UKPC PCN for motorcycle

IgorIwo95

Hi all,

I am new to forums in general so I hope I don't make any rookie mistakes when posting.

I have only read the "NEWBIE" thread AFTER making a 1st appeal to UKPC so I most likely done it the wrong way. It was rejected without addressing any of the points I made in the appeal.

I feel my case is more specific in that the PCN was stuck to a motorcycle and I already made a first appeal, hence the thread.

Here's what happened:

I parked my motorcycle on the pavement on private land at my university (Brunel, London). I received a PCN stuck to the fuel cap of my bike from UKPC for "not parking in a designated bay or space".

Here is the appeal I sent them:

"I would like to appeal the PCN detailed above because I believe that it has been issued wrongly and unfairly.

Firstly, the PCN was issued to a motorcycle, not a car, different rules apply to motorcycle parking on the premises of Brunel University London where the fine was issued. Motorcyclists are not allowed to take up car bays. Motorcyclists also cannot display any permits or pay and display tickets on their bikes as there is no secure way of doing so. Stating the reason of PCN as "not parked in a bay" is simply not good enough as motorcycles are encouraged not to take up the bays for cars.

Secondly, there is no designated motorcycle parking area, some motorcycles are parked in the bicycle area however there is no dropped kerb for a motorcycle to enter that area and there are no signs to indicate that it is indeed a motorcycle parking area. Without a clear designated area for motorcycles, you shouldn't receive a PCN for parking out of the way in some bushes. I would understand if a car received a PCN for parking on a pavement, since cars are meant to use bays and pay for parking, however a motorcycle that has free parking and is parked without obstructing anything, should not receive a PCN.

Since motorbikes are permitted to park for free at Brunel University London and there are no instructions or designated areas for where to park, I feel cheated to have received a PCN for parking my motorcycle out of the way without obstructing paths, entrances or car bays.

Additionally, the PCN was inside a sticky bag and stuck on top of a metal petrol tank cap cover on my motorbike, that is not a great place to place a sticky substance as it can damage the surface and remove paintwork for which the parking attendant would be liable. You wouldn't stick a PCN to the painted areas and the petrol tank on a car as to not damage the paint, you would stick it to the windshield. I therefore don't understand why the PCN is was stuck to the painted area on my motorcycle."

They replied with the usual "clearly visible signs" and 35 days to pay £60. It has been 29 days since this appeal rejection letter.

What to do? Have I messed up in my 1st appeal? Should I bother to POPLA or just pay up?

Thanks so much

Fruitcake

It is not a fine.

Unfortunately you have given away the driver's details instead of appealing as keeper which gives you more protection from the scammers. However, all is not lost.

You should appeal to PoPLA.

What happened when you complained to the landowner?

Use the template appeal points from the Post 3 of the NEWBIES thread plus any relevant additional points from the POPLA Decisions thread.
These will include, but are not limited to, Inadequate signage, Not the Landowner, No Standing to issue charges in their own name.

Take pics of the signage especially around the entrance to the car park and where the bike was parked.
UKCP signs don't meet the requirements of the BPA CoP, and the images of signs they use are generic, not the ones from the car park where the alleged event took place. You rubbish the signs, show that they are not even from that car park, and query everything they say.

You should also purchase an old style tax disc holder to keep parking tickets safe when you park. This was the method from forty years ago when I was a biker. Anyone with a bike had a second holder by the front wheel. People who drove cars with folding windscreens would do the same.

Keep parking tickets like you would any other receipt. The scammers have up to six years to try court (five in Scotland) if you ignore this.

IgorIwo95

Firstly, many thanks for the quick reply

The landowner is a University and not a retailer or similar, so they don't really care about my loyalty or happiness as their customer, they seem tired of students violating their parking rules all the time hence they hired UKPC. If you attempt to complain about a fine to them they just tell you that it's not their business and that you should deal directly with UKPC.

