POPLA UKPC Appeal - Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
I would like some advice regarding a UKPCN parking ticket I received as keeper of the vehicle. Driver has parked for what they said was no longer than 10 minutes in the area. Appeal was rejected by UKPC, but I am appealing via POPLA as I am not convinced their signage is correct or even covers the area where the car was parked. I have included my draft POPLA appeal below, any further advice would be greatly appreciated.
Vehicle Registration: **** ***
POPLA Reference: ****
I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 08/06/2023 acting as a notice
to the registered keeper. The reason for issue was Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit. My appeal to the operator – UKPC – was submitted and acknowledged on 17/06/2023 but subsequently rejected by a letter dated 05/08/2023. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:
1 - The car was not parked in a permit area. There are no entrance signs stating that the permit area includes where the car was parked. The first UKPC sign that is present on Loch Crescent is beyond where the vehicle was parked.
2 - No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
The pictures provided by UKPC of the alleged infringement are attached below:
As seen in the first image, the car is clearly parked before the first
UKPC sign (encircled in red). Whilst this sign says Permit Holders Only, it is
of fair assumption this applies to cars parked beyond this sign.
Loch Crescent, where the alleged infringement took place, is a one way road. Therefore the driver can only enter this area from one end – there is no other signage before the one highlighted to indicate to the driver that a permit must be displayed before that sign.
The following google maps image shows that the road is one way, as indicated by the arrows:
This satellite image depicts where the car is in relation to the first UKPC sign.
Green = position of car. Red = position of sign.
To add further clarity, another photo of the area has been taken by myself without a car parked:
operator does not have proprietary interest in the land, 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 including exemptions - such as any
'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's
'right of veto'
charge cancellation rights – is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised
to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a
right to cancellation of a charge. 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
also authorised 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 Code of Practice) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement). Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 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.
7.3 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.
- All Categories
- 338.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 248.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 447.5K Spending & Discounts
- 230.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 171K Life & Family
- 243.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards