Popla Appeal

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.

alig1

I have posted all the info sent and received from POPLA - Would welcome advice as to how to argue against the decision

Coupon-mad

UKPC now require me to pay £100 otherwise they threaten debt recovery involvement with increase to £160, then court costs etc if £160 unpaid

No advice needed that's not been said in any other 'POPLA lost' thread (search & find them).

Ignore debt collectors, but you will know that from the NEWBIES thread post #4.

Come back at LBCCC or court claim stage, as covered in post #2 of the sticky.