Driver left site (UKPC)

JohnnyInamoto

The driver in Stevenage Leisure Centre car park, and they stayed there basically all day. I got a PCN from UKPC that stated that I left the site.

They don’t keep receipts, which puts them in a bit of corner.

I followed the newbie thread and contacted the land owner and appealed UKPC after 3 weeks.

I read on here that someone else had been caught by the same dodgy operator on the same site, and Stevenage Leisure Park cancelled it for them, so I emailed them and they didn’t reply for 2 weeks. I then rang them and without asking for any details, they just claimed they couldn’t do anything and I need to talk directly with UKPC.

I appealed to UKPC using the template in the newbie thread, and asked them for evidence that the driver had left the site. In response they’ve asked for evidence that I (“you”) used the onsite facilites, and given me a deadline of 2 weeks from the 11th. I recieved their letter yesterday so not sure which carrier pigeon they used. They also offered me a reduced rate to pay the ticket and stated that if I don’t, I’ll receive a POPLA code.

I know JLL run the site, so I naively tweeted them my complaint, thinking that social media would put them under pressure. They ignored me.

So now I have no evidence that I stayed in the park, so is there any way of fighting this? Or should I just pay the fine at the reduced rate? I can’t see how I can prove I didn’t leave a car park on foot.

beamerguy

UKPC are know fraudsters and scammers

Members of the BPA .... what else can you expect ?

WHOOPS ..... It is UKPC who must prove to you that
you left the site ....... you do not have to substantiate
anything

This is a wheeze by UKPC .... what are they .... PREDATORS?

Wait for your POPLA code and come back here

Guys_Dad

JohnnyInamoto wrote: »

So now I have no evidence that I stayed in the park, so is there any way of fighting this? Or should I just pay the fine at the reduced rate? I can’t see how I can prove I didn’t leave a car park on foot.

Blow that! What evidence do THEY have that you and all of your passengers left the site?

In English law, it is the job of the claimant to prove their claim. Any photographs?

There is another thread on here about leaving site currently ongoing. Just look down a couple of pages and see how that one is progressing and follow the advice on that. Saves repetition.

JohnnyInamoto

beamerguy wrote: »

Wait for your POPLA code and come back here

I should just ignore them until I get the POPLA code?

Guys_Dad wrote: »

There is another thread on here about leaving site currently ongoing. Just look down a couple of pages and see how that one is progressing and follow the advice on that. Saves repetition.

Do you have any specifics for the thread? I've gone back 5 pages, but not sure what I'm looking for.

beamerguy

JohnnyInamoto wrote: »

I should just ignore them until I get the POPLA code?

Well yes, you cannot be dealing with scammers directly
can you ....... let them provide proof

Umkomaas

Do a forum search using keywords 'leaving site' or 'left site' which should bring up numerous recent threads.

HOW TO USE THE FORUM SEARCH FUNCTION:

Hit your 'Back' button to get back to the forum thread list. On the bar just above the threads you'll see the 'Search' function. Click on the 'Advanced Search' button and on the following page place your keyword(s) in the 'Search By Keyword(s)' and make sure the 'Show Results As' button (at the foot of the window) is changed from 'Threads' to 'Posts'.

Also read this court case (from 2012) which we believe to be the last time any PPC attempted a leaving the site court appearance. Learn some of the issues surrounding 'leaving the site' - although 'mitigation of loss' has become somewhat redundant since ParkingEye v Beavis at The Supreme Court.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231)

Guys_Dad

JohnnyInamoto wrote: »

I should just ignore them until I get the POPLA code?




Do you have any specifics for the thread? I've gone back 5 pages, but not sure what I'm looking for.

Look for this one Yet Another Markham Retail Park Driver Left Site PCN

JohnnyInamoto

Thanks Umkomaas.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Look for this one Yet Another Markham Retail Park Driver Left Site PCN

Ahh found it. Cheers mate!!

Umkomaas

JohnnyInamoto wrote: »

Thanks Umkomaas. Could you edit my quote please

As requested! :cool:

JohnnyInamoto

Umkomaas wrote: »

As requested! :cool:

Thanks again :rotfl:

JohnnyInamoto

Update.

The process is now at POPLA stage, and The registered keeper has written (copy/pasted) an appeal based on a similar appeal in the 'Markham Retail Park Driver Left Site' thread. I'm just looking for a generous person to proofread and let me know if it's good enough to send over to POPLA.

As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice issued against it. I would like to have the parking charge notice cancelled based on the following grounds:

1) No evidence that the driver left 'the site.'
2) No landowner Authority

1) No evidence that the driver left 'the site.'

---

The notice to keeper states that the vehicle driver left the site resulting in the driver incurring a parking charge of £100.

No evidence has been provided from UKPC showing the vehicle driver leaving the site and I require UKPC to provide this. Such evidence should include photographs of the contravention and a site map and a picture of the signage that would have communicated to the driver the defined boundary of the site they are alleged to have left.

The burden of proof shifts to UKPC to prove otherwise and to explain why their attendant presumably:
1. Watched a driver or occupant walk towards the edge of an undefined boundary.
2. Did not attempt to stop/warn the driver nor even ascertain if a passenger had already been dropped at the door of the premises.

The attendant also had a legal duty under contract law, to mitigate any loss. In VCS v Ibbotson, Case No 1SE09849 16.5.2012 District Judge McIlwaine stated:
“you say he left the premises...where does the premises start and where does the premises finish?...there is a duty to mitigate the loss.”
In this case now under POPLA appeal, I contend that UKPC has neither demonstrated any evidence that there was a breach nor shown that their operative took any steps to mitigate any loss.

2) No landowner Authority

---

As UKPC does not have proprietary interest in the land, then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is vital evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA, but in this case, I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

I put UKPC to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.

This is vital; I contend that the contract - if this operator produces one - does not reflect the signage and if only a basic agreement or 'witness statement' is produced, then this will fail to demonstrate compliance with 7.3 (in particular, point b and d, above).

Some parking companies have provided "witness statements" instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow UKPC to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.

In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.

This would destroy any attempt by this operator to argue there is a Beavis-case-style 'legitimate interest' backed by any commercial justification and wishes of the landowner to sue customers setting foot beyond the boundary of a car park.

I require UKPC to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner showing evidence to meet 7.3 of the CoP. In order to comply, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner, not merely a 'standard business agreement'; with a non-landholder managing agent which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013.

I respectfully request that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and await your decision.