Popla Appeal

alig1

A group of 11 were issued with parking tickets by UKPC in the car park adjacent to our local library on Monday 14 August 2017. We have been meeting at the Library for more than 25 years, and we have always been able to park behind the library, displaying the UKPC library visitor permits, issued by Library staff. When we left the library on 14 August 2017, all the members of the group found that they had been issued with parking tickets.
This appears to have arisen due to the fact that the Health centre had adopted a different system of electronic parking permits for the spaces on its side of the car park. However, this change had not been properly communicated.
• Nobody from UKPC or the Health Centre had informed Library staff of this change, so staff were unable to warn the visiting club members.
• Nobody had informed UKPC that the new system only applied to the Health Centre spaces, so parking tickets were issued to cars legitimately parked on the Library side.

When the members of the Club complained to the Library, the librarian sent in the registration numbers and asked for the tickets to be cancelled. She was told by UKPC that the tickets for cars parked on the library side would be cancelled, but those parked on the Health Centre were legitimately issued and could not be cancelled.

There was no warning whatsoever of the change in the rules, but it was made worse by the fact that some of those people who had been assured that their tickets had been cancelled subsequently received letters telling them that their penalty charges had been increased as they had not been paid.

Several people paid the fine. I appealed based on some of the guidance in the forum, i.e. Are UKPC acting on behalf of the owners of the land; a permit which has been acceptable for a decade was displayed; UKPC wardens have accepted the permit for a decade; no signage distinguishing between the library and clinic land is available(now irrelevant as they have penalised for parking on both sides) ; the head of the lbrary service called this entrapment and requested that all penalties be cancelled. POPLA have now given me 7 days to respond to the UKPC evidence- One of the parts of the evidence is that they are acting on behalf of Herts Primary care trust but according to government papers this trust ceases to exist and has been replaced by CCGs based at a different address - Is this sufficient to challenge UKPC's evidence Another piece of their evidence was an exAMPLE OF A permissible UKPC permit but noone was ever informed that these had changed r Can you advise what my response to POPLA should be as I have to respond before Christmas

Thank you and Merry Christmas

Coupon-mad

Can you advise what my response to POPLA should be as I have to respond before Christmas

Show us some bullet points that you intend to say, and we'll comment.

alig1

My response would be:
1
Picture of the UKPC permit displayed saying that I have adhered to their requirement of displaying a valid UKPC permit (can't copy in pic) which states Authorised visitor library UKPC Site 567 evening visitor
2

Quote from British Assoc code of practice para 7 states that they must have written authorisation of the landowner and that the boundaries of the land must be clearly defined . Their agreement for warden control services is with a group which does not exist at an invalid address. This trust ceeased to exist in 2013, i.e.
Extract from government report as follows:
We are proud to present the final annual report for NHS Hertfordshire, for 2012/13.From the end of March 2013 NHS Hertfordshire, along with all other Primary Care Trusts(PCTs) in England, ceased to existt and the responsibility for commissioning the majority of health services transferred to the newly formed Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) –East and North Herts and Herts Valleys.
and
detail showing the address they showed for the Health trust is no longer owned by them

Pictures of new signage at the site which has been erected by the library differentiating between spaces under the control of the libary and those of the clinic - because of the inadequate signage when this occurred

Coupon-mad

I think I would add that they have provided no evidence that the 'Authorised visitor library UKPC Site 567 evening visitor' permits ceased to be valid, when and how the holders of these permits were told (because they were not). The permits state that users ARE 'authorised'.

As they were UKPC permits, there was no reason to think they were suddenly not valid, and permit holders would not have had reason to look at any signs because they would reasonably believe their valid permits continued to cover them until informed otherwise. It would be unreasonable to expect valid permit holders to seek out and re-read the signs every time they park in case the words have been changed without their knowledge - that would be like expecting a person to re-read the contract for Sky TV every time they switch their TV on, just on the off-chance new terms have been sneaked into the contract (clearly unreasonable).

Then quote the part of the BPA CoP that talks about changes in restrictions/new sites, where PPCs are supposed to put in additional signage to draw the attention of those drivers already familiar with the old rules, to ensure that the contract was properly communicated to those users in a way that needs to be more prominent than just changing the words on existing signs around the periphery of the site, which will not be read.

alig1

I just had notification that the decision on this ticket was upheld. How can I challenge this decision as it was tantamount to entrapment - UKPC changing rules without notification even to the owners of the land - how can this be legal?

Any advice gratefully received

KeithP

You can't challenge that decision.

Did you incorporate C-M's ideas into your PoPLA appeal?

Now you need to move on to the next stage, described in post #4 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

That post can be summarised by saying "ignore all debt collector's letters, but do not ignore any Letter of Claim or official court papers".

alig1

I incorporated all of the points - shocked that they could uphold this decision.

Thank you for the instructions as to how I should proceed.

Coupon-mad

You can email a complaint to POPLA if you can show that the decision was wrong, i.e. that based on the evidence from both sides, the Assessor was not entitled to come to the finding they did. You would have to argue it well, but we've not even seen your full appeal nor the decision.

