Leaving site - successful IAS appeal v UKCPS

LeftTheSite

Hi folks,

First post here - mainly because I resisted the temptation to post a new thread about my PCN as instructed in your newbie thread

The purpose of me posting now is, firstly to thank the contributors here for helping me successfully fight my PCN, and secondly to share some details in case they can help anyone else in future.

Background: I received a PCN in the post from UKCPS for parking in Poundworld car park in Leeds and leaving the site. Given that Poundworld was closed, having gone into administration some months earlier, I found this outrageous, but as I have learnt, nothing is beneath these parking agencies. The car park appears to be shared with an Aldi, but as I later noted that section is managed by ParkingEye with no demarcation between them.

Following advice on here and other sites, my initial appeal to UKCPS was on the following grounds:

• no evidence of leaving site, only that the car was on site
• no definition of "site" in any signage, and cannot be assumed as two different parking companies operating
• terms and conditions in small lettering - quoting Beavis
• signage states "Poundworld Customer Car Park", but Poundworld no longer trading so unreasonable to enforce conditions (OK I made this one up)

Unsurprisingly this was rejected by UKCPS, who merely said that there were signs and re-sent the same pictures of my car.

I must say I was close to writing off the £60 as the price to pay to forget the whole thing and move on, but that is what they want so I decided to continue the fight. At this point I ignored your advice and decided to appeal to IAS - I figured losing an IAS appeal is as good as not appealing, and you never know, they might need to boost their numbers for the month...

So for IAS I reiterated and strengthened my appeal:

• re-requested video or photo evidence of driver leaving site. Stated that witness statement would not suffice.
• emphasised small T&Cs posted at height - insufficient to assume any contract
• no definition of site so unable to say if driver left it. Car park appears to extend to Aldi but that is under different management with no obvious boundary so impossible to even assume what constitutes the "site". No markers at any 'apparent' exits, or signage to state that you are about to leave the site and incur a charge - attached photo example of boundary signage at nearby Crown Point retail park which does exactly this, in large clear lettering. Included link to YouTube video I took walking around the car park illustrating all of this.
• suggested that, as nobody could possibly be a "Poundworld Customer", that nobody should be parking there, so a more cost-effective solution for the land owner would be to block off the spaces rather than continuing to engage UKCPS to issue sham charges
• requested landowner contract in accordance with BPA CoP 7.3
• pointed out signage ambiguity - "driver/passengers must remain onsite". "driver AND passengers" or "driver OR passengers"?
• request to know what action the attendant took to mitigate the potential loss, quoting VCS v Ibbotson
• stated that I would engage in no further correspondence until summoned to court

Tip: draft your appeal in Word and attach the document, as they don't let you copy text into the form!

Now...I'm not so naive to think that any of the above made the slightest difference. Perhaps my appeal was just drawn from the hat that day...who knows. The response does not elaborate:

"Thank you for your appeal. Due to further information UKCPS Ltd has confirmed they will no longer be pursuing the matter and the parking charge has been cancelled."

While I'm delighted with my outcome, it saddens me that they'll no doubt continue to prey on unsuspecting motorists, many of whom won't have the will to fight and will continue to make this a profitable business. I have at least learnt to pay closer attention to signage, no matter how small the writing is, as the hours of scouring forums and drafting appeals have been punishment enough!

I hope this post is of use - if more information or specifics are needed I'm happy to oblige

The_Deep

Leaving site claims are almost impossible for a PPC to win. An MP ventured the opinion in the HofC earlier this year that they were contrary to the HRA.

Umkomaas

Well done on having this cancelled. :T

"Thank you for your appeal. Due to further information UKCPS Ltd has confirmed they will no longer be pursuing the matter and the parking charge has been cancelled."

While a victory, this wasn't an IAS slapdown of one of their members, rather a quiet word in their ear from their funded IPC mates that you probably had the upper hand (video/photo evidence of leaving the site, and site definition, particularly the abutting to Aldi), who knows, but as in all of this stuff, a win is a win and you've saved yourself up to 6 years of potential hassle and possibly a court case to deal with.

The_Deep

"Leaving site" claims are almost impossible for a PPC to win.

An MP recently voiced the opinion in the HOC that such conditions breached the Human Rights Act.

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 in the house as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week, hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.
for unprofessional conduct

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

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

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Fruitcake

It's possible that since Poundland no longer exists, then there is actually no contract between the landowner and the PPC, so they would not want this to progress to court lest their scam be found out.

beamerguy

LeftTheSite ..... well done, you will go down in history as one of the few to win with the IAS.

In this case UKCPS did not get the deal they signed up for

On the one hand, is the IAS trying to get credibility in view of the up coming new parking bill ?

On the other hand, IAS did not support the appeal, UKCPS backed out which is strange in this scammers club

Whilst good for you, the smell from the IAS rat gets worse and I think you will be a one off.

We still await a REAL success where the IAS has evidence from both parties and sides with the motorist.
I guess pigs will fly because the IAS is just a scam.

One can only assume that UKCPS will cease their rubbish with "driver left site"

beaming

Hi LeftTheSite
Thank you so much for sharing your story. Using your advice, I successfully appealed a fine with a similar story also in Leeds.
UKCPS initially rejected my appeal but later cancelled the PCN after I had appealed through IAS.

This is a wonderful site!

Coupon-mad

Wow, very few people win at IAS stage, as it is considered a kangaroo court.

But a 'driver left the site' case is an exception, as the PPC will never be able to prove it. Even if they have a photo of someone walking somewhere, there is nothing to tell them or the IAS that this person was the driver of that car.

beamerguy

beaming wrote: »

Hi LeftTheSite
Thank you so much for sharing your story. Using your advice, I successfully appealed a fine with a similar story also in Leeds.
UKCPS initially rejected my appeal but later cancelled the PCN after I had appealed through IAS.

This is a wonderful site!

Well well, the IAS failing their own scammers, whatever next ????

Sounds like the CEO of the IPC is doing a bit of sucking up to the government .... :rotfl: BUT THAT WON'T WORK

Umkomaas

Two 'leaving the site' cases that failed for the PPC when referredto the IAS. A most unusual turn of events to see IAS appeals succeed (or at least forcing the PPC to withdraw).

Possibly indicative of the very thin ice a PPC walks in 'leaving the site' cases.

Well done @beaming. I'm sure your face was the picture of your forum user name on receiving the news. :T