UKPC Windscreen Ticket

Marc_w

Hi all,
I'm just checking I'm doing this all right and hoping someone can maybe give us pointers for a POPLA appeal.

Here's the story. My brother's car received a windscreen ticket back on 28th September from UKPC for "Parking on site but not a customer of a retail unit". He read the NEWBIE thread, the using the template in there, he waited until 22th October (the 26 day) to send his appeal to UKPC using their online appeal system (not providing an email address and making sure it was clear he'd only deal with comms from them via post).

On 5th November he received a letter refusing his appeal dated 1st November containing a POPLA code, then a couple of days later he received a Notice to Keeper dated 31st October (strange dates?)

He's ask me to help him write an appeal to POPLA, so far I have the following points (I can share the whole document if anyone's interested):

1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was not served - no Keeper Liability can apply. (I'm not entirely sure if this applies)
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

...can anyone think of anything else to add?

Coupon-mad

A compliant Notice to Keeper was not served - no Keeper Liability can apply. (I'm not entirely sure if this applies)
The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

Neither of those apply as they remembered to send a NTK in your case, which happens sometimes.

The first point should be (no template, just write it out) about there being no evidence that the driver parked on site but was not a customer of a retail unit. UKPC are put to strict proof of their assertion, including any photo evidence of who actually parked/were they went/how the site boundary was marked clearly on signage because the appellant denies that the driver was 'not a patron' (and needs no receipt to prove this because being a patron includes browsing in the retail unit).

Marc_w

Thanks for your help. I've now replaced the first two points with that.

Here's the whole thing:
docs.google.com/document/d/1EIJqwhyZ5I3KzHruIrH6yhkMFAUlsC0xgKgucg8LSAI/mobilebasic

KeithP

docs.google.com/document/d/1EIJqwhyZ5I3KzHruIrH6yhkMFAUlsC0xgKgucg8LSAI/mobilebasic

The ebay link in your appeal does not do what you want it to do.

Most of those links should be replace with images embedded directly into your appeal document. Make it easy for the assessor to read 'your story' rather than annoying them by forcing them to jump all over the internet for stuff.

Coupon-mad

I like that. Nice photos!

Now I have seen it was dark, is there a chance that the retail unit was actually closed?

If so, I would add to your first point:

As keeper, I have no way to tell what the situation was but I can see from UKPC's awful photos, that it was pitch black. Even if the operator states that the retail store was perhaps closed, this is denied in the absence of evidence of that fact from the retailer themselves.

Even if the operator shows evidence that they assert shows the retailers were shut - and that they contend after hours there is no parking allowed - then they will have killed their own 'contractual parking charge' argument. A contract to park cannot be offered if it is not actually 'on offer' or possible to fulfil after hours. This operator needs to decide what the terms of licence to park actually were, and prove that one of those terms was that drivers could only park when patrons of the retailer, even after hours (when that is impossible). An impossible contract means there can be no consideration flowing between the parties and no licence to park offered at all, as there would be no way to enter the site and comply.

Thus any PCN issued on that basis cannot have been properly given and would merely be a matter of alleged trespass (not a matter of contract, but instead, a tort which a parking firm cannot use against a consumer, unless they own the land). Note that as keeper I am having to cover every base, given the terrible photos on the UKPC website and lack of clear information about the terms/times.

Marc_w

Thanks,

As suggested, I've removed that link, replaced it with a suitable image and replaced many of the other image links with the images they link to.

docs.google.com/document/d/1EIJqwhyZ5I3KzHruIrH6yhkMFAUlsC0xgKgucg8LSAI/mobilebasic

Marc_w

Thanks Coupon-Mad

I've updated with your suggested addition.

docs.google.com/document/d/1EIJqwhyZ5I3KzHruIrH6yhkMFAUlsC0xgKgucg8LSAI/mobilebasic

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons 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. It has even been suggested that some of these companies have links with organised crime.

Watch the video of the Second Reading and committee stage in the House of Commons recently. MPs have a very low opinion of this industry.

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

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-19/debates/2b90805c-bff8-4707-8bdc-b0bfae5a7ad5/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill(FirstSitting)

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by in the not too distant future..

Fruitcake

Marc_w wrote: »

Thanks Coupon-Mad

I've updated with your suggested addition.

docs.google.com/document/d/1EIJqwhyZ5I3KzHruIrH6yhkMFAUlsC0xgKgucg8LSAI/mobilebasic

http://docs.google.com/document/d/1EIJqwhyZ5I3KzHruIrH6yhkMFAUlsC0xgKgucg8LSAI/mobilebasic

Marc_w

Thank you, I'm not allowed to include links