NTK-from UKPC- Driver left site designated for customer parking only

RBLUE7

Hello everybody,

After reading so many threads I am still confused what to do as english is not my first language and thanks to google translate I understood a little bit but still unsure about appeals. 
As the registered keeper of the vechile I received a notice to keeper on 01.02.2023 regarding a parking charge from UKPC received on 01.01.2023,(no windscreen ticket attached) for the reason of "Driver left site designated for customer parking only". 

The first appeal was made on 06.02.23 and I received their answer on 09.03 which is as follows:

"In order to make a final decision regarding your appeal, please provide a copy of proof of all purchases made on 

site to our Appeals Department within fourteen days of the date of this letter.

Further correspondence may be sent by submitting another appeal on our website at www.ukpcappeals.co.uk, or

by post to the address overleaf. Please ensure that if sending evidence by post that you include the parking 

charge reference number and vehicle registration.

Failure to provide this information will give us no alternative other than to make our final decision based on the 

previous information received. At this stage a POPLA verification code will be provided.

The parking charge has been on hold whilst under appeal and may be settled in full at the current PCN rate of 

£100.00"

Should I answer to this?Mention that no copy of the purchases available as purchases were payed with cash.


May I also write in Popla template this:
"The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant

period’ which is highlighted as a total of 14 days beginning with the day afer that on

which the specified period of parking ended.

The NTK was issued was received 31 days

afer the specified period of parking ended.

Clearly, the register keeper cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory

series of parking charge documents were not properly given."?


I look forward for your responses. 

Grizebeck

Did you deny leaving site?
If so check ukpc website for photos. See if a windscreen ticket was placed if so you cant use the above. These are normally windscreen tickets for UKPC
Do not reply. Awai the popla code then base your appeal on no evidence of a driver leaving the site

Fruitcake

Did you reveal the driver's identity in your appeal? If you did then the NTK arriving 31 days after the alleged event is irrelevant as the driver can be held liable.

In any case I suspect you have been the victim of "ghost ticketing" where a windscreen ticket was left, a photograph of the ticket was taken, then the ticket was then removed. If that is the case then UKPC will have a photo of the ticket on the vehicle.
Unless someone is caught in the act, it is impossible to prove who removed the ticket after the photo was taken.
If a windscreen ticket was left on the vehicle then the NTK must arrive between days 28 and 56 (which it did) if UKPC want to hold the keeper liable, the date of the alleged event being zero.

Do not reply to the above. Instead complain to the landowner and the managers of all shops visited asking them to cancel the charge, and complain to your MP.

Take photos of the site and signage. UKPC signs are always inadequate and unreadable. There will not be a map showing the boundary of the site, nor will there be a description of where the site boundary is located.

If the ticket is not cancelled in time, then appeal to PoPLA stating that: -

1) UKPC have failed to prove that the driver left the site.

2) UKPC have failed to prove that the driver was not a customer of the site. 

3) The signage on site is inadequate as it does not define the site boundary therefore it is impossible for a driver to know if they have or have not left the site. The terms and conditions on the signs are in tiny font and unreadable, and the £100 charge for breaching the terms and conditions is too small to form a contract with a driver.

4) UKPC are not the landowner and have no right to issue parking charges in their own name.

Add in all other points relevant that you will find in the third post of the sticky Announcement for NEWBIES.

Show us your draft appeal before submitting it to PoPLA.

Coupon-mad

There was a windscreen PCN (maybe someone removed it).

B789

Simply ask yourself "what evidence do they have that you left the site?". The PCN will either have all the photos they took or just go to their website and enter your PCN details as though you are going to pay (but DO NOT pay) to if they have any other pictures.

I don't think any claims of drivers leaving a site have ever been won by claimants except where they got their judgement by default.

RBLUE7

Grizebeck said:

Did you deny leaving site?
If so check ukpc website for photos. See if a windscreen ticket was placed if so you cant use the above. These are normally windscreen tickets for UKPC
Do not reply. Awai the popla code then base your appeal on no evidence of a driver leaving the site

Hi, 

Thank you so much for advices. The picture from ukpc website is with the car photographed from the back. I will wait fo Popla code then. 

RBLUE7

@Fruitcake
Thank you so much for your advices, explanations and patience for writing it. I would like to mention that when I did the first appeal to UKPC website I did not know about this forum, and is my big mistake because I think UKPC understood who was driving. 
I did POPLA draft, if anyof you would have time to have a look and correct/add/ delete anything it would be more than appreciated. 

As the registered keeper, this is my appeal about a Penalty Charge Notice issued by UK Parking Control Ltd for an alleged breach of the company's terms and conditions in the xxxxxx on the 01.01.2023.

