(IAS Appeal Success) - UKCPS. Told I didn't need to move car but ticketed on a later occasion.

DCTFUK

Thanks again. I will crop the image (the signs in the background are the ones on the opposite side of the island) I was parked to the left of the photo.

DCTFUK

Thought you might like to know that, thanks to some of the wording you helped with, I have had one successful IAS appeal back:

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.


I ended up with 3 tickets. The first one I appealed and have still had no response from UKCPS. The second was the one above which the IAS have overturned and the 3rd one I haven't sent to the IAS yet as I wanted to see if this one was successful as I might have added more evidence.

I am not sure whether I should chase up the first one with the IAS and whether I should appeal the third one through them or just contact them pointing out they have already overturned one of them. Can imagine them turning down the appeal for 2 others on the same ground would be a waste of time as my defence in court would be pretty good.

Coupon-mad

Appeal all of them as you succeeded once (well done!).

What exact wording did you put in, and did they initially contest it, then fold?

Mark2spark

DCTFUK wrote: »

I am not sure whether I should chase up the first one with the IAS...

If you log on to the IAS site it will show "Status of Appeal".
You must be able to log on as you have to register in order to submit the appeal.

DCTFUK

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Appeal all of them as you succeeded once (well done!).

What exact wording did you put in, and did they initially contest it, then fold?

Mark2spark wrote: »

If you log on to the IAS site it will show "Status of Appeal".
You must be able to log on as you have to register in order to submit the appeal.

They didn't contest it. The IAS site just tells me:

Operator Conceded
The Operator conceded this appeal due to Mitigation.

This is my appeal

You completed the appeal on 25/05/2019 16:52:30.

UKCPS is in breach of multiple sections of the IPC Code of Practice (CoP). I have included images proving that UKCPS signage is inadequate.

My vehicle has been parked in this space other times of the last few months on an afternoon when using facilities (including Gym) on site with no issues. I have always understood that the spaces belong to the supermarket and are not managed by UKCPS. This is for a number of reasons. Firstly there were no UKCPS signs on that side (the west side) of the Island separating 2 car parks. The only sign was a supermarket one next to the space in question (location A on attached site_plan.jpg) which implies they belong to the supermarket. On 12/03/19 whilst getting heading to the gym I was told by a UKCPS operative who was taking pictures of vehicles in the signposted poundshop car park (east of the separating island) that the row of spaces in question do not belong to pound shop and it was ok to park there. the poundshop head office are also unable to confirm they own the spaces. There are no maps on site outlining and boundaries or distinction between roads and car parks and there if therefore a huge amount of ambiguity regarding the enforcement area and whether the spaces are part of a carpark or road (particularly given the lack of any signs in the vicinity).

UKCPS have clearly only recently started issuing penalties to cars in these spaces either because they have only just had confirmation they manage them or by mistake because they don't actually manage them. After receiving the ticket and checking the area I noticed a single new sign seems to have been recently added but it is 15m further into the car park from the space in question and it is only knee height so is usually blocked from view by parked cars (location B on site_plan.jpg and shown in inconspicious_sign.jpg). This is the sign that the operative photographed as evidence so it must be the closest relevant sign. The fact that this sign is so low and normally obstructed contravenes the IPC CoP which states that these signs MUST be "clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site." UKCPS has failed to ensure that a reasonable driver of a vehicle would be able to clearly see the sign when entering the site and parking in the spaces in question. This is the first UKCPS sign of any type that a driver would pass because of the one-way system, so someone parking in the spaces where my car has been ticketed (15m before the sign) would never have seen any UKCPS signage (including entrance signs!) prior to parking as they would not pass any.

This is a new restriction that was previously not managed and UKCPS's own operative gave verbal consent for cars to park there and not be ticketed. Whenever this changed the IPC CoP required UKCPS to add very clear extra signs, so prominent that a "regular person" being already familiar with the fact they could park there with no UKCPS caveats would not fail to see the new terms. UKCPS has failed to do this.

UKCPS has, bizarrely, chosen not to add a sign to the lamp post which would be the most obvious place to install them and make it clear they are managing those spaces (particularly since it is the first lamp post anyone would pass and that the lamp posts on the east side of the island directly adjacent to the pound shop each have 2 signs on them) (see attached lamp_post_no_sign.jpg at location A on map). Since they have chosen not to add a sign to this post I believe UKCPS are in breach of section 14.1 which states "You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance".

The confusion and ambiguity over the parking boundaries on the site is further exacerbated by the single non IPC compliant entrance sign which appears to be for the east of the island and contravenes the signage section of the IPC CoP which states that any entrance sign MUST "identify yourself (where you are a limited company this should be by reference to your full company name, your company number and jurisdiction within which your company is registered)". UKCPS has failed as this section merely says .."Managed By..." and is then blank (attached image entrance_sign.jpg). Once again; I will point out that a person parking in the spaces where this ticket was issued would not pass a single sign indicating that UKCPS had any responsibility for managing those parking spaces.

Finally, I dispute that I was observed leaving the site by the UKCPS operative. UKCPS have failed to provide any evidence (despite my request) of my leaving the site around the time the ticket was issued despite the reason for the ticket being given as "Observed leaving the site"

DCTFUK

Mark2spark wrote: »

If you log on to the IAS site it will show "Status of Appeal".
You must be able to log on as you have to register in order to submit the appeal.

Sorry I worded that badly. The day I received the first ticket I appealed to UKCPS but still haven't had any response. The second and third were rejected straight away so I thought it was strange that I still haven't had a response to the first (even though I only appealed on 21/6/19).

getmore4less

Have a look on the planning portal if you have a map interface the property boundaries are marked it may give a better clue as to who owns those spaces.

DCTFUK

getmore4less wrote: »

Have a look on the planning portal if you have a map interface the property boundaries are marked it may give a better clue as to who owns those spaces.

I tried a few times to find it but it seems like the entire site is owned by one company and subletted to 3 different companies who each employ their own parking companies. Boundaries aren't marked to that level of detail.

Coupon-mad

Can you put that in as evidence then, as a screenshot? Make THEM prove which spaces are within which boundary. PPCs cut corners and may not be able to.