As to signage, the picture they provided as "photographic evidence" with their fake fine is actually of a sign from the car park where it happened. That sign is on a wall about 5 meters from the motorcycle and about 6ft off the ground, I don't know how to post the picture of the sign here, I don't think I can yet.

Thanks for the advice about the tax disc, I didn't think of that.

Considering the signage supposedly seems legit, do I even have a case with POPLA?

Thanks

Grimble

Six foot off the ground, how can you read the small print? You always have a case for POPLA.

Fruitcake

IgorIwo95 wrote: »

Firstly, many thanks for the quick reply

The landowner is a University and not a retailer or similar, so they don't really care about my loyalty or happiness as their customer, they seem tired of students violating their parking rules all the time hence they hired UKPC. If you attempt to complain about a fine to them they just tell you that it's not their business and that you should deal directly with UKPC.

As to signage, the picture they provided as "photographic evidence" with their fake fine is actually of a sign from the car park where it happened. That sign is on a wall about 5 meters from the motorcycle and about 6ft off the ground, I don't know how to post the picture of the sign here, I don't think I can yet.

Thanks for the advice about the tax disc, I didn't think of that.

Considering the signage supposedly seems legit, do I even have a case with POPLA?

Thanks

Legit? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

The is UKPC you are talking about. A company that was caught doctoring time stamps on their photographic "evidence" and was suspended from getting keeper details for a while in 2015.
I doubt that the signage conforms to the requirements of the BPA CoP.

You can post pics by uploading them to a web hosting site such as tinypic or photobucket, then post the URL here but change http to hxxp.

IgorIwo95

Thanks for the advice.

Yeah I suppose nothing is legit with them.

I copied the URL of the image which they provided straight from the UKPC website, hopefully it works:

hxxp://ukpcappeals.co.uk/resources/Temp/YqCAJTkc1344063001557Gj64xxtYqCAJTkc/10250759YiSoKwRptSAT.jpg

Note that this sign is about 6-7 foot off the ground and there are some big bins underneath in front of it so you can't walk right up to the wall that it's placed on.

Also it's been 29 days since their appeal rejection letter and 77 days since the "offence", do I still have time to contact POPLA???

Coupon-mad

https://www.ukpcappeals.co.uk/resources/Temp/YqCAJTkc1344063001557Gj64xxtYqCAJTkc/10250759YiSoKwRptSAT.jpg

Try that POPLA code on Sunday URGENTLY (put it in on the POPLA website and see if it lets you in) as I think it will still work until Monday. Please confirm!

You have left this very late. UKPC sue some students at Brunel, you know.

So you MUST get a decent POPLA appeal in if the code still works on Sunday, so do NOT write one from scratch and do not try to fill in the boxes like 'I didn't see the signs'.

Instead go to the NEWBIES thread post #3 and pick up the POPLA template appeal points from there:

- unclear signs - and add a line or two about this sign being unreadable except the words 'no unauthorised parking' and embed that picture into your word document at that point to illustrate the appeal, make it look pretty and not a wall of words. Add things like this to the template wording which is already deliberately LONG, do not shorten the template but ADD to it:

Note that this sign is about 7 foot off the ground and there are some big bins underneath in front of it so a driver can't walk right up to the wall that it's placed on and cannot possibly read any more than 'NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING'. There is no question and no evidence that the driver was not 'authorised' - they were fully entitled and indeed students are encouraged by the University NOT to take up a parking bay when parking a motorbike. Not only that, any parking charge is unreadable (is it 10p? £10? £100?) and none of the three pictorial icons that can just be made out by squinting at the sign, appear to suggest anything about motorbike parking.


- no landowner authority (yes you always include that one!)

- no NTK was served (may as well try that one even though you kind of talked about who parked, your first appeal is vague enough...perhaps)

Show us the POPLA appeal you create first. We will comment and help.

IT MUST BE SUBMITTED/UPLOADED AS A PDF UNDER 'OTHER' ON THE POPLA WEBSITE ON SUNDAY IF THE CODE WORKS STILL!

