ukpc PCN outside markings POPLA draft

taleb

Hi all,
I'm new here, so please bear with me if I make any mistakes.
I've gone through the Newbies sticky and followed the guidance in there and drafted a POPLA appeal which is accessible on this link:
drive.google.com/open?id=1KOp9mHj3d5WMhqoiCqVj5sF3jjtwWDlt (prepend https:// to the link)
this is based to a large extent on a similar appeal that is linked on the Newbies sticky
I would like your feedback in general, but specifically on two main points:
- the PCN is based on my car not being within the bay markings, even though the markings are almost completely faded. I contest that in the appeal but I refer mainly to regulations and guidelines about signage, as I couldn't find much specifically on markings
- I argue that the NtK is non-compliant because it doesn't include period of parking, and then I use that to argue no keeper liability as the NtK is non-compliant with POFA-2012

Thanks in advance for all the help, the information in here is great. I wish I had come here before paying for a previous PCN at a LIDL store

Umkomaas

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KOp9mHj3d5WMhqoiCqVj5sF3jjtwWDlt/view

Looks good, well done on doing this without direct forum assistance from regulars.

Just a few points:

Please check your dates in your preamble to the appeal. Date of NtK 26/01/18. Date of initial appeal 01/01/18. Should that be 01/02/18?

Do you have photos of the bay the vehicle was parked in to show the poor markings? Do you have photos of the general condition of the markings throughout the site?

The photo of the UKPC sign - do you have a 'worse' one?

The large signs shown on the far wall in your photo - what do they say? Do they in any way contradict the UKPC signage?

While you have 'tackled' the validity of the NtK, 'period of parking' has not been a rampant showstopper at POPLA. The NtK killers are the issue date vs parking event date and the PoFA statement 'if after 28/29 days .....' not being absolutely spot on with PoFA Schedule 4 requirements for the wording.

If you've plenty of time before your POPLA deadline (around 32 days available to you) give others an opportunity to comment.

Good stuff.

HTH.

I wish I had come here before paying for a previous PCN at a LIDL store

Ouch!

One of the easiest of the easy to kill off.

The_Deep

UKPC are fraudsters, read this

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for alleged breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They nearly always lose, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

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

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.

Coupon-mad

I argue that the NtK is non-compliant because it doesn't include period of parking, and then I use that to argue no keeper liability as the NtK is non-compliant with POFA-2012

You got a NTK despite appealing the windscreen PCN?

I didn't see the term 'failed to give adequate notice of the parking charge' where you show those signs, where the £sum simply cannot be seen!

I lifted this from a POPLA DECISION, from an Assessor, and re-worded it but deliberately kept their writing style. I like doing that because the Assessor will recognise the argument and it's a big steer in the right direction. I would use this as well, in the signage argument:

In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in my photographs - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

taleb

Umkomaas wrote: »

Looks good, well done on doing this without direct forum assistance from regulars.

Just a few points:

Please check your dates in your preamble to the appeal. Date of NtK 26/01/18. Date of initial appeal 01/01/18. Should that be 01/02/18?

Do you have photos of the bay the vehicle was parked in to show the poor markings? Do you have photos of the general condition of the markings throughout the site?

The photo of the UKPC sign - do you have a 'worse' one?

The large signs shown on the far wall in your photo - what do they say? Do they in any way contradict the UKPC signage?

While you have 'tackled' the validity of the NtK, 'period of parking' has not been a rampant showstopper at POPLA. The NtK killers are the issue date vs parking event date and the PoFA statement 'if after 28/29 days .....' not being absolutely spot on with PoFA Schedule 4 requirements for the wording.

If you've plenty of time before your POPLA deadline (around 32 days available to you) give others an opportunity to comment.

Good stuff.

HTH.


Ouch!

One of the easiest of the easy to kill off.

