Ukps response from appeal

carnut1234

Hello all, 

Following the newbie thread I sent the email in blue back to Ukps. This was an incident when the vehicle was parked for less than 15 mins by McDonald's drive thru which is owned by a pub. Cars have been parking here for 20 plus years but I would imagine that is why they have ukps. 

Anyway I've received the response and unsure what to do. I have a baby about a week away so considering paying the reduced amount but wanted to have you thoughts. 

Dear,

FULL & FINAL RESPONSE WITHOUT PREJUDICE:

Thank you for your recent communication concerning the above Parking Charge.  Please rest assured that our Appeals Manager has personally reviewed this case and carefully considered the various points raised.  Their view, however, is that the Parking Charge is neither unreasonable nor unjust and so we will not be waiving this parking charge.

This is PRIVATE LAND that the landowner has designated for Permit Holders only and customers of The Waterside Inn ONLY. As the Inn is currently on lockdown due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, there is NO PARKING allowed WITHOUT the prior permission of the landowner.
Our CCTV operative provided the following account of the contravention:
"Drove on-site from McDonald's. Parked up in Waterside Inn car park & then drove away - unauthorised parking."
Therefore, the driver of the vehicle was in DIRECT CONTRAVENTION of the site terms and conditions.
The signs are clear and have been audited by the UKPS Limited Company Lawyers and the IPC.

UKPS Ltd is still trying to resolve the situation and still willing to accept the reduced rate fee of £60, this offer is available for the next 7 days after which it will revert to the balance without the price reduction.

The contract that UKPS Limited has with the owner or occupier of the land (which authorises UKPS Limited to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of Parking Charges in respect of parking of the vehicle on the land) contains a confidentially clause and as such we are not in a position to provide the contract to you.

As a member of the Approved Operator Scheme, UKPS Limited are audited by the IPC to ensure that we have all relevant contracts in place.  UKPS Limited will provide the court with a copy of this in full if they require it, or can provide a written statement to this effect from those party to the contract.  We are also more than happy to provide confirmation to the independent assessors that we are authorised to manage parking at this site.  We can confirm that parking management at this site has been contracted to UKPS Limited.

All of our signage is fully compliant with the guidelines set our within the IPC Code of Practice and we reject the notion that it is in any way unclear or ambiguous.

The highest court in the UK, the Supreme Court, has unambiguously confirmed that parking charges issued on private land are fully enforceable.  In the case of ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 their Lordships stated that private parking charges were enforceable because they served a legitimate interest and were in the interests of the public generally.  The case confirmed that the amount of the charge does not have to reflect any loss that might have been caused by breach of the terms and conditions of parking.

The Supreme Court decision is binding law on all other courts throughout the UK.

Another Court decision: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-39478203

Please be advised that all photographic evidence can be viewed by typing:

pay.theukps.com

in to you top address browser.

We appreciate that this is not the outcome you will have hoped for.  Unless you have any additional information that you have not already brought to our attention this decision is final.

In light of the contents of this letter you now have a number of options:

1.    Payment offer of reduced rate for the charge above at the reduced rate of £60; to UKPS Limited.  PLEASE REFER BELOW FOR PAYMENT OPTIONS AND ADDRESS DETAILS.

2.    If you are not happy with our decision you can contact the IAS (www.theias.org) standard Appeals service within 21 days of this appeal being declined.

By law we are also required to inform you that the Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal.  However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service.  As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to IAS, as explained above.

3.    If you choose to do nothing the parking charge will automatically increase after 7 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 £60, in accordance with our 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.

PLEASE DO NOT IGNORE THIS LETTER, UKPS LIMITED REGULARLY TAKES MOTORIST TO COURT WHO IGNORE THEIR PARKING CHARGES.

