UKPC DCB Legal court claim after lost Popla appeal

Coupon-mad

 I also added the argument about Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.  Can I use it at this stage

No-one can use that argument as it went out with the ark!  Remove point 3 completely.  The Supreme Court killed that almost a decade ago in ParkingEye v Beavis.

pixie_man

Hi, I now have received POPLA decision, unfortunately unsuccessful Here is their argumentaiton. I also received a letter from UKPC to pay them £100 within 28 days. I guess I either pay it, or wait for the whole circus with debt collector firms? Am I right? 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply. • The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. • The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. • No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice Please read attached document describing the details, In the comments the appellant has advised the following: The landowner agreement is not valid. The signage is not compliant and cannot be seen after dark and they have referred to Lord Dennings red Hand rule. The appellant has provided the following evidence: Photo provided by UKPC_ Visitor Parking space - no signage about restrictions Photo provided by UKPC Appeal_ Entrance to the carpark Only letter received from UKPC

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The burden of proof begins with the parking operator to evidence the parking charge has been issued correctly. The operator has provided evidence of the vehicle present on the site for 58 minutes on the day in question. The data from the operator’s registration system shows that the vehicle had not been registered for a permit on the day of the incident. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant in all aspects. I will therefore be assessing keeper liability. The appellant has advised that the signage on the site is not compliant and The British Parking Association Code of Practice sets the standards by which its members must abide by. Section 19.3 of the code states that signs must be placed throughout the car park so that drivers have the chance to review the terms and conditions. The code confirms that these signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see read and understand. The operator has provided multiple images of the signs within the car park and after reviewing these, I am satisfied that there are plenty of signs located within the car park and that these signs meet the requirements of section 19.3 of the Code of Practice. The signage advises that visitor parking is permitted between 09:00 and 17:00 and that after this time a permit is required. The appellant states that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the charge and Section 19.4 of the Code of Practice states that if parking operators intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, the signs must give adequate notice of the charge. I have reviewed the evidence of the signage and I am satisfied that the amount of the charge is clearly visible as it is written in a larger font and highlighted. Further to the appellant’s comments regarding Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice I can see from the appellant’s evidence that the site is well lit and the signage is clearly visible after dark. The appellant says that they have seen no evidence that the operator has written authorisation from the landowner (or their appointed representative) to operate on this site. I note the appellant’s comments and I refer to Section 7 of the British Parking Association(BPA) Code of Practice which states in 7 .1 “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. 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”. The operator has provided a witness statement and I am satisfied that the operator has the authority to issue PCN’s on this site. The operator does not need to provide a full copy of the full contract as it may contain commercially sensitive information. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires, and therefore I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and therefore if no permit can be located for the correct vehicle registration, a PCN is issued. Ultimately, each motorist that enters a privately owned car park has a responsibly to ensure that they are able to comply with the terms offered prior to parking if the motorist cannot fulfil the contract for whatever reason they should leave the site to avoid the possibility of being issued with a parking charge. Based on my understanding of this case it is clear that the appellant gained utility from being at the site but failed to adhere to the terms and conditions offered. After considering the evidence from both parties because the vehicle was parked on the site in an area designated for registered users and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly therefore, I must refuse the appeal.

 

LDast

Only a fool and their money pays a UKPC PCN after receiving the advice given on this forum. Go back and please re-read the Newbies/FAQ thread to refresh yourself on the next steps.

A POPLA rejection has no bearing on anything.

patient_dream

I did read it ... WHY ? because it is the usual  copy and paste from POPLA ..... TOTALLY FLAWED

How does POPLA know that the signs are around the car park. How does POPLA anything about UKPC signs unless they have seen them ?  

POPLA don't know that signs are readable, UKPC ARE NOT, SMALL PRINT and located high on poles

Therefore as POPLA don't have a clue. they have accepted the response from UKPC as fact ..... FAR FROM IT
Just part of the BPA  scam operation.

The OP must not be concerned ..... POPLA SUPPORT PARKING COMPANIES .....
Wait and see what UKPC do next and come back here

pixie_man

LDast said:

Only a fool and their money pays a UKPC PCN after receiving the advice given on this forum. Go back and please re-read the Newbies/FAQ thread to refresh yourself on the next steps.

A POPLA rejection has no bearing on anything.

Hey LDast, thanks for your reply. Are there any statistics on how many cases are actually won? 
I appreaciate all the advise in Newbies, but it is a lot to take in and takes time to read and understand etc. I can see why someone would just paid £100 and close the case. I myself don't like to be used and abused by scammers and honestly did not "break" their "rules" on purpose. I do not feel the panishment is adequete to the fault. 

It would be good to know what are the odds of winning in court? Does this depends on the circumstances of each case or purely on how well someone write their court papers etc? 

 

rinovesp233

pixie_man said:

LDast said:

Only a fool and their money pays a UKPC PCN after receiving the advice given on this forum. Go back and please re-read the Newbies/FAQ thread to refresh yourself on the next steps.

A POPLA rejection has no bearing on anything.

Hey LDast, thanks for your reply. Are there any statistics on how many cases are actually won? 
I appreaciate all the advise in Newbies, but it is a lot to take in and takes time to read and understand etc. I can see why someone would just paid £100 and close the case. I myself don't like to be used and abused by scammers and honestly did not "break" their "rules" on purpose. I do not feel the panishment is adequete to the fault. 

It would be good to know what are the odds of winning in court? Does this depends on the circumstances of each case or purely on how well someone write their court papers etc? 

 

Not an expert myself... but they're trying the whole 9 with me when their original case was embarrasing at best. Seems the same here. 

LDast

The track record on this forum for cases that are robustly defended using gate template defence and other advice provided here, over the last 8 years is 99% success rate.

Even the few that are unsuccessful, the cost is often more than worth the life lesson that pursuing an unjust PCN to it's ultimate conclusion is. You will learn about how not to fear the scammers and their threats of "bailiffs" and "CCJ" and how to deal with these vermin in the future.

Coupon-mad

But the NEWBIES thread (second post) already tells everyone what the win rate is here, doesn't it?

pixie_man

Thank you all! I will wait then

BroccoLi7

pixie_man said:

Thank you all! I will wait then

Has anything happened since? Its been 75 days, would be interesting to get an update.