court claim not only will you have all the usual arguments plus the 'wrong VRN' error and the various Consumer Laws supporting your position (= unfairness) but also the persuasive ruling at Appeal, decided by a Senior Circuit Judge.

Search the board for 'Jopson persuasive' as it is new for this month, added to our ammo for ANY resident block of flats car park and plenty more, besides.

No need to worry but keep everything, be aware UKPC do try a few claims but this one would be extremely defendable. No CCJ happens if you defend a small claim from this bunch, as long as you follow court deadlines & defend/respond - which we help with, giving advice and winning most cases.

Next time don't be so quick to contact/appeal when the VRN is wrong. Even with a 'real' Council PCN the advice here would be do NOT appeal if a VRN is wrong on a PCN! Stay quiet. Then any subsequent follow up letter can then be objected to and appealed by the KEEPER.

JFC77 wrote: »

I rent from a lease holder. Don't think theres anything on my tenancy agreement re parking but i'll ask the landlady if she can give me her lease agreement. See if theres anything useful on there.

It's useful if you were never made aware of any parking charge in this free car park. The Jopson case covers tenants and visitors - or at least can be argued in favour of any resident because you have rights that supersede any terms on signs.

The_Deep

For more information on these scammers read this

• UKPC are former clampers who have been involved in quite a number of sordid scams, for example
  
  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
  
  http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=63597
  
  They were bested by a Winchester barrister
  http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**
  
  They were involved in a large scale scam which resulted in a DVLA suspension
  
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html
  
  And then of course there was Tracey Kiss
  
  http://www.tracykiss.com/product-reviews/my-ukpc-parking-charge/

• .

Half_way

First of all, dont even think of paying up, read all the above and you will see why.

Secondly you need to ask yourself, why are you displaying a permit to park? to answer this question you need to forget what any signage says and look at your lease/rental agreements, these will override anything put up by some Parasitic Parking Company (PPC)
As you should be able to guess the lease/rental is key here

Next, you need to look at protecting yourself from any action, you should never sign anything in regards to receiving a permit, and you should never pay for a permit ( lease rental agreement permitting - as you should be able to guess this lease/rental agreement is critical)

Running on the assumption that you have an overriding right to park in your space, just as you have a right to use your toilet after 10pm...

You should inform the management agency for the housing/flats that you:
are being harassed by their agents, UKPC, you have a right to park in that space granted to you by the lease/rental agreement which overrides any thing that a private parking company belonging to an unregulated industry may try and impose ( include some of the cases in The Deeps post above)
You have only been displaying a permit at your own discretion and as a courtesy to whatever entity is checking for permits, if requested you will return the permit to whom it belongs as you have no further requirement for it.
You object in the strongest terms possible to your space/property being sub let out to a profit making company for business purposes
you are withdrawing all implied rights of access to your property for the purposes of so called parking management.
The management company are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agents and you expect the management company to inform their agents to stop pursuing this , to issue you a full apology and to provide undertakings that this will never happen again.

Theres plenty more, but you need to provide the details of your lease/rental agreement.

In case you didn't know:
you (may) rent a flat/house form a landlord ( or own it)
There is a management company in place tasked with looking after the area for the benefit of the residents

The management company has bought in a PPC to infest the car park ( and probably litter the walls with signs that have no planning permission or advertising consent)

The management company are jointly and severely liable for the actions of their agents, ie the PPC

The PPC may operate a self ticketing system, this is where an appointed busybody who is also a resident will have a packet of tickets, an a camera/app on their phone, this person may also receive a bounty for every ticket issued/paid for

The parking industry is completely un regulated, the BPAltd is a private members club and not a regulatory authority, POPLA is another arm of the BPA and POPLA is funded by the BPA ( there are questions about POPLAs independence) , the IAS/IPC is even worse.

JFC77

I have emailed the mgmt co today, explaining the situation and asking them for a copy of the agreement with ukpc explainibg it will form an important part of my appeal when/if it goes to court. I also asked them to confirm whether the reason for appointing ukpc is to penalise residents/valid permit holders or to stop non residents parking illegally . I am a tenant of a leaseholder landlady and i've asked her for her lease agreement again explaining what has happen and why i need the lease agreement.

JFC77

Theres nothing on my rental agreement re parking. Its implicit i have a space as a resident. The landlady gets a parkingpermit from the mgmt co and fwds it on to me. Ive asked her for her lease agreement to see if theres anything re parking.