Payment Methods
Bank Transfer
Account UKPS LTD 
Account No: ‪25006760‬
Sort Code:     ‪30-99-15‬

Or Cheque / Postal Order
UKPS Ltd
Central Office
The Hangars
Harbury Lane
Leamington Spa
CV33 9SA

Kind Regards

UKPS Ltd Appeals Team


UKPS Ltd
Central Office
The Hangars
Harbury Lane
Leamington Spa
Warwickshire
CV33 9SA
Phone: ‪01926 356 747‬
Email: info@theukps.com

BrownTrout

I love these two lines "UKPS Ltd is still trying to resolve the situation and still willing to accept the reduced rate fee of £60, this offer is available for the next 7 days after which it will revert to the balance without the price reduction."
" Please rest assured that our Appeals Manager has personally reviewed this case and carefully considered the various points raised."

carnut1234

The emailed response is very annoying but what do I do. Not sure what the next steps are and if its worth pursuing. 

BrownTrout

The email is the same response sent to motorists by Aiden no matter what you say.   There are no "next steps" (what ever that means) and you don't need to pursue anything. Do nothing further.  This Company issues very few court claims. Come back if you get one

beamerguy

Don't get sucked into a scam by UKPS
"Appeals Manager" ...... AKA as the lady/man who makes the tea
All part of the scam and as they are IPC members, they are scammers.

It's the "operative of the CCTV".   that is of concern. Who is the operative that is passing data to a parking company ?..   Is it the pub CCTV, where is the CCTV 

BrownTrout

No the Cctv system is run by ukps
Its one of the directors who sends the template appeal responses 

Fruitcake

The NEWBIES tells you precisely what to do when an IPC scammer rejects an appeal.

What happened when you complained to the landowner?
Have you complained to your MP yet about this unregulated scam?

The scammers have no idea who was driving, so make sure you keep it that way. Leaving site is virtually impossible for the scammers to prove because they do not have anything to compare an image of the driver with. 

MistyZ

Blimey, UKPS really go to town don't they!  Anybody would think a crime had been committed.  Every word manipulative and obnoxious.  

Do you have other babies?  'Cos chucking out a few emails seeking to get this cancelled by the landowner could, possibly, be quite doable unless the littl'un arrives a bit early!  From your use of the word 'incident' it sounds as if there may have been a good reason for parking at that site ... if that was the case then tell the landowner.  Are you a regular at the pub?  Any connection and any 'mitigating circumstances' are relevant in a landowner complaint.  

So the first thing to do is to identify who the landowner is - privately-owned pub or a chain?  Then you need an email for the pub manager or the CEO if it's a chain.  I doubt very much that the signage is up to scratch or presumably occupants of the car would have noticed it.  Lay it all on the line with the landowner, strongly request that they cancel this vexatious charge.  

Apart from the important complaint, there is nothing to do at this time unless and until a Letter Before Claim is received.  Why would you pay up though?  You can tell from the response what a bunch of scammers UKPS are.

carnut1234

Thank you all for the response, this has given me the confidence to continue. I will try and get in touch with the landowner and complain to my mo. Apart from that I will sit tight and wait it out. 

If I manage to find the landowner and make my complaint do we still need to be careful about who the driver was. I would imagine this makes it a little more difficult to complain to the landowner with a story without admitting liability. 

beamerguy

BrownTrout said:

No the Cctv system is run by ukps
Its one of the directors who sends the template appeal responses 

Do you know the pub and area ?   why do they say operative if it's them

Fruitcake

carnut1234 said:

Thank you all for the response, this has given me the confidence to continue. I will try and get in touch with the landowner and complain to my mo. Apart from that I will sit tight and wait it out. 

If I manage to find the landowner and make my complaint do we still need to be careful about who the driver was. I would imagine this makes it a little more difficult to complain to the landowner with a story without admitting liability. 

Unless the vehicle only has one seat, the keeper can easily have been an occupant and not the driver.  
Get pics of the site and signage to see if the site boundary is defined. I very much doubt it will be. I have yet to see a parking sign with a precise boundary described or shown on a map.
If the keeper was not driving, then say so. Otherwise the keeper refers to The Driver when they complain, or uses the royal "we".

I doubt the scammers have images of the driver leaving the undefined site. If the scammers say they believe the keeper was the driver, they won't be able to prove it.