Response to UKPC after the following from UKPC: gesture of goodwill payment, DR+ and Zenith letters:

NoLifeWithoutMSE

Summary:

• I will admit, I found this forum fairly late and have done what it specifically states not to do on the NEWBIES post: I stated the driver's name (same as the keeper) and I called both UKPC and DR+ upon receipt of DR+'s letters - apologies in advance for this
• I received a PCN from UKPC in November for parking without displaying a blue badge in a private car park, which I subsequently appealed as my blue badge was displayed but had dropped to the floor as my dashboard is slanted and my crutch must have hit it
• I was sent a response by UKPC, whereby they stated they have reduced the charge to £15 as a gesture of goodwill and provided a POPLA code for further appeals
• For whatever reason, the 28 day 'allowance' for POPLA appeals was missed
• The landowner has been informed, and I have an email from them recommending them to solve this issue as soon as possible
• I have received numerous Debt Recovery Plus and Zenith (I understand these are the same company) letters since, which I am aiming to respond to using Daisy's robust response template after I respond to UKPC
• I have written out and compiled a response to UKPC below, which I intend to send; however, I am looking for any advice regarding this case and any feedback regarding my response written below - although it is very long so please accept my apologies

Thank you, in advance

NoLifeWithoutMSE

'Letter Before Action

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Vehicle Registration:

PCN Number:

 

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a notice to the registered keeper dated -. My appeal to you (UKPC) was submitted on -. You claim to have sent a response to the appeal on -. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge. Should it be your intention to start court proceedings, I have provided you a mere snippet of what I intend to state the below in the court of law; in addition, I will vigorously expose your predatory behaviour to the court of law, various Members of Parliament, your employers, the media and the general public – after all, following a number of your scams, an example of which is your scam in 2015, your company carries far less than a respectable reputation and it can only lessen.

 

1.       Disability Discrimination: Equality Act 2010 – non-compliance;

2.       Unenforceable Blue Badge Scheme on Private Land: BPA Code of Practice & House of Commons – non-compliance;

3.       Inadequate Signage: POFA 2012 & BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance;

4.       12 Month Prescribed Period for Consumer Complaints: Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes Regulations 2015 – non-compliance;

5.       UKPC Acceptance of Wrongdoing – ‘Gesture of Goodwill’;

6.       Unlawful Harassment: Protection from Harassment Act 1997 & Equality act 2010 – non-compliance;

7.       Abuse of Process with False Amounts: POFA 2012 & Consumer Rights Act 2015 – non-compliance;

8.       No Evidence of Landowner Authority: BPA Code of Practice – no strict proof of full compliance;

9.       No Evidence of Entitlement to Levy Charges without Consideration.

 

1. Disability Discrimination: Equality Act 2010 – non-compliance

The BPA Code of Practice (16.1) states that: “The Equality Act 2010 says that providers of services to the public must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to remove barriers which may discriminate against disabled people.”

 

Under the Equality Act 2010 (4), disability is defined as a protected characteristic. The Equality Act 2010 (6.1) further adds that: “A person (P) has a disability if— (a) P has a physical or mental impairment, and; (b) the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.”

 

The Equality Act 2010 (20.1, 20.3 and 20.4) then proceeds to explain: “Where this Act imposes a duty to make reasonable adjustments on a person, this section, sections 21 and 22 and the applicable Schedule apply; and for those purposes, a person on whom the duty is imposed is referred to as A.” “The first requirement is a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practice of A's puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.” “The second requirement is a requirement, where a physical feature puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.”

 

The following is also stated with regards to non-compliance with the Equality Act 2010 (21.1 and 21.2): “A failure to comply with the first, second or third requirement is a failure to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments.” “A discriminates against a disabled person if A fails to comply with that duty in relation to that person.”

 

The Equality Act 2010 puts employers under a positive duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people, to help them overcome disadvantage resulting from an impairment. The Act includes a new statutory protection from discrimination arising from disability. This states that it is discrimination to treat a disabled person unfavourably because of something connected with their disability. This type of discrimination is unlawful. Indirect discrimination also covers disabled people, if a disabled person could claim that a particular rule or requirement that is in place disadvantages disabled people.

 

In compliance with the Equality Act 2010, even councils offer mitigating circumstances to appeal an official charge issued. An example of this is Cheshire East Council’s Mitigating Circumstances (MC13) which states they accept mitigating circumstances “where the motorist is a Blue Badge holder/transporting a Blue Badge holder and 1. did not have the blue badge or clock on display; 2. blue badge was obscured; 3. blue badge had expired”.

 

With disabled bays being provided within this private car park, they can legally be used by any driver and/or passenger who requires the bay and meets the ‘definition of disability’ under the Equality Act 2010. As you were made aware in the initial appeal regarding the driver’s disability and you were presented with a copy of the driver’s blue badge despite a valid blue badge being clearly displayed in the driver’s vehicle, pursuing the charge is now legally defined as disability discrimination under the Act. Therefore, any discrimination or harassment will now be considered illegal and you will be liable to be sued for the damages of harassment of a disabled person.

 

An interesting caveat to note is your apparent adherence to the ‘Government Disability Discrimination Act’ – an act that is no longer used in the majority of the UK, only being used in Northern Ireland. It is a UK Government requirement to adhere to the Equality Act 2010, which you have consistently breached time and time again. No doubt, this will be of interest to many.

(image taken from UKPC website in the disability section)

 

 

2. Unenforceable Blue Badge Scheme on Private Land: BPA Code of Practice & House of Commons – non-compliance

The BPA Code of Practice (16.3) states: "Operators of off-street car parks do not have to recognise the Blue Badge scheme. But many choose to do so to meet their obligations under the Equality Act. Although a Blue Badge is not issued to all disabled people it is issued to those with mobility problems. So it is a good way for parking operators to identify people who need special parking provision."

 

Furthermore, the House of Commons (website won't allow me to post links) ruled that: "The blue badge scheme does not apply to off-street car parks, whether local authority- or privately-owned. […] Off-street parking: The blue badge scheme does not apply to off-street car parks whether local authority or privately owned. However, the Equality Act 2010 does require parking operators on private land to make ‘reasonable provision’ for disabled people. […] The scheme does not apply on private land; this includes the road systems at some airports, such as London Heathrow. […] The position is more complicated in the case of private car parks or privately operated car parks – for instance those at supermarkets – as the disabled parking spaces are generally not designated by Order and therefore no offence is committed by non-disabled people parking in these spaces."

 

The House of Commons adds: “public bodies must not, in the exercise of their functions, “do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation” (section 29(6)). […] Indirect discrimination occurs when a person applies a “provision, criterion or practice” which, although applied to persons with different protected characteristics (e.g. disabled and non-disabled) puts one group of persons at a particular disadvantage. […] Section 149 provides that a public authority must […] “advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it”. This involves having due regard to the need to “take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it”.”

 

By these UK Government rulings, it is clear that disabled bays in a private car park can legally be used by any driver and/or passenger that meets the definition of ‘disability’ under the Equality Act 2010. A blue badge may be used as an indicator of disability; however, it is not the be-all and end-all in defining ‘disability’. By virtue of a ‘disabled’ person’s ‘protected characteristic’, any ‘disabled’ person has the legal right to park in a disabled bay within a private car park.

 

In this case, the driver is disabled and clearly displayed a valid disabled badge. The driver also presented a valid disabled badge in their appeal, despite it not being a legal requirement; however, the disabled badge and the driver’s disability were both disregarded by UKPC. Thus, UKPC have breached UK Government law and regulations through complete dismissal of and non-compliance with the BPA Code of Practice and the House of Commons. UKPC have also breached the Equality Act 2010, through not providing ‘reasonable adjustments’ for the disabled driver and completely neglecting their disability – a ‘protected characteristic’.

NoLifeWithoutMSE

3. Inadequate Signage: POFA 2012 & BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

The signs in this car park are not instructionally precise, prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

 

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

 

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

 

As illustrated in the image attached of the poor signage pertaining to disability bays in your car park, the sign states: “Disabled badge holders only in disabled bays. Valid disabled badge must be clearly displayed at all times’. As per POFA 2012, this signage is not ‘adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land’; there are no specific requirements of how or where the blue badge must be displayed, nor do you refer consumers to on-street requirements. You simply state that the ‘disabled badge must be clearly displayed’ – a subjective requirement, lacking instructional precision and accuracy. In this case, the blue badge was displayed ‘clearly’ and was in plain sight – should the inspector have desired to correctly check before issuing a PCN. It would not have been the first time your employees have altered evidence to fit their agenda – a well-known UKPC scam.

 

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

 

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

 

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

 

(website won't allow me to post links)

 

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

 

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

 

(website won't allow me to post links)

 

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

 

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

 

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

 

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

 

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

 

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

 

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

 

(website won't allow me to post links)

 

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

 

(website won't allow me to post links)

 

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''

 

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

 

(website won't allow me to post links)

 

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

 

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

 

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

 

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

 

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

 

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

 

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

 

(website won't allow me to post links)

 

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

 

I require UKPC to provide strict proof of instructionally precise and accurate signage regarding the specific placement of a disabled badge. In addition, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

 

 

4. 12 Month Prescribed Period for Consumer Complaints: Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes Regulations 2015 – non-compliance

The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes Regulations 2015 (13A) definitively states that: “the “prescribed period” is 12 months from the date on which the trader informs the consumer that the trader is unable to resolve the consumer’s complaint (the “notice date”).”

 

The date of issue for this PCN was 27/11/2019. Upon contact with UKPC, the driver was informed that the deadline for appealing has passed and the charge must be paid in full; in addition, unethical scare tactics were used, endeavouring to prompt the driver to pay the original amount in full immediately, otherwise they would face the additional charges and be chased by the unlawful and unregulated Debt Recovery Plus service – recordings of these scare tactics have been made and saved as proof of UKPC’s unlawful and unethical conduct.

 

You are in breach of the UK Government’s law and regulations through a denial of consumer rights to appeal this unlawful parking charge within 12 months of issue – the ‘prescribed period’. If you choose to contest this, it will be stated to the DVLA and in court that UKPC, as an unregulated parking industry company, have refused the driver’s lawful right under the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes Regulations 2015 and are therefore in breach of UK Government law and regulations.

NoLifeWithoutMSE

5. UKPC Acceptance of Wrongdoing – ‘Gesture of Goodwill’

After the initial appeal, UKPC responded with the following: “However, as you have provided a copy of a blue badge with your appeal, we have decided to reduce the charge to £15 as a gesture of goodwill, if payment is received within thirty-five days of this letter.” This was sent, despite the following being known: 1) a blue badge was clearly displayed for the issuing inspector to see, if he had even intended to; 2) the driver is a disabled individual with a ‘protected characteristic’ for which ‘reasonable adjustments’ must be made; 3) the driver holds a valid blue badge. UKPC failed to formally reject the appeal; instead, you accepted some form of liability through reducing the charge. Therefore, the PCN can be deemed invalid and unenforceable.

 

Similar cases have been noted from other private parking companies, and these have subsequently been released to the general public and media outlets, rightfully exposing scams that companies – like yours – undertake. An example of this can be seen here: (website won't allow me to post links). If you choose to not desist further communication and cancel this charge, one can be confident this case will be of interest to many – not to forget, UKPC’s reputation has suffered enough damage as it is through your unlawful and unethical practice.

 

It can also be concluded that, despite the blue badge being displayed clearly and despite UKPC being provided with further pictures of the blue badge, UKPC are not adhering to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and Equality Act 2010 by persisting to harass the driver. UKPC quintessentially accepted wrongdoing through providing a ‘gesture of goodwill’; however, you continued to pursue the charge in your own illegal interest, to the detriment of a disabled person with ‘protected characteristics’.

 

 

6. Unlawful Harassment: Protection from Harassment Act 1997 & Equality act 2010 – non-compliance

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (8.1-8.6) clearly states:

“(1) Every individual has a right to be free from harassment and, accordingly, a person must not pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another and—

(a) is intended to amount to harassment of that person; or

(b) occurs in circumstances where it would appear to a reasonable person that it would amount to harassment of that person.

 

(2) An actual or apprehended breach of subsection (1) may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question; and any such claim shall be known as an action of harassment.

 

(3) For the purposes of this section — “conduct” includes speech; “harassment” of a person includes causing the person alarm or distress; and a course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions.

 

(4) It shall be a defence to any action of harassment to show that the course of conduct complained of—

(a) was authorised by, under or by virtue of any enactment or rule of law;

(b) was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; or

(c) was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable.

 

(5) In an action of harassment the court may, without prejudice to any other remedies which it may grant—

(a) award damages;

(b) grant—

(i) interdict or interim interdict;

(ii) if it is satisfied that it is appropriate for it to do so in order to protect the person from further harassment, an order, to be known as a “non-harassment order”, requiring the defender to refrain from such conduct in relation to the pursuer as may be specified in the order for such period (which includes an indeterminate period) as may be so specified, but a person may not be subjected to the same prohibitions in an interdict or interim interdict and a non-harassment order at the same time.

 

(6) The damages which may be awarded in an action of harassment include damages for any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from it.”

 

Further to this, the Equality Act 2010 (26.1-26.5) declares:

“(1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if—

(a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and

(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of—

(i) violating B's dignity, or

(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

 

(2) A also harasses B if— […]

(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b).

 

(3) A also harasses B if— […]

(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), and

(c) because of B's rejection of or submission to the conduct, A treats B less favourably than A would treat B if B had not rejected or submitted to the conduct.

 

(4) In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account—

(a) the perception of B;

(b) the other circumstances of the case;

(c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

 

(5) The relevant protected characteristics are— age; disability; gender reassignment; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation.”

 

The Guidance on the Consumer Protection Regulations 2014 (60, 62) add: “The Regulations expressly provide that consumers have a right to damages if the consumer has suffered alarm, distress or physical inconvenience or discomfort caused by the misleading or aggressive practice. […] Damages for distress are most likely to be appropriate in respect of aggressive practices.”

 

Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and Equality Act 2010, UKPC is unlawfully harassing an individual with a ‘protected characteristic’, namely a disabled person, and these ‘damages’ can be ‘awarded in an action of harassment’; this includes but is not limited to ‘any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from it’. You are in breach of UK Government law and regulations. It is to be noted that, unless your harassment desists, UKPC will be liable to be sued, a claim will be raised and compensation will be recovered. It need not be expressed that exposure of your harassment and scare tactics will unquestionably be of fascination and concern to many.

 

 

7. Abuse of Process with False Amounts: POFA 2012 & Consumer Rights Act 2015 – non-compliance

UKPC’s response to the initial appeal included the following: “If you choose to do nothing the parking charge will automatically increase after thirty-five days from the date of this letter to £100 and the matter will be passed to our debt recovery agent, at which point you will be liable to pay an additional charge of £70, in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking, and further charges will be claimed if court action is taken against you. Any unpaid court judgement may adversely affect your credit rating.”

 

The purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, a disingenuous double recovery attempt, vague and in breach of both the CPRs, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'. This charge is unconscionable and devoid of any 'legitimate interest', given the facts.

 

Debt Recovery Plus operate on a “no recovery/no fee” basis, as stated on their website, thus establishing an argument that both UKPC and Debt Recovery Plus are breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true, whether or not they used a third-party debt collector during the process.

 

It is reasonable to claim that UKPC have not incurred an additional £70 in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The arbitrary addition of a fixed sum purporting to cover damages or costs is also open to challenge as an unfair commercial practice under the CPRs, where 44.3 (2) states: “Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –

(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and

(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.”

 

Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, your added £70 are wholly disproportionate, are not genuine losses at all and do not stand up to scrutiny. This has been recognised in many court areas. Differently from almost any other trader/consumer agreement, when it comes to parking charges on private land, binding case law and two statute laws have the effect that the parking firm's own business/operational costs cannot be added to the 'parking charge' as if they are additional losses.

 

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 ('the POFA') at paras 4(5) and 4(6) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (further, the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon UKPC fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. UKPC have failed on all counts and one can be confident that you are well aware your artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

 

Further, the purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, vague and in breach of the CRA 2015 Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'. You have arbitrarily added an extra 70% of the parking charge in a disingenuous double recovery attempt that has already been exposed and routinely disallowed by many Courts in England and Wales. It is atrocious that this has been allowed to continue unabated for so many years, considering the number of victims receiving your exaggerated letters, who then either pay an inflated amount or suffer a default judgment for a sum that could not otherwise be recovered. It is only those who defend, who draw individual cases to the attention of the courts one by one, but at last in 2019, some areas noticed the pattern and many have moved to stop this abuse of process at source.

 

In addition, the Guidance on the Consumer Protection Regulations 2014 (11) states: “The 2008 Regulations make aggressive practices unlawful (see regulation 7). […] It covers the use of harassment, coercion or undue influence.” They proceed to declare (33): “The Regulations expressly cover all commercial demands for payment. Debt collectors acting aggressively and receive the consumer payment on their own behalf would be covered as “traders”. If the debt collectors are acting as agents of a trader, the claim would instead be against the trader.” As Debt Recovery Plus are your clients and are acting on behalf of UKPC, you are liable to costs and damages caused by Debt Recovery Plus.

 

Since the Parking Eye v Beavis case, many judges have ruled additional further amounts being added as an ‘Abuse of Process’; one such example is from June 2019, whereby Judge Taylor struck out a case by BWLegal for adding a further amount of £60 as ‘Abuse of Process’ in Southampton Court: ”The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, not with reference to the judgement in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover”. As such, your additional amounts are considered an ‘Abuse of Process’ and, if your harassment fails to desist, one can be certain this will be of interest to many.

NoLifeWithoutMSE

8. No Evidence of Landowner Authority: BPA Code of Practice – no strict proof of full compliance

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

 

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. It is not unreasonable to suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA Code of Practice) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement does or does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign, particularly because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

 

The BPA Code of Practice (7.2) states: “If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.”

 

Furthermore, in paragraph 7.3 the BPA Code of Practice adds: “The written authorisation must also set out:

a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.”

 

Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put it to UKPC to provide strict proof of full compliance.

