UKPC lies (again). I won! Judge struck out the claim!

mmmatt

My comments to UKPC's "evidence" 

1. UKPC seems to be very unsure as to the location and boundary of the site they claim to manage.  In document “UKPC Signage Plan”, they now state “Park Centrale” as being Archer’s Road, SO15 2UE and again a totally different area to where the vehicle was pictured, and their own NTK which as per my appeal states a location of SO15 2SJ.

In terms of UKPC’s answer no requirement of only “relevant land” to be accurate is simply and that it would be “impractical” to due “many interior roads”.  UKPC’s own submission of the area shows only THREE possible roads – “James Weld Close”,“Suttones Place” and “The Avenue”.  There has to be a degree of accuracy in UKPC’s claim of the vehicle location, they cannot simply blanket an entire selection of postcodes.  For example, the address they provide as “Park Centrale” in document “UKPC Signage Plan” states the address as “6 Archers Road”.  This is a council maintained public road, and as such is “not relevant land”. 

UKPC further down the same document then provide a site plan of “New College Campus” as evidence.  So, which is it?  Park Centrale or New College Campus?  UKPC state “a single name is chosen for convenience”, but then provide different names. UKPC have been asked to provide proof of Park Centrale, the location and boundaries but have provided a map of a totally different area.  If UKPC wish to show the “relevant land” they have not done so.

The car is pictured passing an ANPR camera at the “secondary entrance”, and by UKPCs own admission, the “main and secondary entry and exits are not linked”.  So it would be impossible for the car to be in James Weld Cl or Suttones’ Place, from the location pictured on ANPR as UKPC have claimed.

Based on the site plan of “New College Campus” UKPC have chosen to submit as evidence, one would have to assume that the red boundary is the site that UKPC manage (as the key states “site boundary” as well as highlighted in blue).  So based off this we can only assume that UKPC “manage” the blue area, so have no authority to issue PCN outside of the blue area.

There is a large area to the south of the secondary entrance/exit named “The Lodge”. This area is pictured clearly in my appeal figure 4/6/7/8/9.  As you can see, there are no markings, no signs.  A fence provides boundary.  And by UKPC’s very own admission, this area is OUTSIDE of the provided site map (shown in white is outside the boundary and management area).  There is also a large grey area to the north (key - commercial space) that UKPC have also said is outside of the boundary, so not relevant but also accessible from the secondary entrance/exit. 

As previously stated, any vehicle passing by will be captured by ANPR. UKPC however, does not provide any direct evidence of its alleged violation. It is not in the gift of UKPC to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result. By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, UKPC are not able to definitively state the period of parking. In addition times given by a vehicle driving in front of cameras cannot, by definition, be described as parking.

I still require UKPC Ltd to provide evidence to show where the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK, because as can be clearly seen there are multiple areas that UKPC DO NOT manage, are NOT signposted and outside of the site boundary, which can only be accessed through the secondary entrance/exit. 

I have clearly shown these areas.  If the still unnamed driver of the vehicle chose to park in any of the locations where there are a) no signage or b) outside of the area UKPC claim to manage, that is entirely within their rights.  Once again, as ignored by UKPC, we have asked them to prove that the car was parked on UKPC managed land and they are unable to do so.  We have shown there are multiple areas where it is possible to park a vehicle without breaching UKPC’s terms and conditions, and areas where there is inadequate/no signage, thus the onus falls on UKPC to prove otherwise.

 

2 and 3. In the “case summary” provided by UKPC, there are 7 signs shown.  Plotting these signs onto a map shows that all bar one are roughly 300-400 feet from the vehicle pictured, behind buildings and walls etc so we find UKPC’s claim of “We ensure that signage is ample, clear and visible” and “There are sufficient signs advising drivers that parking on site is for registered users only” almost laughable.  

UKPC also state falsely “The vehicle was parked in close proximity to UKPC signage, please see all photographic evidence to support this.” The photos are from approximately 5 months ago, have not shown the location the vehicle was parked, they have however demonstrated the signage is totally inadequate as mentioned above.

The single remaining sign shown in our appeal (figure 5) is covered in vegetation, unlit, not aligned with the entrance road (figure 11 and 12) and to the passing motorist would simply appear it relates only to that particular car park, and indeed the only further notice is very difficult to spot, it is hidden in the small car park. 

As per UKPCs own summary “Entrance signage advises motorists that terms of parking apply, and that notices within the car park should be checked”.  Within the car park being the key statement.  As shown in figure 12, the sign is outside a car park, the signage is hidden within the car park, so to the average motorist it would be safe to assume that relates to that car park, because once again, as per my photo evidence there simply is no other signs or markings anywhere else.

Even by UKPCs own evidence provided “signage plan”, there is 1 sign at the secondary exit (marked 1 in orange).  UKPC do not even have the correct location marked, as you can see the location shows it to be within the small car park (figure 11).  According to UKPC the next sign is nearly 200 feet away.  That is hardly “ample, clear and visible”, “negligible, obscured and hidden” is more fitting.

