UKPC Parking ticket (Now received NTK)

badparker

[FONT=&quot]the problem is not the parking itself.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Its the incredible number of people who don’t car about smashing your car with their door because in reality the bay is not big enough for someone to swing the door open not caring about what it hits. Until this changes then I think people are justified in parking over 2 bays. (espeically in the furthest points away from the enterance etc.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]£100's of pounds for every dent, not fair.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Either that or if the owner returns to the car to find a dent then they are allowed a free swing at the other car with a golf club? (even then the owner of the dented car still had to have the dents in their car fixed)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Anyways appreciate you taking the time to read the appeal do you think its ok to submit?[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Until this changes then I think people are justified in parking over 2 bays.

You are alone in that thought.

Parking like that is selfish, as if to say ''I think my car is more precious than yours''.

£100's of pounds for every dent, not fair.

Tell me, when have you ever had a car dinged by a car door? I never have and I've been driving for over 35 years.

Le_Kirk

badparker wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]the problem is not the parking itself.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Its the incredible number of people who don’t car about smashing your car with their door because in reality the bay is not big enough for someone to swing the door open not caring about what it hits. Until this changes then I think people are justified in parking over 2 bays. (espeically in the furthest points away from the enterance etc.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]£100's of pounds for every dent, not fair.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Either that or if the owner returns to the car to find a dent then they are allowed a free swing at the other car with a golf club? (even then the owner of the dented car still had to have the dents in their car fixed)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Anyways appreciate you taking the time to read the appeal do you think its ok to submit?[/FONT]

I hope the above is tongue-in-cheek rather than golf-club-in-hand!

badparker

First week of owning a really expensive car, that the keeper had worked for nearly 10 years solid to get to the stage they could afford to own such nice stuff and.....

badparker

[FONT=&quot]I am sorry to disappoint you. the driver is not selfish. It would be easy to make that assumption. but in the same way people deserve to go to work and not get hurt. people should be able to park cars without it getting damaged.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Its nothing to do with someones car being more precious then anyone else’s. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Its to do with the lack of respect that people of today’s societies have for other people belongings. People do this to other people’s properties and think that it is perfectly acceptable.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]That is what is selfish.[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Protest all you like - you cannot justify parking like that.

My car is also fairly expensive and I worked hard to get it but there's no need to be precious about them, life is too short and a car is an inanimate object.

People are more important. I think park like normal people do and relax about your car.

nosferatu1001

Can pretty much g'tee that parking across two bays round here would see you doors blocked in on both sides, leaving you trapped...

Coupon-mad

Yes I actually think it draws attention to a car in a way that this OP is not aiming for! Relax about your car and other people won't give it a second look.

I love my car but plonk it in a school car park all the time near messy students!

badparker

6 months later......


POPLA submitted there response


Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Safoora Sagheer

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant was not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised two grounds of appeal such as: • No evidence of landowner authority. • The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and 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. To support the appeal, the appellant has provided POPLA with details of the case.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider liability, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice sent to the registered keeper. While I note the appellant’s comments that the notice does not say the operator is using the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 to transfer liability, I consider that it does on the reverse of the PCN. When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signs state “NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING. TERMS OF PARKING APPLY AT ALL TIMES. Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £10 Parking Charge being issued to the vehicle’s driver. All vehicles must be parked only within marked bays.” I note the appellant’s comments and the evidence provided to support their reason for parking at the site in question. The appellant has raised inadequate signage. In the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, section 18.3 “signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including the parking charges. 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.” Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice also explains, that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see read and understand.” I consider that the photographic evidence show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA by displaying clear and sufficient signage throughout the car park in clear view to motorists. The operator has provided evidence showing the signage has sufficient lighting throughout the car showing the signage was viewable during darkness. The operator has provided evidence of the vehicle parked outside of a marked bay, therefore, the driver has breached the terms and conditions. The appellant has raised landowner authority. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has provided a valid contract which provides it with the authority to carry out all the aspects of the car park management. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. If the appellant suspected that the terms and conditions of the site could not be complied with, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site. I conclude that the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.








NOTE:


The Operators evidance included a unsigned contract.


and they did not even mention signage at the enterance


the 2 main issues at this point


loosing the will against these theives now

Coupon-mad

I think your main fightback will be a counter-claim, if you are still saying they damaged your windscreen, and can provide evidence of that.

If they try a claim they use SCS Law, and you can find loads of SCS Law UKPC defence threads to learn from right now. Just search the forum for those keywords.

You will always be struggling to an extent though, due to parking across two bays and a Judge might take the dim view I did.