 

9. No Evidence of Entitlement to Levy Charges without Consideration

I contend that UKPC are only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS v HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model. I will require you to provide strict proof of your contract with the landowner that entitles them the authority to levy these false amounts.

 

 

I trust you enjoyed this measly extract of what will be used against UKPC if you or your clients persist with harassment. It is strongly suggested to you that you abstain from any further harassment, under UK Government laws and regulations. If you fail to do so, further action will be taken against you and you will be liable to abundant costs of damages and compensation. In addition, it is certain that your predatory behaviour will be of immense interest to the court of law, various Members of Parliament, your employers, the media and the general public. With UKPC holding a particularly infamous reputation as is, one can be certain the media will revel in these new findings.

 

Yours sincerely,

The Registered Keeper'

BrownTrout

sorry you have wasted your time putting that together, complete and utter waste of time
you would have done better watching paint dry

Redx

the daisy advice is extremely old and not been updated for many years

Umkomaas

They won't read that, and you'll be left waiting for a response that won't come.  Over 6,000 words when you're dealing with those with the attention span of a goldfish - but send it off, see what happens, given that you've already written all of that.  Sorry to burst your bubble. 

But you'd be better focused by pressing hard on the landowner, especially in the context of the Equality Act 2010. 

Please note that the Daisy thread is quite ancient and is considered as too old to serve much useful purpose these days. 

D_P_Dance

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, 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.

beamerguy

Nicely thought out but you are relying on them being intelligent. THEY ARE NOT, UKPC are simply scammers and fraudsters and you deal with them as such.

YES ... Equality Act 2010 is very important as UKPC could be prosecuted

7. Abuse of Process with False Amounts: POFA 2012 & Consumer Rights Act 2015 – non-compliance

UKPC’s response to the initial appeal included the following: “If you choose to do nothing the parking charge will automatically increase after thirty-five days from the date of this letter to £100 and the matter will be passed to our debt recovery agent, at which point you will be liable to pay an additional charge of £70, in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking, and further charges will be claimed if court action is taken against you. Any unpaid court judgement may adversely affect your credit rating.”

They may well have something in their terms but who gave them permission to add fake amounts ??
POFA2012 and the Supreme court ruling SAYS THEY CANNOT

I will tell you where they THINK they got permission from .... it's the defunct dinosaur called the BPA who have a joke book called a Code of Practice..
This code of practice IS NOT THE LAW, certainly not a law for the motorist So who told UKPC can add fake amount ?    Apart from the fact they have copied the scam from a couple of legals we see on here, the BPA have been telling them this .........

"Clause 19.9 and 34.8 - You must warn drivers that if they delay payment beyond a payment period of 28 days and you need to take court action or use debt recovery methods to recover a debt, there may be extra ‘recovery’ charges for debt recovery action. However, you do not need to say how much these recovery charges are in advance, on your signs or notices.

So the BPA are telling their members to break the law of POFA2012 and disobeying the ruling of the Supreme court. This is why the BPA are not fit for purpose
Whoever wrote this sentence  at the BPA is a liability to them.  "However, you do not need to say how much these recovery charges are in advance, on your signs or notices"     The simple answer is such a code cannot form a contract and is against The Consumer Rights Act 2015

Therefore, any claim adding fake charges would be impossible to prove, the BPA code of practice can easily be ripped apart in a court.

Of course as said above, this will go over the heads of UKPC but it will not with a judge and if UKPC wish to wait in the Queue for a spanking with all the other dodgy claims going through the courts, it's up to them. UKPC already know that spankings are expensive and of course there are your costs when you win

They have already reduced it to £15 so wake them up, offer them a drop hands offer that they cancel without charge and you will not claim your cost (£100) when you  win

Even low intelligence would understand this is the best deal for them

Coupon-mad

It is far, far too long for a LBC, and it needs to state how much you are claiming for and why and when it must be paid by, to resolve the dispute. 

And/or that you will drop the claim if they drop theirs by xx date, and you will then agree to walk away with neither party having any claim to any sum under any applicable rule of law, and that both parties will not seek costs either.

Cut out EVERYTHING except the Equality Act stuff but remove this entire quote as well because UKPC are not a 'public body or 'public authority' so quoting wrong stuff makes it easier for them to rebut:

The House of Commons adds: “public bodies must not, in the exercise of their functions, “do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation” (section 29(6)). […] Indirect discrimination occurs when a person applies a “provision, criterion or practice” which, although applied to persons with different protected characteristics (e.g. disabled and non-disabled) puts one group of persons at a particular disadvantage. […] Section 149 provides that a public authority must […] “advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it”. This involves having due regard to the need to “take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it”.”