PCN - Non customer parked in a customer only car park

Grizebeck

It will be rejected so why waste time ..... just do as advised

John79bhx

OK got it and will do as advised. Thank you @Fruitcake and @Grizebeck

John79bhx

Please see the response received for my appeal below and advise. 

FULL & FINAL RESPONSE WITHOUT PREJUDICE:

Thank you for your recent communication concerning the above Parking Charge. Our Appeals Manager has personally reviewed this case and has carefully considered the appeal by reviewing the various factors involved. Their view, however, is that the Parking Charge is neither unreasonable nor unjust and so we will not be waiving this parking charge.

As you are failing to name the driver, we are pursuing the registered keeper as per the POFa2012.

Whilst we can empathise with the driver, UKPS Limited will hold our clients best interests to the forefront at all times. This is private land that the landowner has designated for permit holders only and customers of both The Premier Club and GB Electrical. Although the Public House is currently closed, the land owner has requested that the car park regulations are kept in place as many people are taking advantage of using the car park without the permission, or the prior consent of the land owner. Our CCTV operative provided the following account of the contravention:
"Vehicle arrived on site at 17:32hrs and parked along the wall near GB Electrical. Driver alighted the vehicle and left the site via Station Road West at 17:33hrs. At no point did the driver attempt to read the site terms and conditions located on various signage. Vehicle still parked on site at 17:39 - Exceeded the 5 minute consideration period given to the driver to read the site terms and conditions - No permit registered for this vehicle. Non customer of GB Electrical/Prem Club - unauthorised parking. 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.

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.

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 your top address browser.

We appreciate that this is not the outcome you will have hoped for, however this decision is final.

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. Please note that should you choose to appeal with the IAS and they dismiss your appeal, you will no longer have the option to pay the reduced amount of £60.00 and will be required to pay the full amount of £100.00.

If you choose to do nothing, after 56 days from the incident date, the parking charge 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.

Grizebeck

As advised that would happen

John79bhx

Yes. Do I ignore as advised previously too? Please take a look at their contravention comments and about 5 mins grace period which doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhwhere on the notice at their site. 

Grizebeck

John79bhx said:

Yes. Do I ignore as advised previously too? Please take a look at their contravention comments and about 5 mins grace period which doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhwhere on the notice at their site. 

The advice hasnt nor will change. Why would it.?
Also their appeal rejection is irrelevant.

John79bhx

Sorry I am just trying to understand the process and Plan B. I know you're experienced but I am new to this. 

Grizebeck

John79bhx said:

Sorry I am just trying to understand the process and Plan B. I know you're experienced but I am new to this. 

There is no plan B, as advised you now ignore any debt recovery letters

1505grandad

You posted earlier:-

"As a keeper, I received a PCN saying "we issued the PCN to the vehicle as follows: Non Customer Parked in a Customer Only Car Park"

"OK thanks. Plan A is to do the appeal using unaltered blue text (as advised previously)."

Plan A is in fact a complaint to the landowner - has this been actioned?

John79bhx

@1505grandad
Sorry I missed that. Have I messed it up now?