UKCPS Driver left site.....ongoing!

mrt72

Thanks CM, I'll look into drafting another letter I think. I was never going to IAS don't worry

The new stuff is interesting, I've asked for information so far on who has actually contracted them (no response), and all relevant pictures (ones only of the car parked have been sent). No details of anyone leaving site, or what the "site" actually is in terms of boundaries has been disclosed in the three letters I've had.

I was shocked yesterday to discover that UKCPS have taken control of a supermarket car park near me now, I thought they were local to the Leeds area but they've spread out by about 120 miles to Spalding. Their signage is terrible, dense type and far too much information on there as usual......

mrt72

The following is the template provided by the Parking Prankster, and will form the basis of my letter as outlined above, is it still all relevant, it was posted about 2 years ago.....

"Dear Operator,

You have suggested we use the non-standard appeals service offered by the IAS. This service does not meet the statutory requirements for an ADR Entity. These requirements are listed in Schedule 3 of The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes Regulations 2015 and the requirements not met are as follows:


5c (c) its ADR officials, the method of their appointment and the duration of their appointment;
7(c) ensures that the parties may, within a reasonable period of time, comment on the information and documents provided under paragraph (b);
13. The body may only refuse to deal with a domestic dispute or a cross-border dispute which it is competent to deal with on one of the following grounds—(a)-(f)
4. The body has in place the following procedure in the event that an ADR official declares or is discovered to have a conflict of interest in relation to a domestic dispute or cross-border dispute—
3(a) ensures that an ADR official possesses a general understanding of the law and the necessary knowledge and skills relating to the out-of-court or judicial resolution of consumer disputes, to be able to carry out his or her functions competently;

5c fails because the names of the assessors are kept secret.

7c fails because the operator is allowed to introduce new evidence which the motorist is not allowed to comment on

13 fails because the service refuses to deal with disputes from vehicle keepers in Scotland. This is not one of the categories for which refusal is allowed

4 fails because there is a fundamental conflict of interest. The service is masterminded by Will Hurley and John Davies. These two people are also directors of Gladstones Solicitors who file large numbers of claims on behalf of operators. They therefore have a financial interest in motorists failing appeals so they can then lure operators into filing a court claim.

3(a) fails because the assessors do not understand parking related law or consumer law. I quote a recent decision which illustrates this, where the assessor decides that the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 do not have to be met for keeper liability to apply:


Non-compliance with POFA 2012. From the same case[1], Moore-Bick LJ said that the provisions in the POFA strongly supported the conclusion that Parliament considered it to be in the public interest that parking charges of this kind should be recoverable.
[1] ParkingEye v Beavis

Obviously an appeals service where the assessors decide that the statutes do not apply, and misquote case law in this way, is not fit for purpose. It is of course ironic that the assessor is saying that the very existence of POFA 2012 is proof that the actual requirements of POFA 2012 can be ignored. No wonder the assessors do not wish their names to be known.

I propose that instead of the IAS, we use an ADR Entity which does currently meet all the regulatory requirements right now. One such body is the Consumer Ombudsman available at this website http://www.consumer-ombudsman.org/

I propose we use this body. Please note that practice directions state the court may impose sanctions if you unreasonably refuse to use a form of ADR, or fail to respond at all to an invitation to do so.

Yours,

Motorist"

I've removed a bit about an investigation he mentioned as it may or may not have run its course by now. I'll obviously tailor this to my own case, it won't just be a "copy-and-paste" job, I just need to know it's basis is still sound, if anyone would be kind enough to confirm.....

andytaylor

A quick glance through their current rules would suggest that some of this is now out of date.

ETA:

mrt72 wrote: »

4 fails because there is a fundamental conflict of interest. The service is masterminded by Will Hurley and John Davies. These two people are also directors of Gladstones Solicitors who file large numbers of claims on behalf of operators. They therefore have a financial interest in motorists failing appeals so they can then lure operators into filing a court claim.

Hurley resigned as a director of the solicitors and Davies resigned as director of the IPC on the same day (27th May 2017). Coincidence?

Coupon-mad

3(a) fails because the assessors do not understand parking related law or consumer law. I quote a recent decision which illustrates this, where the assessor decides that the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 do not have to be met for keeper liability to apply:


Non-compliance with POFA 2012. From the same case[1], Moore-Bick LJ said that the provisions in the POFA strongly supported the conclusion that Parliament considered it to be in the public interest that parking charges of this kind should be recoverable.
[1] ParkingEye v Beavis

The above looks like a chunk (the bizarre decision) is missing.

mrt72

CM, the bizarre decision is the quote:

"Non-compliance with POFA 2012. From the same case[1], Moore-Bick LJ said that the provisions in the POFA strongly supported the conclusion that Parliament considered it to be in the public interest that parking charges of this kind should be recoverable.