Thanks Umkommas

- the dates are actually correct, as I appealed based on the windscreen PCN, so before the NtK arrived
- I've added images of the bay markings. unfortunately, I have no worse images of the signs
- here's the wording of the signs at the far side:
---"Private - Residents only"
---"Short Term Parking, Permit holders only, permits must be visible"
- here's the full wording on the NtK, not sure if it's compliant

"the driver of the above vehicle breached the terms and conditions of parking which were clearly and prominently displayed on our car park signs. These terms and conditions were agreed by the driver when your vehicle was parked on private land. A parking charge was issued to the driver at the time but this has not been paid. We therefore had reasonable cause to obtain your details as you were the Registered Keeper of the vehicle at the time of parking.
UK Parking Control Ltd do not know the name and address of the driver. We therefore invite you, the Registered keeper, to pay the Parking Charge or provide us with the name and current address of the driver so that we may write to them and request payment; and you should also pass this notice to the driver.

If, after a period of 42 days, (beginning with the day after this Notice is given), the amount requested in this Notice has not been paid in full (or we have not been informed of the driver's name and current address) the charge will be passed to our debt recovery team, and a further charge of £60 will be incurred."

Thanks also to Coupon-mad, I've included your points into the document.

Coupon-mad

If, after a period of 42 days, (beginning with the day after this Notice is given), the amount requested in this Notice has not been paid in full (or we have not been informed of the driver's name and current address) the charge will be passed to our debt recovery team, and a further charge of £60 will be incurred."

HAHA, NON-POFA WORDING !

Compare it to what it should say from 8(2)f of Schedule 4. No keeper liability, then.

I argue that the NtK is non-compliant because it doesn't include period of parking

I would forget that. Minor point, do not distract the Assessor with pointless details.

See above, no 8(2)f keeper liability warning.

I assume the NTK was posted too late after day 56 from the paring event. Haha! You win.

taleb

Coupon-mad wrote: »

HAHA, NON-POFA WORDING !

Compare it to what it should say from 8(2)f of Schedule 4. No keeper liability, then.

I would forget that. Minor point, do not distract the Assessor with pointless details.

See above, no 8(2)f keeper liability warning.

I assume the NTK was posted too late after day 56 from the paring event. Haha! You win.

Thanks @Coupon-mad, I've updated the appeal accordingly
drive.google.com/open?id=1KOp9mHj3d5WMhqoiCqVj5sF3jjtwWDlt (prepend https:// to the link)
unfortunately, the NtK arrived after about 52 days, so still within the limits

Coupon-mad

Doesn't matter about dates, if it has no 8(2)f wording. Check.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KOp9mHj3d5WMhqoiCqVj5sF3jjtwWDlt/view

Your POPLA appeal is such a thing of beauty I am going to go and link it as a shining (non-POFA) UKPC example in the NEWBIES thread post #3, right now!

Umkomaas

If, after a period of 42 days, (beginning with the day after this Notice is given), the amount requested in this Notice has not been paid in full (or we have not been informed of the driver's name and current address) the charge will be passed to our debt recovery team, and a further charge of £60 will be incurred."

BOOM - own goal . Gotcha, slam-dunk. :T

How can they not understand this stuff when they are dealing with it every day?

Your POPLA appeal is such a thing of beauty I am going to go and link it as a shining (non-POFA) UKPC example in the NEWBIES thread post #3, right now!

Real accolade from CM there for you.

Tell us when POPLA uphold your appeal.

Umkomaas

@taleb - having re-read your POPLA appeal, I would rearrange the sections by bringing the 'No Keeper Liability' section to the fore, making it appeal point #1. Follow that with 'The Operator has not shown the individual it is pursuing is in fact the driver... ' as appeal point #2, then come in with 'Signage' as #3.

'No Keeper Liability' is not open to POPLA assessor subjectivity, whereas 'Signage' can be. Get the appeal upheld by the assessor at the earliest opportunity, rather than giving them scope to start to mentally side with the operator.

I would also embolden the text 42 days to highlight just how wrong UKPC have got this for them to try to invoke Keeper Liability.

nosferatu1001

Well they havent actually tried to hold the keeper liable - I wouldnt even bring POFA compliance or otherwise into it.
Theyre not trying to hold me, the keeper, LIABLE for the charge - Im just invited to pay it.
If they wanted to hold the keeper liable they must have included the keeper liability warning from POFA schedule 4 para 8, however they have CHOSEN not to hold the keeper liable. Where the keeper is appealing and the operator has CHOSEN not the use the provisions of POFA to hold me as keeper liable, the appeal must be upheld.