IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

PCN Appeal UKCPS - Permit Holder

Looking for help with the following. My daughter received a PCN from UKCPS. Essentials are she is a permit holder on a private car park. Permit issued by her employer. It appears on one day her permit blew off her dashboard and ended up on her car seat. UKCPS issued a PCN because she was not displaying her permit in accordance with signage etc. I appealed the PCN to them enclosing a copy of her permit. They rejected it on the technicality of displaying a permit. I appealed it then to IAS on the grounds she was entitled to park and that it was not consistent with UKCPS mission to manage the car park for the businesses located there to punish permit holder employees. Now UKCPS have uploaded their evidence which again is simply on the technicality above they were entitled to issue a PCN. I have the chance to counter using Form IAS-3. I am looking for help with that.
I did find this which seems to be the point I was trying to make. based on Jopson v Home Guard Services Case No B9GF0A9E
"There can be no legitimate interest in punishing authorised loading/unloading, under the excuse of a 'parking' scheme where ostensibly - and as far as the landowner is concerned - the parking firm is contracted for the benefit of the leaseholders/landholders/tenants. It is unconscionable, contrary to the requirement of good faith and 'out of all proportion to any legitimate interest' to issue a parking penalty for permitted unloading/loading by a driver who has legitimate business and rights to do so.

These rights supersede any signs, which are of no consequence except to deter rogue unwanted drivers from leaving their vehicles when they have no business on site."

On the above I assume the use of "loading/unloading" can equally apply to "parking".

In essence I am trying to say punishing a permit holder (correctly displayed or not) is not what the Car parking company is there to do. As a permit holder there is no loss of revenue at issue and the £100 charge is completely disproportionate hence is a punishment.
Appreciate the thoughts of people here experienced in these matters. I am handling this for her as she is in recovery from cancer treatment and really does not need this crap.
«1

Comments

  • Fruitcake
    Fruitcake Posts: 57,993
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    What does the landowner and your daughter's employer say about this? Plan A is always a complaint to them and her MP, and it's never too late to do so.

    Is your daughter a member of a trade union? If so, her rep should be all over this like a rash. In any case, her employer should be sorting this out, especially as they will be involved if the PPC ever tried court.

    Your interpretation of the Jopson case is fair, even if this wasn't an incident involving loading or attending to a vicissitude of some small duration. 
    She already has a right to park, and it is unfair to inflict a physical permit scheme on motorists when a virtual whitelist/exemption list would have prevented this from happening. It's nought but a money-making scheme.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister. :D
    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
  • checkmate9999
    checkmate9999 Posts: 14
    First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 10 January at 11:50AM
    Let us be blunt. It's a sordid moneygrab. That notwithstanding we need to get on the right side of the law with it. I have actually requested that the car parking company provide a copy of their contract with the landowner (whom I do not know) so that I may check the criteria under which they can issue a PCN. If there is anything therin that denies them the ability to do so with respect to permit holders then they will be sunk. It is not yet forthcoming.
    I think what I was really trying to get was an expert opinion on whether I could use Jopson even though this was a case of parking and not loading and unloading. It seems to me the underlying principle remains the same. Entitlement to park should not be overturned and punished on a technicality designed by the car parking company as a deterrent to none entitled car parkers.
    I might add another point I find strange. Whether entitled ,or not, if you do not display the charge is exactly the same. Yet obviously an entitled car parker has had that facility paid for presumably by their employer in this case. There is absolutely no loss of revenue as there might be with a non entitled car parker. So why are they both treated in the same way? Does this seem 'fair' , or equitable ?.
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 129,367
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 11 January at 3:25AM
    You can just ignore UKCPS.

    I have the chance to counter using Form IAS-3. I am looking for help with that.
    What's that form? NOT non-standard IAS where victims pay £15 to lose?
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • checkmate9999
    checkmate9999 Posts: 14
    First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 11 January at 11:15AM
    No the form is to enable a further provision of evidence following the car parking companies upload of evidence. To add to your initial defence after the parking company has responded to it.
    Not sure on what basis you suggest "you can just ignore UKCPS?  Do you mean they never take it to  court?
  • checkmate9999
    checkmate9999 Posts: 14
    First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 11 January at 11:59AM
    OK, I have read enough now to know I made a newbie mistake here. Like most honest people I admitted too much and appealed to their sense of right thinking that would be enough. Essentially should have just replied I am keeper , not driver, and no I will not give details regarding same. End of.
    Can't now undo what has been done so IAS will reject appeal and we will end up paying. Is this country f...d up with corporate greed, or what?
  • Half_way
    Half_way Posts: 7,013
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    why would you pay if the IAS reject your appeal?

    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
  • Half_way said:
    why would you pay if the IAS reject your appeal?

    I guess it depends ,but if they took it to court what would you do?
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 129,367
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 11 January at 12:57PM
    What makes you think you have to pay?

    No-one pays after losing at IAS and yes, it is correct that UKCPS do not litigate any more.  They used to lose cases a lot, about a decade ago:

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/07/ukcps-claim-dismissed-judge-rules.html?m=1

    Search the forum for UKCPS and change to NEWEST.

    - Find me one where UKCPS are suing?

    - Find me one where ignoring the eejits hasn't worked with this company?!

    If they took it to court we'd happily defend using the Template Defence, as seen in EVERY OTHER THREAD on this board (with PPCs who do litigate).  We defend these here every day of every week.  99% win rate.

    No-one pays who loses at the farce of IAS.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • checkmate9999
    checkmate9999 Posts: 14
    First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Wonder if anyone can think of a relevant case ruling on the following grounds. My daughter the permit holder has an employment contract of which she is entitled to free parking at her place of work. Said employer issues her a parking permit. The permit does say to "display in the windscreen". What it does not say is if there is any penalty ,or action for not doing so. My argument is my daughter as a primacy of contract with her employer and she may , or may not be in breach of that contract upon burden of proof. However, given that that permit is her contract with her employer why would she look at any signage ,or yet the small print on such signage around the site which surely must apply to people who have no such permit. Funnily enough a quick survey around her office found not one person who had actually read the signage.
    Anyway this is for IAS so probably a waste of time other than if it has legs perhaps it would be persuasive for UKCPS to walk away.
    Any thoughts.

  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 129,367
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 11 January at 6:43PM
    She'll lose at IAS no matter what she puts.

    No worries.  Seriously it's a joke and the Government is removing it this year.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 341.8K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 233.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 606.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.5K Life & Family
  • 246.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards