UK Parking Patrol Office - 19 minute overstay

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Do nothing.

Certainly do not pay, and do not try IAS stage. The NEWBIES thread tells you that.

So I said the above, very clearly.

And you then decided the complete opposite?

My next steps im thinking is:
1) Write up an appeal with all the evidence against this parking ticket through the IAS

Forget it.

This is a crucial error and a winner in black and white along side the grace period rules stated in the IPC contract with Uk Parking Patrol. This is "ground shattering"

No, it's not even an error and certainly not ground shattering. You will lose at IAS.

My words said a worthwhile appeal might be if you are NEITHER the driver nor the keeper. You are.

protien

Hi All,


Thank you for the efforts of your reply.


Despite everyone saying on here to ignore it and not appeal ect. I felt that this was not viable. Ignoring notices where if they really wanted too they could get a county court judgement to take me to court is just beyond crazy to ignore it.


So I sent a few emails back and forth directly to UKPPO where after I finally wrote up my appeal to the IAS. I knew the point where they did not hold keeper liability and therefore not being POFA compliant was a strong case despite most of you replying it isn't.


I can gladly say that my appeal through the IAS was won. It didn't even have to go through the adjudicator, UKPPO pulled out and stopped pursuing me.


So goes to show don't believe everything you read on the internet eh!


However I am grateful that this forum exists and did start to learn from here. And I am happy to post my appeal for everyone's access if you all want.


p.s im only a 21 year old student so if you do the right research you never know what can happen!

The_Deep

Very well done. They probably pulled out because they realised that you were a trouble maker who could cost them lots of money

Not everyone who comes here is so tenacious and CM writes mainly for the underdogs and dithering Doris's. Now give them more grief.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor 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 lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

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 they will be out of business by Christmas.

Umkomaas

Well done, a very good (if somewhat surprising) win.

I can gladly say that my appeal through the IAS was won. It didn't even have to go through the adjudicator, UKPPO pulled out and stopped pursuing me.

The great likelihood is that the PPC did not voluntarily withdraw, more they were persuaded to do so by the IAS. The IAS avoids upholding any appeal in favour of a motorist against one of their precious paymasters. So there could have been something critical in your appeal which snookered the PPC.

And I am happy to post my appeal for everyone's access if you all want.

It would be good to read it.

protien

Thanks. Sure please see below:




Below is my summarised appeal:

As per your website instructs I submit this appeal on the 05/06/2018 within the time frame provided by yourself (IAS). Stating i have until the 07/06/2018, 23:59.

I submit this appeal on the main basis that the NTK issued by UK Parking Patrol Office is not compliant with their acredited operator, International Parking Community (IPC) as well as not complying with, schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The fact that they tried to correct their original NTK (outside of the 14 day period), may imply UKPPO know they are not complaint.

Please see full details of my appeal attached, under 'IAS Appeal'.

Below is my full detailed appeal:



I as the registered keeper appeal this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) further under the following points:

1. The NTK (Notice to the keeper) does not comply with, schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, particularly:

[please refer to the attachments titled !!!8216;NTK (Front)!!!8217;, !!!8216;NTK (Back)!!!8217;]

a. Section 9 (2) (a) states; !!!8216;specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.!!!8217;

i. It does not state anywhere on the NTK the period of parking the driver stayed.

ii. The times given are for when the car was moving underneath the cameras and as such could not possibly be considered parked, therefore there is still not a period of parking stated, as required to hold the keeper liable.

b. Section 9 (2) (f) states; warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given!!!8212;

!!!8216;(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid.!!!8217;

i. In the NTK received to myself by UKPPO (UK Parking Patrol Office) states; !!!8216;Please be warned: that if after the 28 days beginning with the day after that on which this Notice is given (i) the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full, and (ii) we do not know the both the name of the driver and a current address for services for the driver, we will have the right to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the driver of the vehicle.!!!8217; UKPPO have not complied to have the keeper liable.

[Please refer to !!!8216;IPC Code of Practice!!!8217;]

2. Further to point 1 (above) referring to the International Parking Community !!!8216;ACCREDITED OPERATOR SCHEME CODE OF PRACTICE!!!8217;, the NTK does not comply with !!!8216;Part C, 5.1!!!8217;. UKPPO therefore are not complying with their accredited operator which states members must !!!8216;adhere!!!8217; to.

3. On the First rejection email issued by UKPPO on the 11/05/2018 AND an email sent on the 14/05/2018, UKPPO referred me to the !!!8216;Wembley Contractual Notice!!!8217; whereby there is a credited stamp stating they are a 'Member of the BPA'. Under these grounds I wrote to UKPPO to request my rightful POPLA code to appeal. Where they stated !!!8216;Please be advised that as we are not subscribers to the Ombudsman scheme we are unable to supply you with a POPLA code!!!8217;. Which is a deliberate attempt to mislead and confuse the public (Negligence).



4. I refer to UKPPO!!!8217;s Accredited Operator, IPC (International Parking Community), !!!8216;Code of Practice!!!8217;:

i. Under, !!!8216;Part B, 15. Grace Periods!!!8217;; It states!!!8217;

!!!61623; !!!8217;15.1 - Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.!!!8217;

!!!61623; !!!8217;15.2 - Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.!!!8217;

Where 15.1 is referring to the point of entry and 15.2 referring to point of exit. According to the NTK issued by UKPPO the driver overstayed !!!8217;19 minutes!!!8217;. Going by the UKPPO!!!8217;s Accredited Operator, IPC, Code of Conduct 15.2 (stated above), giving the allowed 10 minute grace period brings the apparent !!!8216;Exceeded Maximum Stay Period!!!8217; down to 9 minutes, which is justified by 15.1. Therefore, UKPPO have not issued the NTK in accordance to the IPC Code of Conduct.

5. Referring to UKPPO email sent to me on 14/05/2018 and 21/05/2018 they state: !!!8216;Thank you for your letter of appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued by us on 16.02.2018 !!!8216;. Which is INCORRECT (twice), in fact the actual date the NTK was issued is, 01/05/2018. Showing a lack of professionalism.

Please refer to !!!8216;UKPPO Letter (Front)!!!8217; & !!!8216;UKPPO Letter (back)!!!8217;, where a letter has been issued by the UKPPO on the 30/05/2018 whilst, I am still within my appeals process. It is an attempt to correct their original non-complaint NTK, however since it has been issued outside of the 14 days to hold the keeper liable, it is invalid. This may imply that UKPPO know that they are non-compliant, but refuse to hold accountability.