4. UKPC have failed to show that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.  UKPC has not shown (as an individual) that I personally have not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge.

5. UKPC have provided a generic “witness statement”.  Witness statements are not sound evidence.  Section 7.3 a) “the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined”.  As I’ve shown numerous times, UKPC have failed to show the boundaries of the land they manage and they have not clearly defined them, so I find this witness statement to be nil proof, and UKPC have not adequately proved compliance.

6. UKPC’s have not proven their signs transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for.  As per my evidence, the signage is so sparse and hidden.  They fail to indicate the “commercial intent”.

7.  UKPC have failed to respond to this point.  We can only assume UKPC is/has been seeking to enforce Terms & Conditions displayed on illegally erected signage, using equipment (pole-mounted ANPR cameras) for which no planning application had been made.

UKPC have provided a document “Vehicle+not+registered+onto+the+allowed+parking+system+evidence+poster” as evidence but this has no proof of date/time.  I would counter that this “evidence” is inadmissible without any form of date or time.  How does this show the vehicle was not registered at the time and date, if they do not provide the date or time?

 

Coupon-mad

No worries. You'll see them off at court stage.

mmmatt

Thanks Coupon.  Just hassle, worry and frustrating having to deal with their absolute nonsense.

mmmatt

Well, quick update on this - just to clarify we have two PCNs (just a week apart).  Exactly the same scenario.

Got the ridiculously laughable "bailiff" letters....six in total I think.  Even an Xmas themed one!  One for each PCN.  Always received on the same day.

Then the upgrade to DCBL.  Two letters again for a bit.

Letter of Claim appeared last week, but only one.  For the first PCN. 

Don't worry - I've already replied with the post 2 response via email

My question is, shouldn't they combine these two PCNs?  At the moment they have sent two demands with each individual PCN for £170 each.  But only one letter of claim.

I'm tempted to wait a week and see if another appears, or should I email them asking if they plan to waste their time with the second PCN and combine them?

Fruitcake

Yes, they should combine a claim for two PCNs with the same material particulars together. Look up estoppel or cause of action estoppel, and Henderson v Henderson.

If you want to see if a second LoC is in the pipeline, you could send a hold instruction stating that whilst you deny the debt, you are seeking debt advice and require the case to be put on hold for 30 days as per court pre-action protocol.

You could then add your findings with regards to estoppel and state you will bring this to the court's attention if the two PCNs are not combined, and claim for unreasonable behaviour if a second separate claim is issued.

Coupon-mad

And the hold request is already in the NEWBIES thread suggested response to LBCs

mmmatt

Thank you both - sorry I wasn't clear.  The debt hold PAP email was sent as soon as I got the LoC as per newbie thread.

I'll hold fire for now and see if another LoC turns up!

mmmatt

Well, interestingly I got a reply from the newbie email.

Didn't answer any of the questions of course....email below.  Attachments were just the generic signage and the NtK

"The British Parking Association (BPA) approved signage at xxxxx, xxxx clearly stated, “Registered Users Only”, please refer to the attached signage for clarity. Your vehicle was not registered to park on the private property; therefore, the Parking Charge Notices (PCN) were issued correctly.  

  When parking on private land, the contractual terms of the site are set out on the signs. You entered a contract and agreed to the terms by parking and staying on the site. Parking in breach of the terms as stipulated on the signage means that you breached the terms of the contract. The basis of the debt is that there was a breach of contract, as you breached the terms and conditions of parking.    We can confirm that you appealed the PCN to our client. In response to your appeals, our client acted reasonably and provided you with a 7-day period to provide the details of the driver of the vehicle. As you failed to respond to our client with the requested information, your appeal was rejected. For clarity, please refer to the attached documentation. Our client’s position was outlined to you in this correspondence and our client maintains the position that the PCN were issued correctly, as you breached the terms and conditions outlined on the signage.   Please note, within your appeal you accepted liability as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. Schedule 4 (4)(1) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states “The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. Therefore, our client has the right to recover the PCN from you as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.    It would have been made clear in the terms and conditions set out in the signs that additional enforcement costs may be incurred in the event of non-payment.  All additional costs are representative of actual costs incurred by our client as a result of your non-payment.  By parking on the private property, you agreed to the terms and conditions outlined on the signage.    You now have 30 days from the date of this email to make payment of £340.00. Failure to make payment will result in a Claim being issued against you without any further reference."

I definitely didn't accept liability   
Is it worth replying and fighting it here?  Shall I reply with the evidence we have or just wait for the LoC?
   

Le_Kirk

Bt remaining on their land (is it really) the car park, you are deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions.  They are chasing you as the RK in lieu of the driver; is the original PCN PoFA compliant?  You can check it against PoFA here:-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted
OR look for the thread of pictures of PCNs posted by @Coupon-mad. 

fisherjim

It would have been made clear in the terms and conditions set out in the signs that additional enforcement costs may be incurred in the event of non-payment

Really? So they don't actually know that they have just made it up, not that it matters anyway!