UKPC -Driver Parked in a retail carpark space which thought was a space

Quentin

The whole process is fully explained in the newbies FAQ thread.

If popla fails you are in the next phase of debt collectors letters. But read the newbies FAQ thread!

dmo84

Looks like my POPLA appeal didn't go in my favor, received an email, am I going to have to pay the £100 charge? they are asking me to provide comments within 7 days of the evidence.

[FONT=&quot]Your parking charge appeal against UK Parking Control Ltd.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]UK Parking Control Ltd has now uploaded its evidence via our portal. This is now available for you to view by clicking here[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on the evidence uploaded by UK Parking Control Ltd.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Please note that these comments must relate to the grounds of appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA, we do not accept new grounds of appeal at this stage.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Any comments received after the period of seven days has ended will not be considered and we will progress your appeal for assessment.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If you have any issues with the evidence uploaded by UK Parking Control Ltd such as being unable to view it online, please contact POPLA immediately so that we can look to rectify this as soon as possible.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Yours Sincerely,

POPLA Team[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ET6104/003[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When I login there is some attachments, then a long 33 page PDF including images, they said they had sent a letter but I had not received any?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]On 15th July 2017, our warden issued a parking charge to vehicle registration XXXXXX at XXXXXXX. The parking charge was issued because the vehicle was parked outside of a marked bay.
The Parking Charge amount was £100.00, reduced to £60.00 if payment was received within 14 days.
An appeal was received from the self-nominated driver XXXXXXXX on 15th July 2017, to which the appeals department investigated. The basis of this appeal was XXXXXX believed this was a marked bay where his vehicle was parked. Our signage clearly shows that a bay is marked with two white lines on either side of the vehicle and [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]XXXXXXXX[/FONT] will have been aware of this as he is parked next to vehicles which are parked correctly within marked bays. Therefore UKPC rejects XXXXXXXX claim that he was unaware that his vehicle was not parked in a clearly marked bay.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]XXXXXXXX[/FONT] has stated he was not parked out a marked bay for more than 2 minutes. There is no requirement in law for private parking operators to offer a grace period before issuing parking charges. Being a member of the BPA, however, UKPC must adhere to the BPA Code of Practice’s condition that drivers should be allowed ‘a reasonable grace period’ before issuance (Section 13.2) (prior to Amendments in Oct 2015.) Reasonableness, of course, differs according to contravention type and circumstance and does not detail how long a reasonable grace period is. UKPC does offer such a reasonable grace period with all of its parking charges. It should be noted that issuing a charge itself takes some time, which may be considered as a reasonable grace period in certain circumstances.
In his POPLA case, [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]XXXXXXXX[/FONT] has stated he is appealing this case as the registered keeper of the vehicle. However as [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]XXXXXXXX[/FONT] has nominated himself as the driver in his initial appeal to UKPC, this statement is irrelevant due to [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]XXXXXXXX[/FONT] status as the driver of the vehicle during the contravention.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]XXXXXXXX[/FONT] has questioned UKPC's authority to manage parking in this site and has wished to see a redacted copy of our contract with the landowner of the site.The contract that UKPC has with the owner or occupier of the land (which authorises UKPC to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of Parking Charges in respect of parking of the vehicle on the land) contains a confidentiality clause and as such we are not in a position to provide the contract to Mr xxxxxx As a member of the Approved Operator Scheme, UKPC are audited by the British Parking Association to ensure that we have all relevant contracts in place. UKPC will provide the court with a copy of this in full if they require it, or can provide a written statement to this effect from those party to the contract. We are also more than happy to provide confirmation to the independent assessors that we are authorised to manage parking at this site. We can confirm that parking management at this site has been contracted to UK Parking Control Ltd. However, in accordance with the BPA code of practice section 22.16b, please find attached a compliant witness statement signed by the property management company of this site stating they have transferred the authority for managing the parking in this site to UKPC. Therefore, we believe this is sufficient evidence that UKPC has the authority to manage the parking in this site and issue parking charges to vehicles that contravene the terms and conditions for parking in this site, such as [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]XXXXXXXX[/FONT] claims there is no signage or markings informing him that the area where his vehicle is parked is contravening the terms and conditions of the site. . I would, advice as the appellant has parked on private land and not council land, road markings are not a requirement. Furthermore, there is sufficient entrance signage and signage informing [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]XXXXXXXX[/FONT] that there are terms and conditions for parking in this site and it is the driver responsibility to read these terms and conditions for parking and adhere to them. All of our signage is fully compliant with the guidelines set out within the BPA Code of Practice and we reject the notion that it is in any way unclear or ambiguous.
In designing our signs we have considered the findings of the Beavis vs Parking Eye case which stated that the amount of the parking charge should be adequately brought to the attention of the motorist as well as the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice. We have achieved this by outlining the key Terms & Conditions that a motorist should be aware of before remaining at the location at the top of the signage, then giving some more specific detail about the location Terms before having a separate section detailing the implications of a breach of the Terms & Conditions, including the amount of any PCN charge. We contend that this is a logical progression through the sign that any visitor to the location would be able to follow, and as a consequence we contend that the amount of the parking charge has been more than adequately brought to the attention of the motorist.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]XXXXXXXX[/FONT] has claimed there is no contract that can be made between the driver and the parking management company due to the inadequate signage in this site. The Parking Charges issued by UK Parking Control Limited (“UKPC”) are levied on the basis of a contract with the driver, as detailed on the signage displayed in the car parks. The signage sets out the terms and conditions of parking under which a driver is authorised to park, be that by pre-payment of a parking tariff, or by parking only for a maximum period of time, or by adhering to other terms and conditions (such as being parked within a marked bay), and that a Parking Charge will be payable if the conditions of parking are not met by the driver. We ensure that signage containing the terms and conditions of parking is ample, clear, visible and in line with the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice to ensure the driver is bound by them when they enter and remain on site, so that all users of the car park are obliged to follow these terms and conditions of parking. It is settled law that a driver is deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of parking by the act of parking in the car park.
Furthermore, as we have stated before all of our signage is fully compliant with the guidelines set out within the BPA Code of Practice and we reject the notion that it is in any way unclear or ambiguous.
As we have answered each point of [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]XXXXXXXX[/FONT] POPLA case, we reject the notions that he was unaware of the terms and conditions for parking in this site and contravened these terms and conditions for parking.
There are sufficient signs warning drivers that parking outside of a marked bay may lead to a Parking Charge being issued. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]XXXXXXXX[/FONT] vehicle was parked outside of a marked bay and consequently the Parking Charge was correctly issued.
A letter was sent to [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]XXXXXXXX[/FONT] informing them of our decision on 10th August 2017.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]there is more to the PDF.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]However I have recieved no letter for this!
[/FONT]

