Next steps after receipt of response toPCN appeal?

JosephTall

I received a “notice to keeper” Parking Charge Notice at Waterside Inn, Leamington Spa. Mid of March, this year, during lockdown when all non-essential businesses were closed we parked in the car part of the Waterside.  Whilst driving around the Sainsbury's roundabout we noticed a new playground on the new housing estate. We had our 3 year old son in the car and given the opportunity for him to play in a new playground as there wasn’t much else for him to enjoy doing during lockdown, we decided to check it out. We drove around a little, but soon worked out that access may be possible from the back of McDonalds, which is the Waterside Inn.  We were keen to find the playground. The car park had one other car in there and we figured it would be ok to park as it was closed. Without a thought we walked with our son along the canal side and to the playground.  It turned out that the playground was designed for older children/adults, but this did not stop our 3 year old from trying it. Along the way, whilst there and on the way back our son fell over and cried, so we took a little longer than planned.  A few days later, we received a letter from UKPS with a picture of our car entering and leaving the car park and a fine of £100 or £60 if paid before 14 days. We read on MSE there was a template letter to respond to UKPS as this was a known issue. We modified it, slightly, and sent the template. Having left the return letter until the last day of the 14 days allowed, we did not modify the letter fully. On the 6th of April, we received an email reply from UKPS.  They passed comment on our 'template' reply and said they see the same template day in day out. They advised we should not look to 'fake' websites. They then continued with more detail of how we parked at the Waterside Inn.

Interestingly, they say the driver used McDonalds next door. We did not.  They say we paid no heed to the signage. This is true, we did not look for it. They say the landlord wishes for the car park to be monitored during lockdown to prevent parking abuse and fly tipping. They ask how would we feel if someone drove on to our driveway and began eating their lunch. We did not eat anything. They believe we would be out at the speed of light to tell them. If the situation was reversed as they wish us to imagine, then we would not be home. In this imaginary scenario, the people parked on our driveway would have taken their child to have a moment of fun and exercise in these unprecedented times, returned to their car, deposited no litter on my driveway and drove away. All would have been good in the World.

I am thinking of making this the basis of my reply.

Any advice? 

Do they have a legal right to do this considering the lockdown?  

I attempted to contact the pub itself, but no reply to emails or phone calls.

Interestingly, we notice their cameras include the fronting access road and parking spaces of McDonalds just opposite, which I am pretty sure is a GDPR violation? Additionally, the car park in question contains a clothing recycling bank in the form of a yellow container we have dropped clothes in from time to time, which usage is not referred to within surrounding signage.

JosephTall

This is what they sent as a response to my “appeal”:

FULL & FINAL RESPONSE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Thank you for your recent communication dated 4th April concerning the above Parking Charge Notice. When receiving a Parking Charge Notice it is natural to look for help online and there are plenty of advice websites that offer help in getting a Parking Charge Notice cancelled. All that the fake websites do, is give false hope and increase the motorist costs and more importantly, your time.

The appeal that was sent in is a copy and paste appeal that we see day in day out, and a lot of the questions in the appeal letter sent in are answered in this appeal response.

UKPS Ltd has a contract with the landowner to monitor and protect their land by issuing a Parking Charge Notice if the terms of a site are broken. UKPS Ltd will not give you a copy of the landowner agreement as it would break our clients confidentiality and would breach their Data protection. The landowner has a right to protect the land and the terms and conditions put in place deem that it was designated for Staff and Customers of the Waterside Inn. The signage at the Waterside Inn, Queensway, Leamington Spa is prominent, clear and unequivocal in its terms ‘Staff & Customers of the Waterside Inn Only’. The driver of the vehicle has used McDonalds next door, without paying any heed to the signage situated at the Waterside Inn situated all along the fence and where the driver parked. During this pandemic, the landlord has specifically instructed that the site terms and conditions are kept in place, as many vehicles are abusing the site and even fly tipping in some circumstances. To put a 'reverse spin' on this, if a vehicle pulled on to your driveway at home and began eating their lunch, we imagine you would be out there at the speed of light demanding they remove themselves from your private land. With this in mind, our CCTV operative provided the following account of the contravention:
'Vehicle came into the car park from the direction of McDonald’s. Vehicle then parked up in a bay without authorisation or permission for the duration of the stay from the land owner. At no point did any occupant attempt to read the signage located across the site, therefore the driver of the vehicle automatically accepted the site terms and conditions. Occupants walked off-site down the side of the pub/restaurant towards the canal & returned about 1h 15 minutes later. Stayed around his vehicle for a little time then drove offsite. Non client/staff member of the Waterside Inn - no permit registered to the VRM - Unauthorised parking session. CCTV footage will fully support the contravention report.'
Therefore, the driver of the vehicle was in DIRECT CONTRAVENTION of the site terms and conditions. The signs are clear and have been audited and approved by the trade governing body, 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 14 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 out 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.

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 standard Appeals service within 21 days of this appeal being declined.

3.    If you choose to do nothing, the parking charge will automatically increase after 14 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 MOTORISTS TO COURT WHO IGNORE THEIR PARKING CHARGES.

Payment Methods
Bank Transfer
Account UKPS LTD  
Account No:
Sort Code:   

Kind Regards

UKPS Ltd Appeals Team

Coupon-mad

. When receiving a Parking Charge Notice it is natural to look for help online and there are plenty of advice websites that offer help in getting a Parking Charge Notice cancelled. All that the fake websites do, is give false hope and increase the motorist costs and more importantly, your time.

