PCN 3 from Ukpc

mitzy12

coupon mad... I read that popla link. thanks

As i was over 28 days, did i have to expalin why? as says to have done, on popla link.

Coupon-mad

POPLA codes stop working after 33 days.

I never 'explain why it's late' if putting one in on day 32. I've never lost one.

Redx

I have just installed libre office 6.1 64 bit on a new 64 bit laptop running windows 10 and it installed ok

check what OS you are running , and either install the 32 bit version OR the 64 bit version, matching it to what your windows system is

if in ANY DOUBT , installl the 32 bit version as it works on both systems

mitzy12

Hi coupon mad.....have received email from popla to respond within 7 days.
Also read some rebuttal cases. Will use portal box.
It's very interesting what they said. I think u will have field day!
Should I post their response? Without names and ref no. Of course.
Thanks

Quentin

Yes .

mitzy12

On June 2018, our warden issued a parking charge to vehicle registration ? at Saffron Square. Theparking charge was issued because the vehicle was parked in an area where no parking is allowed.
The Parking Charge amount was £100, reduced to £60 if payment was received within 14 days.

An appeal was received from on July 2018, to which the appeals department investigated and decided to reject.

The basis of the appellant's appeal was that they denied any liability to begin with and would not disclose who was driving the vehicle at the time of the contravention. However, a POFA 2012 Notice to Keeper was sent out on the 27th July 2018 confirming Mr as the registered keeper of the vehicle receiving the parking charge. Paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, states that we must inform the registered keeper that the driver of a vehicle is required to pay the parking charge in full. It also notes that as we do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, the registered keeper, if they were not the driver at the time, should inform the operator (i.e. us) of the name and current address of the driver and pass the notice to them.
The Act also warns that if, at the end of the period of 28 days (beginning with the day after the ParkingCharge is sent), the parking charge has not been paid in full and the operator does not know both the name and current address of the driver, the operator has the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from the registered keeper. This warning is given under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection ofFreedoms Act 2012 and is subject to us complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act(which we consider we do comply with, to the letter).

The appellant also says that the signs are not clear. As can be seen in our wardens photographs, there is
signage on display in the area that the vehicle was parked. All of our signage is fully compliant with the
guidelines set out within the BPA Code of Practice and we reject the notion that it is in any way unclear orambiguous. Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “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. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”
As stated, these are the minimum standards that are expected of a parking operator when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site and we are confident that our signage meets this criteria.
In our evidence pack, we have included proofs of all the signage that is currently on display at the site. In our evidence pack, we have also included a site plan that clearly shows that the vehicle was parked within the boundaries of the site and within the boundary that UKPC patrol at the site for parking contraventions.
For the avoidance of doubt, we have included a signed and dated Witness Statement that is valid in perpetuity or until terminated that confirms our authority to issue parking charges for parking contraventions that may occur on site.
Upon entering the site, there is entrance signage that informs drivers that terms of parking are applicable and that they should read the notices on display. It remains the drivers responsibility to be aware of and to read any signage that may be on display in the car park that informs them of the terms of parking in the area they wish to park their vehicle. The appellant parked his vehicle on site in an area that is clearly marked as No Parking by our signage. By parking his vehicle in this area, the appellant presented a possible obstruction to any other delivery vehicle that may have wished to utilise the site by his vehicle obstructing this area of the car park.

In his POPLA Appeal, the appellant states that a grace period should have been given. There is no requirement in law for private parking operators to offer a grace period before issuing parking charges. Being a member of the BPA, however, UKPC must adhere to the BPA Code of Practice’s condition that drivers should be allowed ‘a reasonable grace period’ before issuance (Section 13.2) (prior to Amendments in Oct 2015.) Reasonableness, of course, differs according to contravention type and circumstance and does not detail how long a reasonable grace period is.
UKPC does offer such a reasonable grace period with all of its parking charges. It should be noted that issuing a charge itself takes some time, which may be considered as a reasonable grace period in certain circumstances.

All of UKPC’s parking charges, including the one you have been issued, represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company.
An offer for contractual relations is clearly displayed on the sufficient signage on site. On the balance of
probabilities, the clarity and sufficiency of this signage puts motorists on notice of the terms of parking. These terms are accepted by conduct, when motorists decide to park on site. By parking in violation of these accepted terms, the contract between the motorist and UKPC is breached. Losses to UKPC have stemmed from such a breach, in the present case, for which UKPC must be compensated. The assertion that your charge does not represent a genuine pre-esimate of loss is wholly unsubstantiated. It is assured that UKPC’s parking charge sum reflects a genuine pre-estimate of its loss, stemming from your breach of contract. Our breakdown of costs flowing from parking violations has previously been provided in redacted form to POPLA and the County Court.
Such a breakdown will not be provided to individual appellants for reasons of commercial sensitivity.

The Parking Charges issued by UK Parking Control Limited (“UKPC”) are levied on the basis of a contract with the driver, as detailed on the signage displayed in the car parks. The signage sets out the terms and conditions of parking under which a driver is authorised to park, be that by pre-payment of a parking tariff, or by parking only for a maximum period of time, or by adhering to other terms and conditions (such as being parked within a marked bay), and that a Parking Charge will be payable if the conditions of parking are not met by the driver.
We ensure that signage containing the terms and conditions of parking is ample, clear, visible and in line with the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice to ensure the driver is bound by them when they enter and remain on site, so that all users of the car park are obliged to follow these terms and conditions of parking. It is settled law that a driver is deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of parking by the act of parking in the car park.

There are sufficient signs warning drivers that parking in an area where no parking is allowed may lead to a Parking Charge being issued. There is photographic evidence to establish that the appellant's vehicle was parked in an area where no parking is allowed and consequently the Parking Charge was correctly issued.

mitzy12

if needed I will post my popla appeal.

Also the Landowner " Contract" they have provided doesn't look like the real thing , signed by estate manager and saying they have authority.
the only other thing sent is the same photos taken on day of pcn ( clearly showing eligible sign and the sum barely visible on all except close up and that is hard still to read!) and photos that show same place but with no signs at same place but moved instead to leaning against wall and other sign around bend where no one can see as one way area.!! ( not know why they did this as prob goes against them!)

beamerguy

mitzy12 wrote: »

if needed I will post my popla appeal.

Also the Landowner " Contract" they have provided doesn't look like the real thing , signed by estate manager and saying they have authority.
the only other thing sent is the same photos taken on day of pcn ( clearly showing eligible sign and the sum barely visible on all except close up and that is hard still to read!) and photos that show same place but with no signs at same place but moved instead to leaning against wall and other sign around bend where no one can see as one way area.!! ( not know why they did this as prob goes against them!)

Are UKPC faking pictures again ????

mitzy12

Hi coupon mad....
Should I post my popla appeal ? I'm not sure what to say apart from same things from popla appeal and I know I should not repeat things.

Redx

examples of a popla rebuttal below

like post #71 in this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5833054/advice-please-regarding-parking-charge-notice-issued-by-care-parking-at-stretford-tram-station&page=4

and post #38 in this one

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74372881#Comment_74372881


and post #45 in this one
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74772098#Comment_74772098


and remember, you are only allowed 2000 CHARACTERS (not words)

so pick holes in their evidence pack, keep it simple , short and sweet