UKCPS - Observed Leaving Site

Untitled_red

Hi All,

I am at the rejection letter stage from UKCPS after receiving a 'PCN' for being observed to leave the site. I've read the thread concerning this and have made the mistake of appealing with mitigating reasons which included attending an appointment off-site but returning within 30 minutes and then going to the Costa (copy of receipt sent also) within the retail park that I had parked in. I've effectively admitted that I was the driver also, perhaps I should have looked for this forum earlier but that is bye de bye now.

My question is what are my options from this stage? Could I simply ignore them and wait for the barrage of threats or should I send another letter asking for proofs and evidence? However that may seem counter productive given the first appeal letter.

Any opinions or thoughts would be most welcome.

All the best.

Fruitcake

Leaving site is an uphill struggle for a parking scammer. They will have no proof that it ever happened, or that their signage applies to each and every occupant of the vehicle.

The NEWBIES thread tells you what to do after the initial appeal to an IPC member, that is, ignore everything now except real court papers.

That's it. There is nothing else you can do.

Untitled_red

Thanks Fruitcake,
If it were to get to court would the burden of proof still be on them despite me having admitted in my appeal letter that I had left the site?

KeithP

Untitled_red wrote: »

Thanks Fruitcake,
If it were to get to court would the burden of proof still be on them despite me having admitted in my appeal letter that I had left the site?

Did all the occupants of your car leave the site?

Please don't answer that question here, but think about that in relation to the last part of Fruitcake's second sentence.

waamo

Untitled_red wrote: »

Thanks Fruitcake,
If it were to get to court would the burden of proof still be on them despite me having admitted in my appeal letter that I had left the site?

The burden of proof is always on the claimant. It is up to them to show that on the balance of probabilities what they say is correct.

A big problem they have is that in a small claim they are obliged to minimise their losses. If they saw you walking off why didn't they shout you to come back thus minimising any loss? That point has actually been explained to ppc's by judges in court but never seems to sink in.

trisontana

The UKCPS' signs I have seen only refer to the "driver". How are they going to prove who that driver is? And what if one person drives into the car park and another person drives out?

beamerguy

trisontana wrote: »

The UKCPS' signs I have seen only refer to the "driver". How are they going to prove who that driver is? And what if one person drives into the car park and another person drives out?

+1

UKCPS must prove beyond doubt their claim is valid

DoaM

beamerguy wrote: »

+1

UKCPS must prove beyond doubt on the balance of probabilities their claim is valid

Come on beamer - you should know this by now ... civil claims in the county court don't require the same burden of proof as criminal cases.

Even so, how they could prove a driver left site is beyond me ... did the operator photograph the driver exiting the vehicle AND leaving site? If yes, why didn't the operator mitigate the situation to avoid the breach (as is their legal duty)?

beamerguy

DoaM wrote: »

Come on beamer - you should know this by now ... civil claims in the county court don't require the same burden of proof as criminal cases.

Even so, how they could prove a driver left site is beyond me ... did the operator photograph the driver exiting the vehicle AND leaving site? If yes, why didn't the operator mitigate the situation to avoid the breach (as is their legal duty)?

Fully aware of that but ....... even on the balance of probabilities, as you say, how could they prove it
Would a judge enter into "the balance of probabilities" ???

mrt72

I'm fighting the same thing as this, with the same firm......below is the link to the transcript of VCS vs Ibbotson, also known as the "Toothbrush case" (read it and you'll see....and laugh ) as it was shared to me. Apparently no PPC has taken a "driver leaving site" case to court since this one in 2012.

The driver here admitted leaving site too, but it still didn't help the PPC. The point about mitigation of loss is highlighted here beautifully.

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

Hopefully you'll feel better after reading this!

beamerguy

mrt72 wrote: »

I'm fighting the same thing as this, with the same firm......below is the link to the transcript of VCS vs Ibbotson, also known as the "Toothbrush case" (read it and you'll see....and laugh ) as it was shared to me. Apparently no PPC has taken a "driver leaving site" case to court since this one in 2012.

The driver here admitted leaving site too, but it still didn't help the PPC. The point about mitigation of loss is highlighted here beautifully.

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

Hopefully you'll feel better after reading this!

Thank you for refreshing this one.