Hahahahahaha!!  Classic.

People like us are doing a bit more than that, this year especially!.

I didn't read the rest.  No point.  Just drivel.

I am thinking of making this the basis of my reply.
Any advice? 

No. Don't tell them the story of what happened! 

This is why the template appeal exists: to stop people sending a story about who parked and what they did and why!    I assume you used the right template from this forum, not the AWFUL one in an MSE article on the main site that blabs about being the driver and what happened?

Do they have a legal right to do this considering the lockdown?  

Of course they do; any private car parks could do what they wanted.  PCN enforcement was only relaxed by Councils. You do realise you could have parked on street and had no PCN?  Why seek a car park out, why do people aim for scam camera car parks, I really don't get it.  Park on a side street every time.

If the PCN says that you 'left the site' then appeal to the IAS asking the PPC to prove it, and deny using McDonalds next door.  But before you do that, please show us the sign even if you have to go back on foot at the weekend to take some photos so we can read the terms.

JosephTall

These are the signs at the entrance:

And these are the signs once you are inside the carpark:


And this is the clothes bank inside the carpark if relevant:

D_P_Dance

Interestingly, they say the driver used McDonalds next door. We did not.

If this goes to court, and  is included in their witness statement under a statement of truth they might be in hot water.   

Another thing that strikes me is that you are required to ener the vrm on a tablet in the pub.  If the pub is closed you cannot do so and therefore any contract is likely to be frustrated.  

JosephTall

First of all thank you for responding to my post @Coupon-mad

I assume you used the right template from this forum, not the AWFUL one in an MSE article on the main site that blabs about being the driver and what happened?

Yes, I used the one on the forum in which you refute the fine and refuse to provide them the driver’s details

You do realise you could have parked on street and had no PCN?  Why seek a car park out, why do people aim for scam camera car parks, I really don't get it.  Park on a side street every time.

I agree, it was a silly mistake on our part. The focus was on finding the playground for our child and the closest point to it was the car park for the pub, which was closed for lockdown so honestly thought it was ok to park

If the PCN says that you 'left the site' then appeal to the IAS asking the PPC to prove it, and deny using McDonalds next door. 

The PCN does say that the driver left the site in addition to stating that my car entered it coming from McDonald’s.

They have made snapshots from the video footage available via their online appeals system, in which it is evident that my car came from the other direction, straight from the road and not from McDonald’s. I assume that that the letter I received is a standard template letter they send out to anyone who appeals.


Below is one of the snapshots from the cctv footage in which I have put boxes over the cars and their numberplates parked across the road from the pub’s carpark, which are otherwise visible in the snapshots provided.

JosephTall

Thank you @D_P_Dance

Another thing that strikes me is that you are required to ener the vrm on a tablet in the pub.  If the pub is closed you cannot do so and therefore any contract is likely to be frustrated.  

That’s exactly what I thought, as the contract on offer (that you must be a patron to be able to park there without being fined) was unavailable due to the pub being closed, which therefore renders their argument moot and the supposed contract that one would have entered into by parking there as a non-patron void.

These are just my thoughts, however, and I would not know whether it would hold up in court, nor am I confident about what to reply back to them.

D_P_Dance

 nor am I confident about what to reply back to them.

I think that you can be fairly confident that they would reject it.  So what, it is what a judge says that matters and judges have to consier this,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem

KeithP

It is simply impossible to enter into a contract to park when a sign such as this is there...



That is what's known as a forbidding sign.
A driver cannot enter into a contract to do something that is forbidden.



And I really don't know what to make these two signs right next to each other...

A sign that says Welcome right next to a sign that forbids visitors. Crazy.
But seriously, a clued up lawyer would jump on that combination.

Coupon-mad

Try an IAS appeal, as advised, stating that:

The operator has shown no evidence that the occupants of the car left the site and their facts are wrong, in that they say the car approached from McDonalds but it did not, it is shown approaching from the left, not the right.  State that the operator has failed to make any prima facie case that the driver 'left the site' and has provided information wrongly presuming the occupants came from or to McDonalds, which is denied and simply untrue. 

Moreover, the appellant has visited the site and (then explain the point about no contract being offered by the words 'NO STOPPING AND NO PARKING AT ANY TIME' and use the 2 photos that @KeithP has picked up on and attach them, after auto-stamping the date and time of photos on the images for date context, as evidence.  Don't use the other photos.

Go into this with your eyes open: for your information, the IAS is, by all accounts, useless for consumers and is provided by the parking firms' own Trade Body.  It has been seen to be a kangaroo court and far from independent (it is being replaced in a few months by the Government's Single ADR appeals service when the cowboy industry is finally reined in as part of the Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/parking-code-enforcement-framework/outcome/parking-code-enforcement-framework-consultation-response

However, IAS is worth trying at the moment due to PPCs being short of staff and financial resources.  Some of them are not making much of a decent fist of IAS appeal evidence, hence why your case needs to show evidence and put them to proof that 'the driver left the site'.  They have to present a prima facie case and they have not.

BTW, have you compared the NTK with the POFA 2012?  Please don't ask us to do that - it's spot the difference with Schedule 4 para 9, that's all.


P.S. Have to say, I would absolutely NEVER have parked there in a million years; you were obviously going to get a scam PCN.