UKCPS Driver left site.....ongoing!

mrt72

Hi all....

I've been following this forum with interest since my daughter received an NTK from UKCPS, for the offence of "driver-passengers observed leaving site". A ticket was left on the windscreen of the car registered to her whilst parked.

She's received two letters now, and has responded to the first as per the sticky. The second answered none of the questions asked in the first, with particular regards to who they are contracted with, ie on whose behalf are they "working", and what evidence they have regarding the incident.

I have drafted a reply to this second one (possibly against the perceived wisdom?) based on another template of Coupon Mad's, just to ask again for the information I requested and advise them against pursuing this as they are.

So my questions at the moment are:

1) Am I right in thinking they are obliged to provide me with the information I've requested?
2) How do I go about complaining to the landowner when UKCPS won't disclose it? Do I research myself and write to who I think it is (I do have an idea but have not had it formally confirmed by the PPC as I said)?
3) What is the advantage to not disclosing the driver's identity? I have seen a few threads but it's the one aspect of all this I can't quite work out.

It's been a steep learning curve but I'm enjoying the education!

Umkomaas

1). No, this is an unregulated, unprincipled skimdustry.

2). No PPC will give you that information, because you then have half a chance of denying them some money. Think about it! Make Google searches, contact local council or Valuation Office to ask if they know. Ultimately you can pay the Land Registry 3 or 4 pounds for a definitive answer.

3). Because the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 gives a level of protection to the keeper, not afforded to the driver. A parking company has to get over a number of hurdles to have a legitimate claim against the keeper. Not many are 'good jumpers'.

mrt72

Thank you, just making sure I'm on the right lines. I thought a second letter asking again for some relevant information would at least help make a coherent paper trail, and demonstrate potential resistance, for later, should it be necessary.

I'm expecting this to go on and on in terms of letters received, I'm expecting debt collectors letters too, but have learned a lot through researching these things. I too once thought that it would mean CCJs and huge bills if it all went to court. Having learned the reality, I'm more than happy to oblige them if they want to pursue this; I might check things on here from time to time though.......

mrt72

I've just been double checking the NTK against information regarding the PoFA 2012, apparently the NTK is supposed to, among other things, declare the maximum additional costs that may be incurred, and discuss a discount for payment within 14 days? The NTK I have says it's "too late to pay the reduced charge", and that the "additional costs" are referred to as just that, with no specified amount. Is this right or am I confusing this with the NTD, eg the windscreen ticket?

I've also been looking again at the windscreen ticket and I suspect it may be ambiguous in a couple of points, the details on it are very sparse, the location is written in two words which, when Googled, come up as three locations across the city. There is a driver's description scribbled on it which consists of a two-word hair colour description. Do these issues threaten their case for keeper liability?

mrt72

Bumped because I've added a question......

Fruitcake

The POFA 2012 only refers to the NTK. The driver has no such protection which is why they should not be identified in most cases.

Forget the NTD description. They have absolutely no proof any occupant of the car left the site, and I doubt the signage states that Ts and Cs apply to all the occupants.

mrt72

Thanks Fruitcake; it seems to me from what I've been reading that "driver left site" cases are more reliant on the letters / intimidation / fear to produce payments than most other so-called transgressions in terms of the lack of evidence they actually have to enforce them.....

beamerguy

mrt72 wrote: »

Thanks Fruitcake; it seems to me from what I've been reading that "driver left site" cases are more reliant on the letters / intimidation / fear to produce payments than most other so-called transgressions in terms of the lack of evidence they actually have to enforce them.....

"leaving site" is a big struggle for any PPC.

Any ANPR would not show this. CCTV which is not used by
PPC's is strictly confined to authorities for proof

Maybe the warden acted as a predator, following you and taking
pictures.

If the CEO of the BPA, Patrick Troy was caught at a London
station taking pictures up womem's skirts, rest assured that
these parking cowboys will get up to anything

Prove it or prove it in court

Umkomaas

If the CEO of the BPA, Patrick Troy was caught at a London
station taking pictures up womem's skirts, rest assured that
this parking cowboys will get up to anything

Nice analogy BG. Like it.

Pervy Pat and his peepcam!

Herzlos

mrt72 wrote: »

Thanks Fruitcake; it seems to me from what I've been reading that "driver left site" cases are more reliant on the letters / intimidation / fear to produce payments than most other so-called transgressions in terms of the lack of evidence they actually have to enforce them.....

The only one I'm aware of that got to a court resulted in the PPC being told off by the judge and warned to "bring their toothbrush" if it happened again.

On top of all the contract stuff, you've then got to provide proof that someone left the site. If that proof is via a warden watching (you got a window ticket, so it was), there are 2 options: 1, they won't show up to the court and their witness statement is ignored, or 2, they will show up and you can ask them "if this was a contractual fee for leaving the site, why didn't you stop the driver and ask for the money?" or "if this is a breach of contract, why didn't you stop the driver to warn them about it? It's your responsibility to mitigate costs."

But I don't think any of these have seen a court room since the toothbrush case.

The_Deep

Leaving site is almost impossible to prove. How do they not know that the dtiver caught the bus home and someone shopping at the site drove the car home.

Also, they are required to do everything possible to mitigate their losses, Did the parking weasel warn you if the possible financial consequences of leaving the site? You can call him/her as a witness and cross examine him. They will invariably lose and have to pay his/her expenses.


Leaving site claims are a struggle for them in court.