We did actually have a POPLA decision reversed a couple of months ago, in a case where a new Assessor made a huge mistake in finding a keeper liable when there was no NTK!

Guys_Dad

What did the Health Centre say when you complained to them? Who owns the land and where is the dividing line between one side and the other?

KeithP

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You can email a complaint to POPLA if you can show that the decision was wrong...

Yes of course.

But this was the response to a similar complaint received earlier today:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73813262#Comment_73813262

Scandalous!!

alig1

As I feel this is SO wrong I am determined not to give in on this. I have copied all of my appeal and comments. Your advice would be gratefully received
UKPC now require me to pay £100 otherwise they threaten debt recovery involvement with increase to £160, then court costs etc if £160 unpaid


Original Appeal:
Dear POPLA,
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I am not liable for this PCN. This parking charge was actioned in a car park adjacent to xxxxxx Central library for which a valid permit was displayed, as evidenced in the attached.(Appendix A) Additionally, this permit has been accepted by your officers over a period of at least 5 years and no changes to terms and conditions have been displayed at this site. The permits are used by a group legally entitled to use the library premises and all 12 of us can corroborate that this is and has been our legal standing over such a period . I have been told by library staff that this arose because the xxxxx Health Centre had adopted a different system of electronic parking permits for the spaces on its side of the car park. However, this change had not been properly communicated.
!!!8226; Nobody from UKPC or the xxx Health Centre had informed Library staff of this change, so staff were unable to warn the Yoga Club.
!!!8226; Nobody had informed your parking officers that the new system only applied to the Health Centre spaces, so parking tickets were issued to cars legitimately parked on the Library side.

1 Inadequate signage
The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice - so there was no valid contract formed between UKPC and the driver.
Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice states that a notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about UKPC!!!8217;s terms and conditions' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.
The BPA code of practice also states (18.3) 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. There was nothing on this site to indicate that it's jurisdiction was not held by the library service
Section 7.3 states that. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined - THERE ARE NO CLEARLY DEFINED BOUNDARIES ON THIS SITE to such an extent that your officer issued 11 parking tickets as offences on xxxxx Avenue health Clinic and 5 have already been rescinded.
The driver had a valid parking ticket with the the right to park in this area expressly given by the head of the Library service(copy of permit is attached). This permit has been applicable for more than 5 years and has been agreed and accepted by officers of UKPC on many previous occasions. There is no signage to show that the terms of parking in this area have changed. Moreover Clause 13(1) of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014, states that a contract is not binding on a consumer if the if the correct information is not provided. The fact that this land adjacent to the library is not under the jurisdiction of the library is ambiguous.

2. No Authority
Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. I do not believe that UKPC has landowner authority and, as such; the operator has not met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice.
Section 7.1 states !!!8220;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 to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges!!!8221;.
Section 7.3 states !!!8220;The written authorisation must also set out:
a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined - THERE ARE NO CLEARLY DEFINED BOUNDARIES ON THIS SITE to such an extent that your officer issued 11 parking tickets as offences on xxxxx Avenue health Clinic and 5 have already been rescinded. Indeed, since the date of this incident, new signage showing the extent of the Clinic parking have been added indicating that it was unclear prior to that date where the boundary between the library and clinic started and ended.

I displayed a valid permit - No one had informed the library service that they no longer had permission to grant permits on the adjacent land
No legitimate reason - even their wardens were confused as to the rules on this space shared by the clinic and library. We have agreed the parking rights on numerous occasions with UKPC staff but apparently the rules were changed without notification to anyone including the Head of Libraries in xxxxxxx

UKPC evidence no longer available online because the case has been closed. Written request will take a week.

COMMENTS submitted ON UKPC EVIDENCE

''1 UKPC have provided no evidence that the 'Authorised visitor library UKPC Site 567 evening visitor' permits' , a copy of which has been sent to you and was shown to be displayed prominently on my dashboard, ceased to be valid, The permits state that users ARE 'authorised'.As they were UKPC permits, there was no reason to think they were suddenly not valid, and permit holders would not have had reason to look at any signs because they would reasonably believe their valid permits continued to cover them until informed otherwise.
2 Para 18.11 of the BPA Code of Practice states that" Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. In breach of the BPA CoP there was no additional signage to draw the attention of those drivers already familiar with the old rules. To ensure that the contract was properly communicated to users in a way signage needs to be more prominent than just changing the words on existing signs around the periphery of the site, which will not be read by regular users.
3 BPA CoP para 7 states that they must have written authorisation of the landowner and that the boundaries of the land must be clearly defined . Their agreement for warden control services is with a group which does not exist at an invalid address. This trust ceased to exist in 2013, i.e. Extract from government report as follows: We are proud to present the final annual report for NHS Hertfordshire, for 2012/13.From the end of March 2013 NHS Hertfordshire, along with all other Primary Care Trusts(PCTs) in England, ceased to existt and the responsibility for commissioning the majority of health services transferred to the newly formed Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) !!!8211;East and North Herts and Herts Valleys.and The address shown on their evidence is now owned and used soley by Accident Advice helpline. Hence their evidence breaches the BPA CofP on almost all points''


