Disabled Bay - UKCPS - Question about the initial email in the newbie thread

ItsFlooK

Hi guys, hope I can get some help with this. I parked outside specsavers in a disabled bay for a really quick stop while I ran inside, came out to find a parking ticket from UKCPS (Who in the past I have been advised to ignore their letters and they stop hassling you) 

So far I ignored the initial letter but after reading the second letter I have done some research and found this forum. 

My question is a really simple one I would like to confirm before moving forward; would it be correct to post/email the letter below to them? 

Thanks very much for any help with this

 Re PCN number: 

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

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.


THE NAME AND POSTAL ADDRESS OF THE KEEPER (OR THE HIRER/LESSEE) GOES HERE, OR IN THE RELEVANT BOX ON THEIR APPEALS PAGE.

THE DRIVER IS NOT IDENTIFIED.

KeithP

Now read the line immediately above that bit you have quoted.

Here it is again...


See those words - ONE SIZE FITS ALL?

You also need to read the answer to this question in the same NEWBIES post...


... but pay particular attention to these words...

ItsFlooK

KeithP said:

Now read the line immediately above that bit you have quoted.

Here it is again...


See those words - ONE SIZE FITS ALL?

You also need to read the answer to this question in the same NEWBIES post...


... but pay particular attention to these words...

Thanks Keith. I'm google these acronyms as quick as I can and I am certain with 26k posts you will be tired of explaining the same information to noobs but I appreciate the help. 

The second letter has arrived and it says at the top "28 days have now lapsed since we last wrote to you"...

Would now be the correct time to send the letter you linked? As follows:


Re PCN number:

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

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.


THE NAME AND POSTAL ADDRESS OF THE KEEPER (OR THE HIRER/LESSEE) GOES HERE, OR IN THE RELEVANT BOX ON THEIR APPEALS PAGE.

THE DRIVER IS NOT IDENTIFIED.

Coupon-mad

You don’t need to Google the Acronyms that are fully listed in post #5 of the NEWBIES thread.  Literally everything is explained on that thread.

if you waited for the 2nd letter you are too late to appeal but do it anyway. You will get rejected. Do not try IAS in your case.

errm... and what you describe is the most selfish parking imaginable and we absolutely do not condone parking like you did.  We don’t care that it was convenient and the bay was empty- NEVER EVER ABUSE A DISABLED BAY. 

If they sue you there will be no defence in court to this parking. If I am also not going to tell you to pay the likes of UKCPS, ex clampers whose conduct (by all accounts on forums) has been appalling over the years.

Fruitcake

Did an occupant of the car have a disability? Did they get out of the car?

If not, then the driver left themselves wide open to a parking charge issued for a good reason. It is hard enough when the regulars here are trying to fight unfair parking charges, but our job is made more difficult when the parking charge was issued fairly.
This is one of the reasons these companies exist.

ItsFlooK

Fruitcake said:

Did an occupant of the car have a disability? Did they get out of the car?

If not, then the driver left themselves wide open to a parking charge issued for a good reason. It is hard enough when the regulars here are trying to fight unfair parking charges, but our job is made more difficult when the parking charge was issued fairly.
This is one of the reasons these companies exist.

I was with my grandma and yes she has a disability. I popped quickly into specsavers to collect some things for her. 

Coupon-mad

You are not meant to leave a disabled person sitting in the car to use a disabled bay as they have no need for that bay and you could use any bay. 

Also are you sure? The ticketer would have seen herald she would have seen them unless they hid out of sight and didn’t affix a windscreen PCN.

D_P_Dance

You are not meant to leave a disabled person sitting in the car to use a disabled bay as they have no need for that bay and you could use any bay. 

A moot point, she could have come into the shop if she wished. 

Coupon-mad

Agreed but this is odd...all very odd.

Umkomaas

Under the outworkings of the Knight Act, improper parking in an accessible bay will carry the severest of 'penalties' from the PPC network - and UKCPS 'specialise' in operating around these bays. Future charges will be much higher than the current maximum. 

D_P_Dance

Indeed,but is this improper parking?