DoaM

Oh for goodness sake! This is ALL TO BE EXPECTED ... what you do now is read through their evidence and rebut each point they make.

Coupon-mad

Looks like my POPLA appeal didn't go in my favor,

What on earth makes you think that, just because UKPC sent some drivel evidence? That's not the decision from POPLA, it's the other side's effort at evidence, for you to comment on.

Everyone gets that, a fully expected part of the process, now you comment on what you spot.

dmo84

This is all I have for the response so far i am not sure what else to put in it




POPLA Appeal Response Comments


Date : XXXXX
Reference No : XXXX
Registration Number : XXXXX
POPLA Reference No : XXXXX


Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

In Response to UKPC on this matter.

“On 15th July 2017, our warden issued a parking charge to vehicle registration XXXXXX at XXXXXX Retail Park. The parking charge was issued because the vehicle was parked outside of a marked bay.”


I disagree with this statement, the car was parked within a marked bay, I have clearly shown this in pictures, the car was parked within a defined brickwork colored bay, deceiving to the eye as being a parking space. – I have looked over several car parks since, and if there is a zone which looks like a parking bay, they have clearly defined it as a non-parking space, either by wording, or lines showing that you are no allowed to park there. It is up to the responsibility of the car park operators to ensure that you are not intending for cars to park there, and given that it looks like a zoned parking space, you have not correctly taken the actions to clearly show this.

“An appeal was received from the self-nominated driver Mr XXXXXX on 15th July 2017, to which the appeals department investigated. The basis of this appeal was Mr XXXXXX believed this was a marked bay where his vehicle was parked. Our signage clearly shows that a bay is marked with two white lines on either side of the vehicle and Mr XXXXXX will have been aware of this as he is parked next to vehicles which are parked correctly within marked bays. Therefore UKPC rejects XXXXXX claim that he was unaware that his vehicle was not parked in a clearly marked bay.”


