PCN 3 from Ukpc

Coupon-mad

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!)

It only goes against them if you point it out clearly that the signs they claim were there, have been moved between one set of pics and the other in the evidence pack, so it cannot be certain which set of signs were up/down or round the corner on the day.


This is amusing. I see that UKPC refer to:

Paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4

yet they issued a windscreen PCN so paragraph 9 doesn't apply.

UKPC say this, so they're saying their charge is NOT like the Beavis case then, which was NOT pleaded in damages or loss! The Supreme Court held that ParkingEye could not and did not try to claim damages and would NOT have been successful, had they done so:

All of UKPC’s parking charges, including the one you have been issued, represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss

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

!!!!!!? Saying their charge is based upon a GPEOL (yet not showing that calculation) went out with the ark. It actually looks like some idiot at UKPC has used very old template words (pre Beavis case).

Difficult one to get across to POPLA how wrong that statement is, especially as POPLA hold it against appellants when they talk about GPEOL and lecture the appellant about Beavis...so in the interests of consistency, if a stupid PPC try to please their case in GPEOL, they too should be told by POPLA:

'tough then, you had a remedy - describe the charge as an agreed contractual fee, instead - but you failed, you said it was GPEOL yet didn't prove that odd argument, so off you trot.'

Pigs might fly on the day POPLA understand that.

mitzy12

Thanks coupon mad....
So not to include GPEOL point.
What did u think of what they said on Grace periods? !!

In their last paragraph, in opposing my trespass point as no contract, they are saying contract with driver exists per their signage, in their CAR PARKS via pre payment, etc, and adhering to other terms and conditions ( " such as being parked in a marked bay ").
As this area where crime HAPPENED is not a car park and one way in from one way road with no entrance signs and the sign that mentions charge on the left, and placed higher than a car, as u drive past! Ahead of where car was stationed, was another sign in really big letters and the only one the driver actually saw. It said "Designated bays only" terms of car park apply.
I think I realise the angle they trying to use. They included this sign and pics of A car park( showing bays!). This car park is the residents car park with keys needed to lift shutters. It is an underground car park . Yet to confuse and win, they put this ONE sign in front of this no parking area , and was also on the entrance to actual private car park but would be on vehicles right when entering and probably not applicable to public so they put that sign there so it looks like there is car park outside and driver ignored and parked in an unmarked bay hence not tresspassing and their way of saying contract formed! (By showing pics of car park and this sign in evidence). How do I prove this sign in hindsight had no bearing as no car park and is there just to confuse?

I hope I explained that point or u get my jist. Thanks and await ur reply.

mitzy12

I mean automatic high doors/ shutters ...maybe entering code or infra red key access. Sry

Coupon-mad

So not to include GPEOL point.

Actually I would point out the error in that argument from a PPC, and try to write it in words of one syllable so POPLA might actually get it (as explained above, this is the opposite of how the Beavis case was pleaded and the Supreme Court held that PE could not have claimed on GPEOL or damages or loss).

mitzy12

Their comments on grace periods. this cant be right, as then its open to parking wardens to start the clock! How would I counter their comments in a good worded way?

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.

thanks coupon mad

Redx

the BPA CoP january 2018 actually says this

13.1 If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.

13.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.

so a minimum of 10 minutes

so the question is, if the driver was there in that forbidden area, how long were they there for ?

and how long are UKPC stating that the driver was there for in their "observation time" ? if it is say 3 minutes then that is well within the "up to 10 minutes" that is usually allowed, and is "reasonable"


13.1 is for where a location is forbidden, and so is not defined but is generally considered to be UP TO 10 MINUTES in normal circumstances, so it seems to me they are quoting an old CoP from 3 years ago , naughty naughty (especially if the DRIVER was only there for say 3 minutes)

Coupon-mad

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.

Just say in short bullet points to POPLA, why you disagree, and what you find in the evidence to be untrue.

You only have 2000 characters, so no writing long paragraphs, just bullet points.

mitzy12

sorry cant think how to write this point in one or 2 sentences..pls help and totally confused with GPEOL and how to go about writing and explaining, as u said "difficult one to get across" (lol). Pls could you help me. so so grateful. Thanks in advance as I know u good people who help so many.

Coupon-mad

I did it in one sentence for you in post #55.

You are going to have to think of how to put the rest of it; this is hardly difficult.

Redx

write your short rebuttal , test it in notepad++ or wordpad or word, it needs to be less than 2000 characters (not 2000 words)

then post it below for critique, even if it looks bad to you, post it anyway, then people cam comment and help