UKCPS Parking Charge

little_lily

Many thanks to all those who give their time and expertise on here for free, I really have appreciated all the information you've put together.

I've read through the FAQs, the post for Newbies and as many posts as my brain can compute and I've drafted the response below to a NTK that I received this week. I've tried to base it as closely as I can on the template in the Newbies section, but I couldn't find specific reference there to cases where it's alleged that the driver left the site.

Would anyone be kind enough to read through it and give an opinion as to whether I've included something I shouldn't or omitted something I should have put it?

Many thanks in anticipation....

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle XXXXXXX. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner and to my MP, XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.

Liability is denied on several grounds including (but not limited to):

• Your signs fail the test of “large lettering” as established in Parking Eye vs Beavis 2015
• The parking charge terms were insufficiently prominent for the driver to accept an offer and therefore no contract was formed.
• If a UKCPS employee observed the driver leaving the site, he/she failed in their legal duty to mitigate loss by. As established in Vehicle Control Services vs Ibbotson 2012, as a lawfully authorised representative of UKCPS, they should have informed the driver that a charge of £100.00 would be levied if they left the site.

Should you fail to cancel this PCN immediately, I require the following information with your rejection:

1. Does your charge represent damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
2. Dated photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract.
3. All photographs / images / videos taken of this vehicle.
4. All photographs/images/videos taken of the driver of this vehicle
5. Confirmation of what constitutes the site boundary
6. Dated and timed photographs/images/videos taken of the driver leaving the site and returning to the site.

I am alarmed by your contact and I do not give you consent to process any data relating to me, or this vehicle. I deny liability and will not respond to debt collectors. You must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA, and should you fail to respond accordingly, your company will be reported to the Information Commissioner.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and will also be making a formal complaint to your client landowner.

If you are a current BPA member, send me a POPLA code. If you are an IPC firm, cease and desist with all contact.

Yours faithfully,

Quentin

The template appeal is just that.

A template!

Send it as is

You say you have read the newbies thread - in that case you will know the futility of appeals to IPC companies

After sending in the appeal you go into ignore mode.

See #4 in the FAQ

Come back to the FAQ for advice on how to deal with a court claim if it comes to that

They have 6 years to start legal proceedings against you

KeithP

Firstly, why does it say WITHOUT PREJUDICE at the top?

Did you consider sending the already written for you blue text template appeal as it is?

My suggestion is that the keeper should send the Blue text template appeal from post #1 of the NEWBIES thread.

The Keeper should send it unchanged - no additions or alterations needed.

By the way, there is no such thing as a Section 10 notice in the Data Protection Act 2018.

You have dragged up a really old template from somewhere.

MistyZ

Hello there,

why 'without prejudice'? I'm not sure it actually means anything at this point.

I suspect the more experienced regulars may recommend sending the blue text template appeal from the Newbie's thread unchanged.

It seems to me that too much is said about the alleged infraction. It is up to the PPC to prove that the driver left the site.

Could be that you've nailed it, but I think you may have done more than you need to here.

A search of the forum for the PPC involved (which one was it?) will soon tell you whether they are a BPA or IPC member.

Edit: blimey these regulars are quick - 2 posted while I was still typing this!

little_lily

Thanks both for your response.

The reason I didn't simply send the template is because it didn't seem to address the allegation UKCPS made in my case - namely, that the driver was observed leaving the site.

The allegation did not involve a PDT machine and it did not involve an alleged overstay of minutes. So are you advising that I send it in its entirety regardless? Or that I delete those two sections?

Sorry to be dim.

KeithP

Send the template unchanged.

Who cares about the detail? It is widely thought that many PPCs don't often bother to read appeals.

You are missing the point that the template will often recognised as coming from MSE forums and will either be put in the too difficult pile or even accepted.

MistyZ

I think the alleged infraction is pretty commonplace, nothing special about it so nothing special needs to be done at this stage.

However I do agree that it's a particularly stupid & unreasonable so-called condition of parking.

The_Deep

Whether you left the site of not may be of little consequence to a judge.

Just tell him that your brand new £300 Monte Cristo was blown away by the wind, and, as you rather wanted it back, you left the site to retrieve it.

Seriously, I suspect that this "leaving site" nonsense may well be an unfair term in a consumer contract, and may even be a breach of your Human Rights. Indeed, this very same alleged breach of contract was mooted by an MP in the HoC recently.

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Le_Kirk

If you do end up sending this, maybe change this bit to make sense; you have a full stop after "by" maybe you meant it to be a comma and then carry on with the rest of your sentence.

• If a UKCPS employee observed the driver leaving the site, he/she failed in their legal duty to mitigate loss by. As established in Vehicle Control Services vs Ibbotson 2012, as a lawfully authorised representative of UKCPS, they should have informed the driver that a charge of £100.00 would be levied if they left the site.

Maybe: -

• If a UKCPS employee observed the driver leaving the site, he/she failed in their legal duty, as a lawfully authorised representative of UKCPS, to mitigate loss by informing the driver that a charge of £100.00 would be levied if they left the site. This was established in Vehicle Control Services vs Ibbotson 2012.

Umkomaas

That part of Ibbotson is very tenuous now following the Beavis case. Signage, the specifics of contract with the landowner and the site's defined boundaries are probably much more impactful.

little_lily

Thanks so much to all of you who replied, it's brilliant that you give up time for this and I really appreciate it!

I've cut and pasted the template and sent it off so will look forward to their next move. I'll also write to my MP, every little helps...

Thanks again so much x