Again I disagree on this, the wording on the signage, is not within clear readable distance, and there is not enough signs to cover most of the area of the car park, the wording is small and unclear, also, the style and wording of the whole sign is white, your wording should include “marked in the white lines” to make things clearer. Your wording simply says “parked in a marked bay” to which the vehicle was. As mentioned previously I suggest that these bays that are marked, should be lined out or wording specifying that it is not a valid space.



“Mr XXXXXX claims there is no signage or markings informing him that the area where his vehicle is parked is contravening the terms and conditions of the site. . I would, advice as the appellant has parked on private land and not council land, road markings are not a requirement. Furthermore, there is sufficient entrance signage and signage informing Mr XXXXXX that there are terms and conditions for parking in this site and it is the driver responsibility to read these terms and conditions for parking and adhere to them. All of our signage is fully compliant with the guidelines set out within the BPA Code of Practice and we reject the notion that it is in any way unclear or ambiguous.”

This statement I disagree with this, there are not enough signs within the entrances and within distance of the spaces, also not worded correctly, again the car was parked within a marked bay, not marked out as a non parking space.

“There are sufficient signs warning drivers that parking outside of a marked bay may lead to a Parking Charge being issued. Mr XXXXXX vehicle was parked outside of a marked bay and consequently the Parking Charge was correctly issued.”


The car itself was parked within a marked bay.



“A letter was sent to Mr XXXXXX informing them of our decision on 10th August 2017 “


Where was this letter sent? As I have received no letter.

dmo84

I have been to a different carpark this morning where they have used Yellow lines criss cross in bays which may look like spaces but have defined them as a place that you are not supposed to park (this is in disabled area)

There is bays for normal parking, again spaces which are deceiving to be spaces are marked out by white criss cross lines


Is there any law I can chuck at them to say that they should be using markings ?

Coupon-mad

The comments should be very short bullet points; anything longer will not be read.

Is there any law I can chuck at them to say that they should be using markings ?

No, there is no law on private land markings. And you can't throw in anyhing not in your POPLA appeal.

dmo84

Submitted my comments, its been unsuccessful, I guess I will have to pay then, I am not in a position to pay until 12 days time if I cant go any further with this.- It will be £100 then






Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
**********

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the driver remained on the site, not parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the signage at the site is insufficient and doubts the operator has the landowner’s authority to issue charges. They state they were parked in a marked bay.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked at the site. The operator has provided photographic evidence of signage, together with a site map. The signage states: “PARKING CONDITIONS APPLY … Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 Parking Charge … All vehicles must be parked only within marked bays” The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice provides guidance on signage. From Section 18.1: “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice: “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. Keep a record of where all the signs are. 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.” After reviewing the signage, I consider the signage was compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice. From the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the driver had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions. I note one of the signs is clearly facing the appellant’s vehicle at the time of the parking event. The states they were parked in a marked bay, and had mentioned the surface brickwork. I do not accept this. The photographic evidence shows the bay markings do not extend to the area where the appellant parked. The appellant doubts the landowner’s authority to issue parking charges on the site. The operator has provided a witness statement signed by an associate director for and on behalf of the landowner. Section 22.16b of the BPA Code of Practice states: “Witness Statements were introduced as an alternative to the provision of a full/redacted landowner contract within a POPLA Evidence Pack and as such these Statements should be signed by a representative of the landowner or his agent.” This means POPLA can accept a witness statement as an alternative to a contract as evidence of landowner authority. Section 7 of the Code sets out the requirements of the operator to provide evidence that it has authority to issue charges for parking events on the land. Section 7.1 states: “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.” Further, Section 7.3: “The written authorisation must also set out: The definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined Any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation Any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement Who has the responsibility for putting up and maintain signs The definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.” Therefore, I consider the operator’s evidence satisfies the requirements of Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. By entering the car park, the driver agreed to the site’s terms and conditions. By remaining on the site without being parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space, the driver parked in breach of the terms and conditions. Therefore, I can only conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.

nosferatu1001

Or you coudl see if they actually try court

Thats a shocking decision, again.

Can you put paragraphs in it?

dmo84

To be honest I would rather not have to go down court route, its too much hassle, may aswel just pay the £100, iv got enough problems at the moment and dont really have time to sort out going through court...