Half parked in bay full of snow across designated lines

Half_way

Name and shame the shopping park, for they will be jointly liable for the actions of their agents.
This is the sort of thing the press will absolutly lap up - car park covered with snow, parking ticket for parking over the snow obscured lines.
If you do try for publicity - keep hammering home that the shopping centre/retail park/landowner is responsible and liable for the actions of its agents

Coupon-mad

The Act also warns that if, at the end of the period of 28 days (beginning with the day after the Parking Charge is sent),

Errrrmmmm...no, UKPC. Smacks of desperation when they try to shoehorn some POFA wording required in a NTK, into a rejection letter, which is certainly not a NTK!

Apart from the issue spotted by KeithP as posted on that other thread, UKPC have:

- misdescribed the wording, talking about 'the day after the Parking Charge is sent' but this deadline refers only to the date that a fully-compliant NTK is sent. In any case, no Parking Charge Notice or 'NTK' (neither) has ever been sent!

- forgotten the fact that the POFA says a NTK is only compliant (among other hoops to jump) if the operator has first obtained the data of the keeper from the Secretary of State (the DVLA). Not from any other source, not from a keeper's own appeal letter...nothing but the DVLA will do.

Failed.

The DVLA may or may not be interested in the fact that UKPC are misleadingly telling a keeper in a rejection letter, that they ARE liable, when hey cannot be. Absolutely cannot be liable.

This is a serious breach of the BPA CoP, but do we honestly want UKPC to start getting it right? I think not, so on balance I would keep schtumm, not complain to the DVLA, and laugh all the way to POPLA!

Show us your draft POPLA appeal that takes the above failures into account, spelling them out for POPLA.

sybee

Need a little steer pls... the start of that appeal response I referred to earlier in the thread from UKPC read:
"In order to make a final decision regarding your appeal, please provide the name and full postal address of the driver to our Appeals Department within fourteen days of the date of this letter."

At the end it states:
"Failure to provide this information will give us no alternative other than to make our final decision based on the previous information received. At this stage a POPLA verification code will be provided.
Further correspondence can be sent by visiting our website at <appealwebsite> or by post to the address overleaf. Please ensure that if sending evidence by post that you include the parking charge reference number and vehicle registration."

We received a letter through the post like this one from another thread, 5 days after appeal:
https://
s725.photobucket.com/user/corallus1/media/IMG_7356_zpsk8o02zue.jpg.html

But haven't received a final decision or the POPLA verification code - should I now push for one using the appeals website?

Today I make day 56.

beamerguy

http://s725.photobucket.com/user/corallus1/media/IMG_7356_zpsk8o02zue.jpg.html

It is very difficult to understand why UKPC are employing more
idiots to send out this rubbish.

Of course they don't know who the driver is/was and that's
because you have not told them and never likely to ??

They issued a ticket on a vehicle which they claim was not parked
correctly ..... you have shown them that the lines were not visible
because of snow.

They do not need to know who was driving to agree or not.
It's not rocket science to understand this.
This is why UKPC are branded as cowboys and scammers, they
achieve that title all by themselves.

The BPA has been told about this UKPC rubbish, the BPA
seem to ignore it and that is why the BPA are now a defunct
organisation which no motorist could ever trust.

Just wait for a POPLA code and get all the help you need here

sybee

Thanks. (The lines weren’t covered with snow, the bay was piled high with snow. Their pics show how high it was!?!)

Anyway...
Would you consider that letter a valid NTK?

And the Popla code if I’m not given this, do I continue to wait indefinitely?

nosferatu1001

That isn!!!8217;t a NtK. You can tell it isn!!!8217;t. It isn!!!8217;t repeating the info on the ntd , for a start

You give them 35 days then tell the the appeal was accepted as they failed to reject it. BPA cop.

[Deleted User]

Just a thought - only you can know the precise facts, but you may wish to consider whether the contract was void for impossibility - the intervening weather being force majeure that prevented the bays either

(i) being properly delineated; or
(ii) anyone parking within them.

See if you can get a weather forecast / images from the local press showing the snowfall...

beamerguy

sybee wrote: »

Thanks. (The lines weren!!!8217;t covered with snow, the bay was piled high with snow. Their pics show how high it was!?!)

Anyway...
Would you consider that letter a valid NTK?

And the Popla code if I!!!8217;m not given this, do I continue to wait indefinitely?

So much for car park management then:eek:

Just makes you wonder about the mentality of UKPC, could
they get medical help on the NHS ??? probably not

If they don't send a POPLA code after 35 days, complain to
the BPA. There is nothing more they can do or say

PS: I would love to see a judge's face looking at their own
pictures .....

sybee

So, on the weekend also did further research into the shopping park owners and the management company.
Found the owners and also details for the park management company.

So went for an email to both the media relations address for the owners and the head of asset management (same email 2 recipients)

a day later the management company responded, and said they would look into this, including another dept / manager.

2 days after this we get a response from management company - they're going to get this cancelled on this occasion .
Through the post today we get this from UKPC:

_________________________________________
Thank you for your recent correspondence in relation to the above parking charge. We understand your frustration and appreciate the inconvenience this has caused you. It is not our intention to cause undue worry and frustration when enforcing our clients' terms and conditions of parking.

Whilst we feel that the parking charge was correctly issued and that we were following the guidelines and enforcement controls agreed with our client, we have decided in this instance to cancel the parking charge as a gesture of goodwill.

At all times UKPC strive to deliver a high quality service that enhances the existing quality standards insisted upon by our client.

Please therefore take this letter as confirmation that your parking charge has now been cancelled and the matter concluded.

Appeals dept.
______________________

Today was 35th day after appeal. Not sure if its a result of the asset management intervention or the appeal. Suspect the first!

We're not a fan of bad parking. If we'd have parked over a designated line just through laziness or something then charge would have been more deserved. But this was simply an unreasonable charge.

Thanks for all of the help and info on the sticky. Its the info and forum members that gives you the confidence to challenge things like this :-)

Thanks again.

Coupon-mad

That apology always comes when UKPC are forced to cancel, by the landowners. Well done!

You should read these links and watch the MPs debate in Parliament, UKPC were named and shamed and so were their Trade Body, the BPA:

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2018-02-02b.1149.0

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5787731

Just 4 weeks ago, the private parking industry's little game and 'outrageous scam' (Hansard), has been finally been condemned unanimously by MPs in Parliament in the private parking Code of Practice Bill debate.

Watch it, read it, get it!

Spread the word, you were nearly scammed. Make sure none of your family or friends ever pay one of these, and always complain loudly to retailers & come here for appeal guidance.