POPLA UKPC Appeal - Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit

crunch89

Hi all,

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.

----------

1

The pictures provided by UKPC of the alleged infringement are attached below:

https://ibb.co/QQN0gLG

https://ibb.co/vxqwDd9

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:

https://ibb.co/Jq8W2tq

This satellite image depicts where the car is in relation to the first UKPC sign. 

Green = position of car. Red = position of sign. 

https://ibb.co/L6d2Y08

To add further clarity, another photo of the area has been taken by myself without a car parked:

https://ibb.co/RgdM1bb

----------

2

As this 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.

Coupon-mad

You need to add the standard 'unclear signs' point and (if this was a postal PCN, not a windscreen one?) the POPLA point that says there's nothing to alert the driver as to what the data captured by camera will be used for.

Remove this awful intro please (I know it's not yours...people keep copying it despite it being ungrammatical, clunky rubbish!).

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 08/06/2023 acting as a noticeto 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:

 

crunch89

Coupon-mad said:

You need to add the standard 'unclear signs' point and (if this was a postal PCN, not a windscreen one?) the POPLA point that says there's nothing to alert the driver as to what the data captured by camera will be used for.

Thanks Coupon-mad. This was a postal PCN. The photos were taken by a "parking attendant" rather than any fixed cameras. Would the point still stand about the data capture by the camera?

Coupon-mad said:

Remove this awful intro please (I know it's not yours...people keep copying it despite it being ungrammatical, clunky rubbish!).

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 08/06/2023 acting as a noticeto 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:

 

Get rid of the first paragraph in its entiriety?

Coupon-mad

Yes and yes!

B789

As it's a UKPC scam, whether you win or lose at POPLA, you will not pay them a penny. Losing at POPLA has no bearing on any future court claim. All you will have to do is weather a storm of useless debt collector letters and eventually defend a claim from them submitted by DCB Legal which you defend using the robust template defence and wit for their discontinuance as per this thread:
DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

crunch89

Coupon-mad said:
You need to add the standard 'unclear signs' point and (if this was a postal PCN, not a windscreen one?) the POPLA point that says there's nothing to alert the driver as to what the data captured by camera will be used for.

- I have added the 'unclear signs' using the template in post #3 of Newbies thread.

- I have also added another section 'the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.'

- With regards to the data capturing - would you kindly point me in the right direction of where to find a template or previous post about this? I did see one in the 24 page appeal https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v_W_UseWdI_d_9WWMUfVecx0uDUYOwKs/view but this refers to ANPR cameras, whereas my pictures were taken by a parking attendant.

Thanks.

Coupon-mad

This one isn't relevant to a POFA PCN:

- I have also added another section 'the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.'

As for the other one that I suggested you add, isn't it one of the other points in the POPLA section of the NEWBIES thread?

crunch89

Coupon-mad said:

As for the other one that I suggested you add, isn't it one of the other points in the POPLA section of the NEWBIES thread?

I have had a look through the links on POPLA section on post #3 on the Newbies thread - there doesn't seem to be a link to template about the data protection point. The google doc link I posted above regarding the 26 page appeal to Smart Parking just refers to ANPR cameras. Anyhow, I will amend this and make it relevant to my case. Thanks again.

Coupon-mad

Yes, their number 8 is it.

Don't use the one you found that's irrelevant.