UKPC DCB Legal court claim after lost Popla appeal

Fruitcake

If UKPC have failed to address any of your appeal points, you should say so and state that since they have not been rebutted, UKPC must have accepted those points by default, therefore the appeal should be allowed.

Is the witness statement from or signed by the landowner, or only from UKPC? If the latter, then there is no proof they have a contract with the landowner. In any case, a witness statement saying there is a contract in place is not proof a contract is in place that gives the operator the authority to issue parking charges in their own name.

UKPC signs are always inadequate and the amount for breaching terms and conditions is always in such tiny font that it cannot be read from even a car length away. Zoomed in/blown up images of signs, or stock images of signs held on a computer are not proof signs at the site were adequate nor capable of forming a contract with a motorist.
Do any images show readable signs and the vehicle in question in the same shot? If not, there is no proof a driver could see or read them.

pixie_man

Is it ok for me to admit at this stage I was there and I was the driver? I was there at cold night and it was heavily raining. I want to use this as an argument against UKPC claiming their signage is sufficient. Because clearly it wasn't. 

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

No NTK is the first point to use. 

The template POPLA words (including 'no NTK served') are in the 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread. 

--------------------------------------

pixie_man said:

Is it ok for me to admit at this stage I was there and I was the driver? I was there at cold night and it was heavily raining. I want to use this as an argument against UKPC claiming their signage is sufficient. Because clearly it wasn't. 

You have a slam dunk 100% win as keeper, if there's been no NTK! Why would you even think of throwing that win away?

pixie_man

Coupon-mad said:

Coupon-mad said:

No NTK is the first point to use. 

The template POPLA words (including 'no NTK served') are in the 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread. 

--------------------------------------

pixie_man said:

Is it ok for me to admit at this stage I was there and I was the driver? I was there at cold night and it was heavily raining. I want to use this as an argument against UKPC claiming their signage is sufficient. Because clearly it wasn't. 

You have a slam dunk 100% win as keeper, if there's been no NTK! Why would you even think of throwing that win away?

Coupon-mad thanks for this. They replied this:
"We have provided evidence to show the VRM is not on the allowed parking system. Keeper Liability - Following the parking event, UKPC had reasonable cause to obtain the details of the registered keeper so that a parking charge notice could be issued by post. A copy of this notice is included in this case summary, dated 03/01/2024.  3 days after the date of the parking event (where a Notice to Driver was not served), the parking charge notice complies fully with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in permitting the registered keeper to be held liable to pay this unpaid parking charge." What should I reply to this? Are they admitting here that they haven't issued it? Shall I just copy what I put in my appeal?: The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met; *Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’"??

pixie_man

Fruitcake said:

If UKPC have failed to address any of your appeal points, you should say so and state that since they have not been rebutted, UKPC must have accepted those points by default, therefore the appeal should be allowed.

Is the witness statement from or signed by the landowner, or only from UKPC? If the latter, then there is no proof they have a contract with the landowner. In any case, a witness statement saying there is a contract in place is not proof a contract is in place that gives the operator the authority to issue parking charges in their own name.

UKPC signs are always inadequate and the amount for breaching terms and conditions is always in such tiny font that it cannot be read from even a car length away. Zoomed in/blown up images of signs, or stock images of signs held on a computer are not proof signs at the site were adequate nor capable of forming a contract with a motorist.
Do any images show readable signs and the vehicle in question in the same shot? If not, there is no proof a driver could see or read them.

Thanks Fruitcake, The witness statement was signed by a person who is said to be Managing director, but it doesn't say which company. I checked both the Landowner and the UKPC and that person is not a Director at least not on an official gov website. So not really a proof for me of a contract with landlord. 

Pictures of signs they attached actually back my argument not theirs. None of them shows signage and my car in it. Signs have lots of text in small print. Wording is not clear also. 

nopcns

Coupon-mad said:

You have a slam dunk 100% win as keeper, if there's been no NTK! Why would you even think of throwing that win away?

But there has been an NtK as shown earlier in the thread. The OP needs to understand that should the POPLA appeal fail, it is no big deal and has no bearing on any following proceedings.

OP, please understand that if the POPLA appeal fails, all you need to do is weather some useless debt collector letters and wait for UKPC or DCB Legal to issue a claim. That is where you will finally see the end of this and not pay a penny to the scammers.

Defending a claim from UKPC/DCB Legal is a simple matter of sending the template defence with just one small edit for your own circumstances and I will put money on them discontinuing before it ever reaches a hearing. If you need to understand how I and the rest of us are so confident about this, just have a read of this thread where over 320 claims (and counting) issued by this bottom dwelling duo end ups being discontinued when defended with the robust template defence:

DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

Coupon-mad

Ah, sorry I re-read the OP which (wrongly) says:

"I never received a Notice to Keeper."

pixie_man

Coupon-mad said:

Ah, sorry I re-read the OP which (wrongly) says:

"I never received a Notice to Keeper."

Apologies but I am confused now. So was the first letter sent to me the notice to Keeper? 

Coupon-mad

I know there's a lot if info in it, but the NEWBIES thread first post says:

"Postal PCN from a BPA or IPC member ?(i.e. with no mention of any windscreen ticket):

A postal PCN or NTK might be headed up 'Reminder' or 'Charge Notice' or it may even be a letter from a debt collector - it is your Notice to Keeper, in effect, if it's the first letter to arrive."

pixie_man

Coupon-mad said:

I know there's a lot if info in it, but the NEWBIES thread first post says:

"Postal PCN from a BPA or IPC member ?(i.e. with no mention of any windscreen ticket):

A postal PCN or NTK might be headed up 'Reminder' or 'Charge Notice' or it may even be a letter from a debt collector - it is your Notice to Keeper, in effect, if it's the first letter to arrive."

Apologies Coupon-mad but the amount of the information and abbreviation is overwhelming to say at least. Thank you for clarification. 
I have now drafted my response to Popla. I am not sure if you can assess it without seeing the documents sent by UKPC? Please let me know and I will try to upload them somewhere and share (haven't done that before). 

I scraped NTK argument and focused on Signage and Witness statement. I also added the argument about Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.  Can I use it at this stage
Dear POPLA Assessor,
Ref. POPLA appeal xxxxxxxxxx

Please see below my response to the "evidence pack" submitted by UKPC LTD. In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal as submitted on xx/03/2024.

1) Contract with Landowner

The witness statement provided is signed by a Managing Director, but it doesn’t say of which company. I cannot find any person of this name on list of Directors neither on UKPC nor XXXXXX Residents Association Limited. This could be signed by anyone not even slightly related to the land owner. No further evidence has been submitted to confirm that this managing agent have the authority to act on the behalf of the landowner. 

2) Inadequate Signage

After reading Operator’s reply I am even more confused. I still strongly disagree with UKPC statement that signage on site is sufficient. 

UKPC in their response states that: Terms and Conditions of parking on site states that parking on site is for Registered Users only, and that the terms and conditions of parking apply at all times.” This statement is misleading, as per their own evidence provided -Info sign on page 13, Parking restrictions apply between 17.00 and 09.00.

Contravention sign on page 5 is titled Registered Users, as if it has information for register users. Information about visitor parking is in such a small print, that it is difficult to spot or read. It has far too much information irrelevant to Visitor parking. Also this sign states that Visitor Parking is permitted between 9 and 5pm for anyone and only registered users are permitted between 5pm and 9am.  Again this is in contradictions with the statement of the Entrance Sign (page11) stating “Registered users only”. 

The blue colour of the signage is not standing out enough. Use of capital letters and mixing large and small font are also deemed unclear as far as signage is concerned. Furthermore it simply would not be possible to read any signs whilst in a moving car, and certainly the driver has not read them sufficiently to have be deemed to fully understand the T&C's to which it is alleged I agreed as the registered keeper of the vehicle. 

Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.

In the small print it also says that in case of breaching “parking contact terms” UKPC MAY request name and address of register keeper. It does not say it WILL. -I read something about it but cannot find there pesto of this argument. 

All pictures presented were taken on a bright day in August not a raining cold evening in December. 

I contend that the signs in that car park (wording, position, and clarity) do not comply and failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. Terms are only imported into a contract if they are clear and so prominent that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed.

No reasonable person would have accepted such onerous parking terms and I contend the extortionate charge was not 'drawn to his attention in the most explicit way' (Lord Denning, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeal). Lord Denning continued: 'The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue...was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling.'

3) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

Their sign states the charge is for 'not complying with the conditions' so this Operator must prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. There is no loss flowing from this parking event as the Entrance Sign on page 11 says “NO PAID FOR PARKING”. There is no charges for parking in Visitors Area. 

This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

Once again, I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform UKPC LTD to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.