UKCPS - “No Stopping” Parking Charge

chil_ros

Hi,

Just wanted to add my own experience into the mix. I got a charge from UKCPS at Manchester Gateway House on 1st January for dropping a friend off at the station. I was driving but my boyfriend is the registered keeper of the car (we followed all advice to not reveal driver's identity). I drove in, my friend got out, I turned around and left. I didn't stop the car or get out myself.

I have since appealed to UKCPS which was obviously rejected, and been told I can pay £60 by 2nd Feb or then pay £100. They provided me with photos of my car (lights on, engine never switched off). The photos has timestamps of me being stationary for 1 minute! I've complained to the landowner (who essentially sent me on my way and had no interest in the matter).

I've also complained to the DVLA and wasn't too pleased with the response. They essentially said "Companies who employ ANPR are entitled to receive information based on reasonable cause" and that they've been in contact with UKCPS who have provided them with evidence to support their case. They also said "we don't consider stopping a vehicle to be any different from parking a vehicle"!

I don't know why they mentioned ANPR when this is NOT was is used by UKCPS.

Should I go back to DVLA with anything else? I've also seen people mentioning getting in touch with the MP - what sort of thing should I say in that communication?

Thanks in advance!

JaseLloyd

Hi All

I have also had these pirates on my back since November.
They have now issued debt collectors.
I will not be sending any money of the sort. I will just let them use up their resources.

If you look at the signage at the Piccadilly Gateway is actually refers to 'No stopping on roads or double yellow lines'. It does not refer to yellow boxes.

Do not allow them to scare you.

JaseLloyd

I have the same also.
What have you done next?
Do not let them scare you

ParkingMateUK

The IAS have finally seen sense and allowed 6 of my appeals.

I know people don't bother with appealing tickets at this stage but its a good feeling to know the issue is closed and you will no longer need to worry about it. Another 6 appeals were dismissed by brain dead adjudicators quoting case law from 1982, but I have written to UKCPS and asked them to take those to court.

I used the appeal template in post #120 to contest the invoice mainly because they issue non-pofa notices which are sent after 14 days. Please check your own notice before using the same.

I hope this helps anyone in this situation.

Note from Adjudicator:
The Operator relies on POFA to make a claim against the Appellant as keeper, but fails to send the notice within the required timescales.

Castle

ParkingMateUK wrote: »

The IAS have finally seen sense and allowed 6 of my appeals.

I know people don't bother with appealing tickets at this stage but its a good feeling to know the issue is closed and you will no longer need to worry about it. Another 6 appeals were dismissed by brain dead adjudicators quoting case law from 1982, but I have written to UKCPS and asked them to take those to court.

Let me guess; Elliot v Loake (1982)!

Umkomaas

Nice result.

Note from Adjudicator:
The Operator relies on POFA to make a claim against the Appellant as keeper, but fails to send the notice within the required timescales.

Previously IAS have skirted around this (other cases, not this location or not necessarily this PPC) with some mealy-mouthed words that the PPC is pursuing the RK on the assumption that they were also the driver.

ParkingMateUK

You guys are spot on. I have attached the adjudicators statement below and highlighted the interesting comments they made.

<hr>
The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

The Appellant raises as an issue the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and purports that the Operator has failed to comply with the requirements therein.

I must point out that whilst the Act does need to be complied with in cases where the Operator wishes to avail themselves of the keeper liability provisions under Schedule 4, they are not obliged to do so where they do not.

In this case, the Notice to Keeper clearly states at the top "Non POFA - Manual Number Plate Recognition".

Instead, the operator is entitled to rely either on the legal presumption that the keeper of the vehicle was also the driver (which they are entitled to do in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary) or on an acceptance that they were driving at the material time.

On the present facts, the compliance or otherwise with the Act, is not a relevant issue.

The Appellant accepts that he was the keeper of this vehicle but denies that at the time of the incident he was the driver. In the case of ELLIOTT v LOAKE in 1982 the principle was established that in the absence of of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the driver of that vehicle at the time of an incident such as arises in this Appeal. The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that he was not the driver at the time of the incident. In this case such evidence has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that he was not the driver and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.

ParkingMateUK

JaseLloyd wrote: »

I have the same also.
What have you done next?
Do not let them scare you

Castle wrote: »

Let me guess; Elliot v Loake (1982)!

Umkomaas wrote: »

Nice result.


Previously IAS have skirted around this (other cases, not this location or not necessarily this PPC) with some mealy-mouthed words that the PPC is pursuing the RK on the assumption that they were also the driver.

Yes the adjudicator themselves state that the operator is pursing the keeper on the assumption they were the driver. The operator never said this, so its clear the adjudicator here is not being fair because they are adding their own opinion to the case. But we know the IAS appeals are probably done with a coin flip by 2 FACE.

Umkomaas

Elliot v Loake (1982) was a criminal case with lots of compelling evidence, and in every civil case in which we've been involved, where EvL has been adduced by the PPC, the Judge has dismissed it as irrelevant and carrying no legitimate weight in the context of a private parking case.

It's appalling that a legally qualified adjudicator is spouting EvL nonsense - the same desperate straw that PPCs cling to. :cool:

chil_ros

Just had yet another email from the landowner. I think it's pointless pursuing it further this way as she doesn't seem interested:

"Further to the below, please note that this is a private service road and not for passengers alighting to the station. Measures have been put in place to protect the operations of the businesses at Gateway House which we being impacted by illegal parking of members of the public."

Does anyone have any further recommendations on what I should do, or just wait for debt collectors letters?