POPLA Ref: xxxxxxx

UKPC  Ref Number: xxxx

VRN: xxxxx

1. Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention
2. The site boundary is not clear
3. Lack of standing / authority from landowner

Dear Sir/Madam

 As the registered keeper, this is my appeal about a Penalty Charge Notice issued by UK Parking Control Ltd for an alleged breach of the company's terms and conditions in the xxxxxx on the 01.01.2023.

POPLA Ref: xxxxxxx

UKPC  Ref Number: xxxx

VRN: xxxx

1. Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention
2. The site boundary is not clear
3. Lack of standing / authority from landowner
4. UKPC have failed to prove that the driver was not a customer of the site. 

1.      Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention

The evidence provided by UKPC  for the alleged breach of terms and conditions stated as left the premises are still photos. There is also no evidence that the supposed boundaries are shown on any signs or on a prominent map that individuals can see while on site in order for them to make a reasonable decision as to what then might be considered 'off site'.

Even if a sign says a charge can be issued for 'leaving the site', this means nothing if 'the site' is not defined. This could include any number of shops, a cash point, toilets, cafe, drop-off areas, delivery area, the car park itself, rest area/benches and any other section of a retail park. The signs do not define 'the site' or show a map detailing the limits of 'the site' therefore a motorist could not know if or when they have left 'the site'.

The fact that these photographs appear to overstep the mark of data protection - intruding on personal privacy of patrons without their authorisation - is another matter that POPLA may wish to raise with the BPA and the Information Commissioner, given the current GDPR legislation.

Evidence should include a picture of the signage that would have communicated to the driver the defined boundary of the site they are alleged to have left.
Evidence is also required which shows the vehicle driver leaving the site. Photographic evidence linking the photo of the person leaving the site with a photo of the actual driver. The photos need to be of such quality as to clearly link the two images. The photo should show the driver crossing the boundary.

 

2.      No site boundary defined.

The signs do not define 'the site' or show a map detailing the limits of 'the site' therefore a motorist could not know if or when they have left 'the site.

The notice to keeper states that the reason for issuing the charge notice is: “Driver left site designated for customer parking only.” Nowhere on the signage does it state:
- What the site boundary is.
- Show any map of where site boundary begins and ends.
- That leaving the site fails to comply with terms and conditions.

I require evidence from UKPC to show a site map and a picture of the signage that would have communicated to the driver the defined boundary of the site they are alleged to have left.

No explanation has been provided as to what constitutes “leaving the site” and it has not been established whether the driver was on site all along. The only evidence provided are pictures of a car parked within a parking bay. If no such sign or evidence exist, then I contend that the driver could not have known where the car park site boundary began and ended and in the absence of proof, I deny that there was any contravention. As a result, there was no contract formed with the driver to pay a charge in exchange for going off site; there was no consideration, offer or acceptance and no site boundary defined.

There was no attempt by the warden to advise in order to mitigate losses. I contend that UKPC have neither demonstrated any evidence that there was a breach nor shown that their operative took any steps to mitigate any loss.

3.      No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

As UKPC 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 - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is vital evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where. 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 authorised on the material date, 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. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA, but in this case, I 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 CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

Section 7.1 states:

“If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.”

Sections 7.21 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.”

Sections 7.3 states:

“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”

I put UKPC to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.

I do not believe that UKPC mere site agreement as a contractor issuing notice to keeper and letters 'on behalf of' the landowner gives the parking firm any rights to sue in their own name. This is insufficient to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and not enough to hold me liable in law to pay UKPC (not that a keeper can be liable anyway on non-relevant land and UKPC cannot enforce byelaws themselves). UKPC have no title in this land and therefore have no standing to enforce 'parking charges' or penalties of any description in any court. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that UKPC are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.

In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So, if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.

This would destroy any attempt by this operator to argue there is a Beavis-case-style 'legitimate interest' backed by any commercial justification and wishes of the landowner to sue customers setting foot beyond the boundary of a car park.

Taking all the above into account, I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld, and the charge is dismissed.

1.      Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention

The evidence provided by UKPC  for the alleged breach of terms and conditions stated as left the premises are still photos. There is also no evidence that the supposed boundaries are shown on any signs or on a prominent map that individuals can see while on site in order for them to make a reasonable decision as to what then might be considered 'off site'.

Even if a sign says a charge can be issued for 'leaving the site', this means nothing if 'the site' is not defined. This could include any number of shops, a cash point, toilets, cafe, drop-off areas, delivery area, the car park itself, rest area/benches and any other section of a retail park. The signs do not define 'the site' or show a map detailing the limits of 'the site' therefore a motorist could not know if or when they have left 'the site'.

The fact that these photographs appear to overstep the mark of data protection - intruding on personal privacy of patrons without their authorisation - is another matter that POPLA may wish to raise with the BPA and the Information Commissioner, given the current GDPR legislation.

