Free parking but PCN for parking over the line!

hg9aj

Hi all,

read the sticky and believe that it is appropriate to start a new thread as I cannot see any reference to this issue - although not unique I’m sure. Specially, I am unsure how the default letter covers this.

A driver receives a parking charge from UKPC Ltd in a free retail car park (applicable to approximately 10 well-known stores). The driver parked over a white line due to the car parked next to them being close to the white line. The tyres were only just past the white line. In the bay next to the driver were a number of trolleys that people had left so didn’t think much about being a hinderance.

To the drivers surprise, upon returning to the vehicle, they acknowledged a ticket on the window! The parking charge stated “Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space”.

I have read many threads on here and all are very valuable! Given that UKCP are BPA I understand that there would be the need to wait till day 26 to appeal. However, as mentioned at the top I just wonder if changes to the default template would be needed to cover this scenario.

Many thanks

hg9aj

Deleted - repeated post accidentally

KeithP

Hi, and welcome to the forums.

The 'one size fits all' blue text template appeal that you have found in post #1 of the NEWBIES thread really is the appeal you should be sending.

It should be sent unchanged - no additions or alterations necessary.

It should be sent by the vehicle's keeper and, as you say, at twenty-six days after the incident.

The whole purpose of sending this appeal is to get a PoPLA code so that a second level appeal may be made.

It is widely thought that the PPCs don't even bother to read many appeals - why would they, there is no money to be made from accepting appeals.

hg9aj

Thank you KeithP for the swift reply. I will stick to the process as per your guidance.

paulstevens64

Also, please edit your post to remove any reference to who was driving. Never use "I, Me" etc. Always use "The Driver", "the Keeper".


You will appreciate from your reading that a key winning point is: Non compliant NTK, POFA does not apply, Parking company have not demonstrated that they are pursuing the correct person (Driver)

hg9aj

Thank you ps64, hopefully the post is more appropriate now

hg9aj

Sorry, another question. The sticky suggested complaining to the store manager. Would the idea of complaining to 1 particular store still apply in this case where the 10 stores share a car park and the same parking company? Also, who would make the complaint (driver, keeper) - what particulars should be shared?

Apologies if this particular point has been covered in another thread. Happy to be pointed to it if so

Thanks again

MistyZ

hg9aj wrote: »

The sticky suggested complaining to the store manager. Would the idea of complaining to 1 particular store still apply in this case where the 10 stores share a car park and the same parking company? Also, who would make the complaint (driver, keeper) - what particulars should be shared?

You need to complain to the highest authority you can find. There is likely to be a land management company / land owner responsible for the stores and the car park. The stores should be able to tell you which company this is, if the information is not on the retail park's website. If you name the retail park here, there's a chance someone may know who manages it. You email the CEO of the company.

Appeal as keeper, use the royal 'we' and reference to the driver when explaining what happened. Mitigating circumstances are relevant, so is reference to money spent, where spent and longer term patronage. Indignation is appropriate, a very strong request that the charge be cancelled by the company is the key thing.

My impression is that the more outraged, determined and coherent the complaint, the more likely it is to be successful. Keep it basically polite.

The_Deep

Obviously, you complain to all the retail outlets in the complex, including kiosks, and leave a bad review on the shopping centre website, this particular company is a well known scammer.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/

Many judges regard these tickets as trifle, and a waste of the court's time, and are reluctant to award damages for a breach of contract. .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

As for now, complain to your MP.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business.

Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers.

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. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially 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.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.





o

hg9aj

Thank you all. The retail park in question is Thurrock Lakeside - in particular the car park at the far end with ASDA, Nike, Boots etc...

The_Deep

Why would such a large complex employ these fraudsters to scam their customers I have to ask.