Received car parking ticket from UKPC in own gym car park

antonyjonsparky

Hello all,


I am a member of a local gym, where carparking is included into the membership. The gym has its own private car park surrounding the gym. On Saturday I visited the gym for an hour, came out and discovered a little yellow ticket on my window screen for £100.


The gym is located in the heart of a busy town, and there are UKPC signs up advising that only gym members can park for up to 4 hours at a time. The car park is quite run down, pot holes uneven ground, and always exceptionally busy.


Anyway- the ticket has a comment on it that states "not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space".
I admit I parked at the end of a row of cars at the far end of the car park- I tucked my car away in the corner (cars usually park where I was) and wasn't obstructing any other vehicles. However, I wasn't completely in a bay as there wasn't a full bay available. As I said, the car park is a bit of a sorry state and its not clearly marked out anyway.


I disputed the ticket on the UKPC website, but predictably they've advised I need to pay (now a reduced charge of £60).


I spoke with the gym manager who was incredibly unhelpful and they basically told me there's nothing they can do. They have apparently tried to dispute claims before for other members and UKPC won't accept this?! I understand they're the landover so feel they're just being unhelpful for the sake of it (I am going to leave this gym!)


Anyway, my question is should I pay the charge? I really feel that its unlawful that UKPC are trying to charge me for this when the use of the car park is included in the gym membership!


Any advice would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks,
Ant

Umkomaas

Have you had a 10-digit POPLA code with their rejection letter?

Half_way

Do not pay, I have a feeling the gym manager had lied to you.

JayEdgerHoover

I know everyone here says don't ignore, but I'd honestly bin that. I got a ticket at and LU station for "not parking correctly within the lines" but I hadn't even bought a ticket!! :')

maybe say the manager said you could park there or something or say that people park there all the time and never get tickets

beamerguy

OLSFARNS wrote: »

I know everyone here says don't ignore, but I'd honestly bin that. I got a ticket at and LU station for "not parking correctly within the lines" but I hadn't even bought a ticket!! :')

maybe say the manager said you could park there or something or say that people park there all the time and never get tickets

That is bad advice and the ticket should not be ignored

That is why so many people run into trouble because they ignored it

Umkomaas

beamerguy wrote: »

That is bad advice and the ticket should not be ignored

That is why so many people run into trouble because they ignored it

Absolutely agree BG. Seems OLSFARNS has plenty of 'get out of jail' stunts, some of which might just be getting close to jail time with the right judge on a wrong day!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5569512

antonyjonsparky

Thanks everyone- yes I do have the POPLA ten digit code; I will write an appeal to them based on the newbie template advice.


Just can't believe they can get away with fining me even though I'm a member of the gym!


Thanks,
Ant

Umkomaas

antonyjonsparky wrote: »

Thanks everyone- yes I do have the POPLA ten digit code; I will write an appeal to them based on the newbie template advice.


Just can't believe they can get away with fining me even though I'm a member of the gym!


Thanks,
Ant

Make sure you flash up your draft here for critique before submitting.

Don't lose sight of your POPLA appeal deadline as you get stuck into the seasonal festivities. It's your last chance (as the gym won't help you) of kicking this firmly into the long grass.

cajef

OLSFARNS wrote: »

I know everyone here says don't ignore, but I'd honestly bin that. I got a ticket at and LU station for "not parking correctly within the lines" but I hadn't even bought a ticket!! :')

maybe say the manager said you could park there or something or say that people park there all the time and never get tickets

Ignore this stupid advice, especially as they appear to be encouraging people to lie and make things up as a get out.

antonyjonsparky

Hi all,





I have written up my POPLA appeal draft this afternoon, any feedback on this would be greatly appreciated!








POPLA APPEAL - xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Parking charge notice xxxxxxxxxx (issued by UKPC on Saturday 12th December 2016 at 09.15am).


Vehicle Registration : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



I should start this appeal by explaining the situation of how I was, as a keeper of the vehicle NX52 GZB issued with a £100 parking charge notice (PCN) from UKPC. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and this appeal will probe that I am not liable for the parking charge.
The parking charge was issued at Car Park on 12th December 2016 at 09.15am by attendant NO 13459 with the comments “not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space”.





I’m the genuine customer of the principal (xxxxxxxx gym).



The grounds for this appeal are the following:





1. No genuine pre-estimate of loss


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


3. Flawed landowner contract and irregularities with any witness statement


4. Breach of UTCCR 1999 and CPUTR 2008


5. The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there was no valid contract formed between UKPC and the driver.



1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss
This car park is free and there is no provision for the purchasing of a ticket or any other means for paying for parking. There was no damage nor obstruction caused so there can be no loss arising from the incident. UKPC notices allege "not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space" and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event. Given that UKPC applies the same fixed charge to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging, or trifling as in my case), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event.

2) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
UKPC do not own the land mentioned in their Notice to Keeper and have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. Even if a contract is shown to POPLA, I assert that there are persuasive recent court decisions against UKPC which establish that a mere parking agent has no legal standing nor authority which could impact on visiting drivers.

3) Flawed landowner contract and irregularities with any witness statement
Under the BPA CoP Section 7, a landowner contract must specifically allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name in the courts and grant them the right to form contracts with drivers. I require UKPC to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner as I believe it is not compliant with the CoP and that it is the same flawed business agreement model as in Sharma and Gardam.

If UKPC produce a 'witness statement' in lieu of the contract then I will immediately counter that with evidence that these have been debunked in other recent court cases due to well-publicised and serious date/signature/factual irregularities. I do not expect it has escaped the POPLA Assessors' attention that UKPC witness statements have been robustly and publicly discredited and are - arguably - not worth the paper they are photocopied on. I suggest UKPC don't bother trying that in my case. If they do, I contend that there is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract terms, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner, or signed it on the date shown. I contend, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, that this should be disregarded as unreliable and not proving full BPA compliance nor showing sufficient detail to disprove the findings in Sharma and Gardam.

Indeed I submit (and as I have raised the issue, UKPC must now disprove) that their Contract or User Agreement with Morrisons is likely to contain a secret 'genuine customer exemption' clause which in fact exempts Morrisons customers like us from these spurious charges. Not only have UKPC not allowed my initial appeal that the driver and passenger were genuine Morrisons customers, but at the outset, when they allege a contract was formed, (which is denied) UKPC failed to alert the driver to that secret clause. Which leads me to the next point:

4) Breach of UTCCR 1999 and CPUTR 2008
I contend that a secret term which leaves a customer at a severe disadvantage as they are unaware of it, is a 'wholly unreasonable' contract term and a 'misleading omission' which is in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPUTR) 2008. UKPC are taking unconscionable advantage of myself by demanding a 'charge' for alleged 'breach', holding me liable and yet not informing the driver at the point of any alleged contract, about the secret exemption clause that I believe exists in their contract with Morrisons. Nor did they refer to it when rejecting my appeal which told them that we were customers who were delayed by illness in the store. UKPC as agents, have no lawful excuse to pursue this wholly unfair and disproportionate charge when I believe their own contract with the retailer specifically allows paying customers to be exempt. UKPC are seeking to impose punitive sanctions that are not required at all by any 'legitimate interest of the principal'.

CPUTR 2008 Part 2, Prohibitions
Misleading omissions
6(1) A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—
(a)the commercial practice omits material information,
(b)the commercial practice hides material information,

and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

Office of Fair Trading 'Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999'
''It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law...''
Test of fairness
''A term is unfair if:
Contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers.
5.1 Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer.
9.2 ...terms of whose existence and content the consumer has no adequate notice at the time of entering the contract may not be binding under the general law, in any case, especially if they are onerous in character.''

If they refute this then UKPC must explain their position to POPLA, produce the unredacted section of the contract and/or User Manual and show how they consider they can override the express wishes of the principal when Parking Eye are mere agents. And explain how their secret 'exemption clause' meets the test of fairness if they do not share it with the party they hold liable. Such terms must be in the signage they are relying upon to have formed the alleged contract at the outset.

5)The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there was no valid contract formed between UKPC and the driver
Isubmit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of any consequences for breach. Further, because UKPC are a mere agent and place their signs so high, they have failed to establish the elements of a contract (consideration/offer and acceptance). Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) UKPC have no signage with full terms which could ever be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival. The only signs are up on poles with the spy cameras and were not read nor even seen by the occupants of the car, who were there at the invitation of Xercise4less, to enjoy free parking as expressly offered to customers in the principal's advertising and website.



6. With all this in mind, I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform UKPC to cancel the PCN.



This concludes my POPLA appeal.


Yours faithfully,

Half_way

How much time have you spent on that? seems OK at first glance, however you should go back to the gym manager and insist that He cancels this
(do not take your eye of the POPLA time limits though)

Dear Gym manager, Your recently told me that there is nothing you can do about a parking charge notice issued by your agents UKPC parking.
As principal you are jointly and severely liable for the actions of your agents UKPC parking. I am again telling you that you should now instruct your agents UKPc parking to cancel this parking charge, as I do not appreciate having my time wasted in dealing with this issue.
Should you chose not to instruct UKPC to cancel i will have no other option than to consider charging you ( as principal) £19 per hour or part thereof for dealing with this issue.
As a gesture of goodwill, I am prepared on this instance to forgo my costs upto now on the condition that you instruct your agents UKPC parking to cancel this charge, and provide re-assurances that this will not happen again , please find attached a time sheet detailing how much time i have spent dealing with this together with my costs so far.