[1] ParkingEye v Beavis"

according to the blog..... to be honest I was considering removing that part anyway, it seemed a bit unnecessary compared to the first half, which I thought had enough there to be going on with, although according to one website, Hurley resigned as director in May?

Coupon-mad

He did but you can work that in, anyway. The Prankster posted about it.

mrt72

OK this is my draft of my next letter.....

"Dear UKCPS,

Firstly my last letter dated xxxxxx was not a “further appeal” as you describe, it was a request for information. I do not understand how you have confused the two.


I also do not appreciate the direct threat, stated as follows: “if your further appeal is rejected and we do not receive payment UKCPS Ltd will not hesitate to take County Court action to recover the monies owed to us”. This has been duly noted and will be passed on the relevant authorities. Aside from the aggressive tone used, you have so far failed to provide any evidence to justify such a debt, and indeed on whose behalf you are “collecting”. It so far appears to be wholly for yourselves..


Once again, my requests have not been satisfactorily answered.


1) Who is the party that contracted with UKCPS Ltd for the provision of their services at the site where the alleged incident is said to have taken place?

2) Please confirm that the five photographs you sent me comprise ALL evidence, photographic or otherwise, as requested by myself as keeper, of the alleged incident.

3) I also now request details of the site boundaries as they do not appear to be displayed on the almost illegible, densely typed sign in your photograph, and details as to where on the “site” these can be found.



You have also suggested we use the non-standard appeals service offered by the IAS. This service does not meet the statutory requirements for an ADR Entity. These requirements are listed in Schedule 3 of The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes Regulations 2015 and the requirements not met are as follows:


5 (c) its ADR officials, the method of their appointment and the duration of their appointment.

7(c) ensures that the parties may, within a reasonable period of time, comment on the information and documents provided under paragraph (b).

13. The body may only refuse to deal with a domestic dispute or a cross-border dispute which it is competent to deal with on one of the following grounds: (a)-(f)

4. The body has in place the following procedure in the event that an ADR official declares or is discovered to have a conflict of interest in relation to a domestic dispute or cross-border dispute.


5c fails because the names of the assessors are kept secret.

7c fails because the operator is allowed to introduce new evidence which the motorist is not allowed to comment on

13 fails because the service refuses to deal with disputes from vehicle keepers in Scotland. This is not one of the categories for which refusal is allowed

4 fails because there is a fundamental conflict of interest. The service is masterminded by Will Hurley and John Davies. These two people are, or have been, also directors of Gladstones Solicitors who file large numbers of claims on behalf of operators. They therefore have a financial interest in motorists failing appeals so they can then lure operators into filing a court claim.


Even PPCs consider the IAS as unfit for purpose as Northern Parking Services revealed in an accidentally sent email in 2015 that declared a possible appeal by a motorist “futile”.



I therefore believe that the IAS is not a fit body to use and I propose that instead of the IAS, we use an ADR Entity which does currently meet all the regulatory requirements right now. One such body is the Consumer Ombudsman available at this website http://www.consumer-ombudsman.org/


I look forward to your response"

Can I please get some confirmation (or otherwise) that this is good to go? Thanks.

Coupon-mad

Maybe this, which is a fuller quote:

As you are fully aware, even IPC Parking Operators consider the IAS to be unfit for purpose; it is in the public domain that Northern Parking Services revealed in an accidentally-sent email in 2015, that an appellant could ''futilely go through the motions'' by using IAS. I am not prepared to waste my time on a kangaroo court, but I am happy to see you in court if you fail to undertake a truly independent and fair/unbiased ADR procedure.

The rest looks fine!

mrt72

Thanks as ever CM, adapted and going in the post

mrt72

Update on this one then, my daughter has had a call from the business on whose behalf UKCPS are supposedly operating, they are apparently going to "sort this out" with the PPC and have this overturned following receipt of the letter of complaint that's been sent. I'll be interested to see what the next letter from UKCPS contains; having seen the shocking photos they sent as "evidence" a part of me was hoping they'd pursue it, though I realise cancellation is the best result, if indeed it goes that way.