UKCPS Driver left site.....ongoing!

Umkomaas

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.

Essential reading for all 'leaving the site' cases.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231)

mrt72

I've read bits of VCS v Ibbotson before over the last few weeks but never the full transcript until now. It's crazy, why are PPCs still using "driver left site" as an infringement after that? Relying on people not knowing and just stumping up, it must be?

Umkomaas

mrt72 wrote: »

I've read bits of VCS v Ibbotson before over the last few weeks but never the full transcript until now. It's crazy, why are PPCs still using "driver left site" as an infringement after that? Relying on people not knowing and just stumping up, it must be?

They certainly are. No 'leaving the site' case has ever appeared at court level (to my knowledge) since Ibbotson. By the same token, I've not seen even a POPLA case get that far.

This is one of the biggest cons of the entire private parking con market.

mrt72

OK, I'm just after a bit of advice on my complaint letter, I think I've found out who the car park in question is actually supposed to serve (the PPC has not at any point divulged on whose behalf they're charging me despite my asking them), what's the best approach with this? It's not a retail outlet, but someone last year put a review up in which they had the same issue that has lead to my daughter's NTK, so this won't be their first complaint. What's the best way to complain when no-one has actually declared it's their car-park? Ask if it is theirs and request they rein the PPC in? Or just write to them assuming it's their land?

Coupon-mad

Ask if it is theirs and request they rein the PPC in? Or just write to them assuming it's their land?

A mixture of both.

Start by saying your research suggests they own/run the site and as such, you believe they are the party responsible for allowing the notorious ex-clampers (banned by the DVLA by sanctions for 'ghost ticketing' last year), UKCPS to maraud around customers' vehicles, seizing on any old excuse to churn out as many 'PCNs' as possible to make a dirty money profit at the expense of innocent people.

Equally, you know that if they are that party, then they can certainly cancel unfair PCNs for genuine patrons. Then explain why the PCNs are unfair, without saying who the driver was.

Finish by asking them to reply (within, say 14 days) since you are being harassed by debt collectors because you are the keeper of the car and realise that UKCPS are nasty and litigious, refusing to cancel PCNs and not offering POPLA, only a 'kangaroo court' known not to follow the usual evidential process that would be the case in a court of law.

Then add that if they are not the party who contracted with this ex-clamper, please could they pass your complaint to the party responsible for UKCPS' conduct (not UKCPS themselves, which is utterly pointless).

State clearly at the start that this is a formal complaint, not an 'appeal' and is not a matter for UKCPS to handle themselves, since no consumers who have carried out even a modicum of due diligence research (as one would expect the landowners should have done) have any confidence whatsoever, in what MPs this year called a 'cowboy' industry.

mrt72

Thanks CM

mrt72

This is my first draft of my complaint letter to who I believe is the landowner of the car park concerned, can you please let me know if I'm on the right lines, with particular regard to the tone.....too much?

"Dear Sir / Madam

I am writing in complaint; I am the registered keeper of a vehicle that has received a parking charge notice while parked in a car park that appears to be associated with yourselves, and so you or your landlords must be responsible for the “parking firm” UKCPS issuing parking charge notices to unsuspecting drivers. If this is the case then yourselves or your landlords are also in a position to have these tickets cancelled, and I request that you assist as soon as possible.

I have tried to contact the firm concerned, UKCPS, to no avail. I have requested further details as to the precise nature of the incident they are calling “driver – passengers left site”, as well as confirmation as to on whose behalf they have issued this charge, which incidentally is a ludicrous £100. They have not responded to any of my queries apart from to send second letter which appears to be a template, threatening such things as court action and debt collectors. My points raised in my correspondence have been completely ignored. This behaviour, demanding sums of money with no clear explanation as to either on what basis, and on whose behalf, is clearly unreasonable. Your business is not named anywhere in the correspondence; it appears UKCPS are collecting for themselves.

My research has lead me to discover that someone has already highlighted a similar issue, while reviewing your business on NHS Choices in January 2016, and that a response apparently from yourselves states:

”We have asked the landlords and parking company to make these signs clearer to help minimise the risk of this happening.”

This has not happened; the font on the signs, having since studied them as they are not immediately legible, is the nearly the smallest on the board and impossible to read on entering the car park, or without standing directly underneath it. There is also old signage from what appears to be a previous parking firm highlighting a £25 charge on exit, and a defunct barrier post, which gives the car park the more obvious appearance of being unattended. The car park is not gated and at first glance even appears to be a thoroughfare, not a car park.

More galling than anything though is that there clearly was an attendant, as he ticketed my vehicle without actually engaging the driver in any way at the time; the attendant was not visible and clearly ensured he was not seen. The company’s remit is surely to protect the car park on behalf of their client, and ensure there are adequate spaces available. Instead the representative of the PPC has engaged in predatory behaviour, which is against the IPC Code of Practice, in attempting nothing more than to make ridiculous amounts of money for UKCPS which they then try to enforce via vague and threatening business practices.

UKCPS is a notorious firm who only last year were banned from using the DVLA for such malpractice as “ghost-ticketing” (ticketing a vehicle, photographing the car with ticket, then removing the ticket, so a driver would be initially unaware he’d been penalised), leading them to move from the BPA to the IPC, a body whose appeal system is known to be grossly unfair and heavily loaded on the side of the PPCs, and their methods have clearly remain as dubious, sly, threatening and underhand as ever.

Please reply within 14 days; as registered keeper I am expecting debt collectors’ harassment to begin shortly, such are the methods that UKCPS are widely known to employ, and have suffered enough stress and worry over this as it is. This is not a letter to UKCPS, they are not responding, this is a letter to yourselves asking that you assist in dealing with this matter. If however you are not the party that contracted with UKCPS, please pass this onto whoever is responsible for hiring them."

I haven't sent it yet.....

Herzlos

mrt72 wrote: »

Relying on people not knowing and just stumping up, it must be?

That's the entire PPC business model. Some significant percentage of people (usually those that need the money most) just pay up.

Lamilad

Presumabley your daughter had not told them either way whether or not she and/or her passengers actually did leave site

Can't see, even ukcps being stupid enough to pursue this one to court. But if they did it would be ripe for a DPA counter claim

Coupon-mad

Looks fine, apart from a factual error, UKCPS had already (long since) jumped ship from the BPA to IPC:

UKCPS is a notorious firm who only last year were - for two months, did they tell you? - banned from using the DVLA for such malpractice as “ghost-ticketing” (ticketing a vehicle, photographing the car with ticket, then removing the ticket, so a driver would be initially unaware he’d been penalised). [STRIKE], leading them to move [/STRIKE] This ex-clamper firm had already jumped ship from the BPA to the IPC, a body whose appeal system is known to be grossly unfair and heavily loaded on the side of the PPCs, and their methods have clearly remain as dubious, sly, threatening and underhand as ever.