Evidence should include a picture of the signage that would have communicated to the driver the defined boundary of the site they are alleged to have left.
Evidence is also required which shows the vehicle driver leaving the site. Photographic evidence linking the photo of the person leaving the site with a photo of the actual driver. The photos need to be of such quality as to clearly link the two images. The photo should show the driver crossing the boundary.

 

2.      No site boundary defined.

The signs do not define 'the site' or show a map detailing the limits of 'the site' therefore a motorist could not know if or when they have left 'the site.

The notice to keeper states that the reason for issuing the charge notice is: “Driver left site designated for customer parking only.” Nowhere on the signage does it state:
- What the site boundary is.
- Show any map of where site boundary begins and ends.
- That leaving the site fails to comply with terms and conditions.

I require evidence from UKPC to show a site map and a picture of the signage that would have communicated to the driver the defined boundary of the site they are alleged to have left.

No explanation has been provided as to what constitutes “leaving the site” and it has not been established whether the driver was on site all along. The only evidence provided are pictures of a car parked within a parking bay. If no such sign or evidence exist, then I contend that the driver could not have known where the car park site boundary began and ended and in the absence of proof, I deny that there was any contravention. As a result, there was no contract formed with the driver to pay a charge in exchange for going off site; there was no consideration, offer or acceptance and no site boundary defined.

There was no attempt by the warden to advise in order to mitigate losses. I contend that UKPC have neither demonstrated any evidence that there was a breach nor shown that their operative took any steps to mitigate any loss.

 

RBLUE7

3.      No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

As UKPC 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 - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is vital evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where. 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 authorised on the material date, 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. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA, but in this case, I 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 CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

Section 7.1 states:

“If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.”

Sections 7.21 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.”

Sections 7.3 states:

“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”

I put UKPC to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.

I do not believe that UKPC mere site agreement as a contractor issuing notice to keeper and letters 'on behalf of' the landowner gives the parking firm any rights to sue in their own name. This is insufficient to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and not enough to hold me liable in law to pay UKPC (not that a keeper can be liable anyway on non-relevant land and UKPC cannot enforce byelaws themselves). UKPC have no title in this land and therefore have no standing to enforce 'parking charges' or penalties of any description in any court. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that UKPC are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.

In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So, if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.

This would destroy any attempt by this operator to argue there is a Beavis-case-style 'legitimate interest' backed by any commercial justification and wishes of the landowner to sue customers setting foot beyond the boundary of a car park.

 

4. UKPC have failed to prove that the driver was not a customer of the site. 

 

I am not sure what else I should write here. Or it would be better to leave just paragraphs1.,2.,3. ? 

 

Taking all the above into account, I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld, and the charge is dismissed.

Coupon-mad

All of this isn't needed in point 1 because it's all about point 2:  

There is also no evidence that the supposed boundaries are shown on any signs or on a prominent map that individuals can see while on site in order for them to make a reasonable decision as to what then might be considered 'off site'.
Even if a sign says a charge can be issued for 'leaving the site', this means nothing if 'the site' is not defined. This could include any number of shops, a cash point, toilets, cafe, drop-off areas, delivery area, the car park itself, rest area/benches and any other section of a retail park. The signs do not define 'the site' or show a map detailing the limits of 'the site' therefore a motorist could not know if or when they have left 'the site'.
The fact that these photographs appear to overstep the mark of data protection - intruding on personal privacy of patrons without their authorisation - is another matter that POPLA may wish to raise with the BPA and the Information Commissioner, given the current GDPR legislation.
Evidence should include a picture of the signage that would have communicated to the driver the defined boundary of the site they are alleged to have left.

I think you also need to state at the start that no windscreen PCN was found by the driver, so UKPC are put to strict proof that there was one and that they complied with the POFA, because the NTK took over a month to arrive and without full POFA compliance, there is no prospect of invoking keeper liability.

And make paragraph 4 the standard one about unclear signs and terms.  The term about leaving the site was not prominent.

1505grandad

"As the registered keeper, this is my appeal about a Penalty Charge Notice...."

Is it a penalty notice.?

"This is insufficient to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and not enough to hold me liable in law to pay UKPC (not that a keeper can be liable anyway on non-relevant land and UKPC cannot enforce byelaws themselves)"

Is the land subject to byelaws?

B789

It's POPLA... Just say there's no proof that the driver left any site. End of.

Just think about it... even if you blabbed about being the driver, how can they prove it was YOU that left the site? Would they issue a ticket if one of your passengers left the site? As you mention, there is no term in their Ts&Cs that defines "the site". Does it say parking is for patrons only? Whatever their Ts&Cs say, they cannot prove that you, the driver or anyone else that may have been with you "left the site".

Even if the Tea-boy at POPLA assesses your appeal, whatever decision they come to, will not affect your life. It will never go to court because even the bottom-dwelling legals and the equally scum-dwelling clients are not stupid enough to try and put that before a judge.