Head of Library letter

!!!8226; UKPC Appeals
PO Box 1087
Uxbridge
UB8 9UR
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have received a number of complaints from members of the xxxx Yoga Group, who
were issued with parking tickets by UKPC in the car park behind xxxxxx Central Library on
Monday 14 August 2017.
The Yoga Group has been meeting at the Library for more than 25 years, and their
members have always been able to park behind the library, displaying the UKPC library
visitor permits, issued by Library staff. When they left the library on 14 August 2017, all the
members of the group found that they had been issued with parking tickets.
I understand that this arose because the Health Centre had adopted a different
system of electronic parking permits for the spaces on its side of the car park. However, this
change had not been properly communicated.
!!!8226; Nobody from UKPC or the Health Centre had informed Library staff of this
change, so staff were unable to warn the Yoga Club.
!!!8226; Nobody had informed your parking officers that the new system only applied to the
Health Centre spaces, so parking tickets were issued to cars legitimately parked on the
Library side.
When the members of the Yoga Club complained to the Library, Customer
Service Supervisor sent in the registration numbers and asked for the tickets to be
cancelled. She was told by UKPC that the tickets for cars parked on the library side would be
cancelled, but those parked on the Health Centre were legitimately issued and could
not be cancelled.
I think this approach was over zealous, given that there had been that there had been no
warning whatsoever of the change in the rules, but it was made worse by the fact that some
of those people who had been assured that their tickets had been cancelled subsequently
received letters telling them that their penalty charges had been increased as they had not
been paid.
The members of the Yoga Club are law abiding citizens, who have made every effort to park
legitimately, and they feel that they have been entrapped and cheated by UKPC. The way
this incident has been handled has been inflexible and insensitive, causing significant
reputational damage to both UKPC and Library Service, and I am writing to
appeal to you to cancel the penalties issued on 14 August 2017, and refund any fines paid
for the following registration numbers:

PS
As a result the yoga group no longer use the library hence the library lost much needed income


POPLA!!!8217;s decision

The appellant states that they were displaying a valid permit, which they have used for several years without issue. They state that nobody from the parking operator or Health Centre informed library staff of any changes. The appellant also states that the operator does not have authority to operate on the land, and that the car park boundaries are not clearly defined. They also state that the signage is not complaint with the BPA Code of Practice and therefore no valid contract was formed with the driver.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has accepted that they were the driver on the date of the contravention; I will therefore be considering their liability as the driver of the vehicle. When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land. The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to, in order to avoid a PCN; it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case. The terms and conditions relevant to this appeal state !!!8220;No Unauthorised Parking!!!8230;.Terms of parking apply at all times!!!8230;.Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £90 Parking Charge (reduced to £45 if paid within 14 days) being issued to the vehicle!!!8217;s driver!!!8230;.A valid parking permit must be clearly displayed at all times!!!8230;.All vehicles must be parked only within marked bays!!!8221;. The operator issued the PCN because it observed the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle parked without displaying a valid permit. The appellant states that they did have a valid permit on display, and has provided evidence of the permit displayed. The operator states that the permit displayed in the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle is not a valid permit. It has provided evidence to show what a valid permit should look like. The appellant states that they do not believe that the operator has written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. The operator has provided POPLA with a copy of the contract between itself and the landowner. I am satisfied this meets the minimum requirements of the BPA Code of Practice, and the operator did have the appropriate authority to manage the car park on the date of the contravention. The appellant has not provided any evidence to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the operator!!!8217;s authority. The operator has provided evidence of the signage located at the site. Having reviewed this evidence I am satisfied that the terms and conditions are displayed sufficiently. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that the signs have been in situ since at least 2012. The nature of the relationship between the appellant and the operator is contractual. The car park is on private land, and consequently, drivers require permission before parking on the land. The operator granted permission by way of making an offer in the signs displayed in the car park, the appellant accepted that offer, and the terms set out on the signs, by their conduct in parking on the land. I note the comments of the appellant about there being no clear distinction at the site between the health centre side and library side. The evidence I have reviewed indicates to me that the operator manages all of the parking area between the health centre and library; in any event, on the date of the contravention, the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle was parked on the health centre side, which the operator definitely does manage. POPLA is evidence based, and our role is to determine if a PCN has been issued correctly, taking into account any evidence presented by either party. In this instance, the evidence provided by the appellant is insufficient to disprove the evidence provided by the operator. I acknowledge the comments of the appellant, and the letter from the library; however, the parking operator manages the car park and has confirmed that the permit displayed by the appellant at the time of the contravention was not a valid permit. POPLA is unable to get involved in, or assist with any third party disputes. We can only consider the contract formed between the appellant and the operator on the date of the contravention, and if the appellant complied with the terms of the contract. I conclude that the operator was correct to issue the PCN. On the date of the contravention, the evidence shows that the appellant parked their vehicle without displaying a valid permit, in breach of the terms and conditions of the car park. On this basis, the appeal is refused.