Coupon-mad

igoriwo95 wrote: »

thanks for the advice.

Yeah i suppose nothing is legit with them.

I copied the url of the image which they provided straight from the ukpc website, hopefully it works:

Hxxp://ukpcappeals.co.uk/resources/temp/yqcajtkc1344063001557gj64xxtyqcajtkc/10250759yisokwrptsat.jpg

note that this sign is about 6-7 foot off the ground and there are some big bins underneath in front of it so you can't walk right up to the wall that it's placed on.

Also it's been 29 days since their appeal rejection letter and 77 days since the "offence", do i still have time to contact popla???

Did you get the popla appeal in then??

You can fling one together from templates in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread, if the POPLA code is still working on Monday but I think after that it will stop.

IgorIwo95

Thank you so much for the advice.

I put together a POPLA appeal, the POPLA code they gave me still worked this morning and I'm planning to submit the appeal as soon as possible.

As suggested, I want to pass the draft through you first.

I have it in PDF format, I don't know if the pictures are 'embedded' but I put pictures into the word document and then saved it as a PDF, I don't know if this embeds them.

Here is my appeal pasted as text only, there are pictures in the PDF version (obviously):


• The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.!

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

Picture

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.!

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

Picture

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and!'agreement on the charge'!existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

Here is the only sign in the proximity of the motorcycle as presented by the parking operator’s employee at the time of the incident, and the view of the sign which the driver would have had when parking the motorcycle as seen in the picture:

Pictures

Note that this sign is about 7 or 8 foot off the ground and there are some big industrial waste bins underneath in front of it so a potential driver can't walk right up to the wall that it's placed on and cannot possibly read any more than 'NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING'. There is no question and no evidence that the driver was not 'authorised' - they were fully entitled and indeed drivers are encouraged by the landowner NOT to take up a parking bay when parking a motorcycle. Not only that, any parking charge is unreadable (is it 10p, £10 or £100?) and none of the three pictorial icons that can just be made out by squinting at the sign, appear to suggest anything about motorcycle parking. The illegibility, size and position of the sign behind the bins causes it to not immediately stand out as a parking notice or ‘contract’ but rather as a notice aimed at the waste bin users.

For arguments sake, disregarding the bins obstructing the sign, anything below the words 'NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING' is simply impossible to read from a standing position below the sign. Please compare this sign to the one from the Beavis case example mentioned earlier and try to identify the amount of the charge on this sign, compared to the clear, contrasting and large £85 symbol on the sign from the Beavis case.

Here is the same sign as it would be seen by a driver from a standing position in the evening, note that the sign is not lit up in any way and easily blends in with the environment on the wall of the building:

Pictures

There are no further signs along the route from the main entrance gate of the car park to this parking position. In fact, there are no signs to warn the driver of any parking conditions or ‘contract’ until the car park is already entered through the barrier. Here is a photograph of the main entrance barrier as approached by a driver, assuming that they entered through this way and didn’t walk their motorcycle onto the premises through a side entrance:

Picture

The next photograph shows the view of the very first parking sign a driver would see:

Picture

Note that the driver would have to already be inside the car park in order to read the sign, and that the sign is not at all lit up and (perhaps purposefully) placed on the opposite side of the road as opposed to the left side where a driver would naturally look out for any signs. This sign does not mention any amount or parking charge at all.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.!!

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

Link

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

Link (and picture of chart)

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and!want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

Link

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters.!Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.!

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''!

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':!

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.!
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact!'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106'!about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

Link

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

• No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.!!

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).!!

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 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


• A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.


This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:

6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’

The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.

Fruitcake

That looks OK to me, but I'm not an expert.

I wouldn't wait too long before submitting it. I think if you have saved a Word doc as a pdf, then it should save the images as they appear on the Word doc.
If you can open the pdf and see the pics I think it should be OK.

IgorIwo95

Do I write anything in the 2000 word limit box on the POPLA website or do I leave it completely empty?

And does the PDF document need some introduction and conclusion?