UKPC - Invoice for parking outside my Gym in Chessington, Surrey

Smoof

Hi All,

Hope you can help.

I'm disputing a parking charge with UKPC for an invoice for £100 sent to me on 24/03/24 marked "Final Notice (RE: Notice to keeper)" where they claim that the driver parked my car in a private part of the trading estate outside of my gym at 1820. - This is the second one in a month; (I did pay the first as I didn't want the hassle)

Looking at their evidence they have taken a picture of my car in the dark and a photo (pictured below) of what appears to be a sign, you will notice that the photographer here has truly mastered the art of 'mystery lighting'—a technique where the subject of the photo remains an enigma wrapped in a bright, glowing riddle. With impeccable timing and precision, they’ve captured the perfect balance of overexposure and unreadability. A true virtuoso of the "What am I looking at?" genre :-)

..anyway

I replied to UKPC pointing out that they should have sent an NTK within 14 days and I will not be naming the driver. After begging me to name the driver, they have eventually rejected the appeal but still in a roundabout kind of way seem to have conceded on the late NTK by offering to lower the invoice amount by £40 and send out a POPLA number. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we are at the end of PLAN A? (I have no recourse to the land owner)

I'm planning on appealing to POPLA on the following near copy-paste items from the NEWBIES thread:

1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was served too late - no Keeper Liability can apply.

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

4. 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

Along with 4, I'm also thinking of throwing in this at the end: 

The conditions under which the photographs supplied by the operator were taken further demonstrate the signs’ inadequacy; In this particular car park, when observed in daylight hours there appear to be two signs which are intended to notify the driver of the parking conditions and charges. However, the actual effectiveness of these signs in providing clear and legible information is severely compromised under existing conditions.

Height issue: The photographed sign is situated at an approximate height of 3 meters. At this elevation, it becomes exceedingly difficult for a driver - particularly when seated within their vehicle - to discern and read the details of the parking terms.

This elevated positioning, apart from being non-conducive to legibility from within a vehicle, also goes against visibility guidelines that suggest signage should be positioned at eye level to maximise readability. 

Floodlit Signage Issue: The first sign is illuminated with a high-intensity floodlight directed towards the driver. Such lighting, rather than aiding visibility, creates a glare that significantly hampers the readability of the sign. This effect is well documented in visibility studies where excessively bright lights can cause a 'halo effect' around texts, making them blurry and difficult to decipher from a driver's perspective. It is a counterproductive setup that, rather than fulfilling the requirement for clear notice, actively impedes a driver's ability to read and understand the terms.

Unlit Signage Issue: The second sign suffers from the opposite problem; it is not illuminated at all. This lack of lighting is particularly problematic during evening or night hours, or even on cloudy or overcast days when natural light is insufficient. The absence of adequate lighting on this sign means that after dusk, it becomes virtually invisible and useless in conveying any terms to the driver. This directly contradicts the standards required under both POFA 2012 and the BPA Code of Practice, which stipulate that signs must be legible and visible at all times.

High placement of signs, especially when combined with the issues of poor lighting - either overly intense or completely absent - ensures that drivers cannot reasonably be expected to read or understand the terms laid out, which are crucial for forming any contractual agreement. 

Given these conditions, the signage at the location fails to meet the required legal standards for providing 'adequate notice'. The driver entering the car park is faced with either a blinding glare that obfuscates the text or complete darkness rendering the terms invisible. In neither scenario is the driver presented with a fair and reasonable opportunity to read and understand the parking terms.

https://ibb.co/9w4LRb9



Is it ok to show photographic evidence with my POPLA claim ? Would it be best to go back to the gym and take daylight photos of the signs or would that somehow compromise my acceptance of the validity of the terms?

Thanks!

Fruitcake

You paid the first one? Oh dear. Don't make that mistake again.

UKPC signs are always inadequate and incapable of forming a contract with a motorist, which is why you should never have paid the first PCN.

I wouldn't mention the signs in daylight because they are not relevant to your PoPLA appeal.  The image of the sign you have posted is a perfect example of the term, inadequate. It clearly shows it is incapable of forming a contract.

Use their own evidence against them, plus the other points you have raised.

Coupon-mad

You should certainly include photos for POPLA.  See the 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread.

Smoof

Alright; thanks.. so i'll go back and take photos to demonstrate that the signs are inadequate but remove any mention of daylight

Smoof

Evening all..

I've got my response back from UKPC via POPLA and I've gone ahead an commented on as much as I can; is there anything obvious that I should add in?

Thanks all!

Their pack can be found here > hxxps://1drv.ms/f/s!AlECMvutzH0kg-4sHcPjlyF-nmjd9A?e=nZknmE

My Commentary: 

"Following the parking event on 01/03/2024, UKPC had reasonable cause to obtain the details of the registered keeper from the DVLA for the purposes of issuing a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by post- a copy of this PCN is included in this pack. The PCN was issued on  04/03/2024"

Response: The evidence provided is merely a generated copy of a letter from their system and does not constitute proof that the initial notice was served or received. Furthermore, the notice was not received by the keeper within 14 days of the alleged parking event.

"We have however provided a redacted copy, with sensitive information covered. The redacted contract confirms our authority in an ongoing agreement. If neither party terminates the contract, as in this case, the contract will continue on a rolling basis. This includes the T&C's of the rolling contract."

Response: The provided contract is so heavily redacted that it does not demonstrate authority for an ongoing agreement with any specific party. The contract refers to a start date in July 2019, intended for one year, and does not include an end date. Additionally, UKPC's terms and conditions are undated, unsigned, and not explicitly linked to the contract. Without clear identification of the contracting parties, it is impossible to confirm the actual terms and conditions agreed upon with the landowner. 

"UK Parking Control signage complies fully with section 18 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice and we reject the suggestion that it is vague or misleading"

Response: I maintain that it does not as I have noted in my original appeal

"UKPC signage has been manufactured using a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual"

Response: This claim is disputed based on photographic evidence. If the signage were truly made with reflective material, it would appear significantly brighter in the photos provided. For comparison, examples of genuinely reflective signs photographed in low light conditions can easily be found by searching 'reflective sign image' online and indeed on the numberplates of the vehicles in their own evidence, demonstrating the expected brightness and visibility.

"The photographic evidence we have provided shows that the signage is on a post which has lit streetlighting above it."

Response: The photographic evidence shows that the signage with lights above is illuminated by floodlights, not streetlights. Streetlighting is designed for consistent, widespread illumination of streets and public pathways, whereas floodlighting provides intense, focused illumination of large areas or specific features.

"Please see attached a signage plan showing the signage locations, the entrance signage proof and onsite signage proof. We feel it reasonable to suggest that the driver was advised sufficiently of the terms & conditions of parking on site. "

Response: The attached site plan is inaccurate, illegible, and appears to be handwritten. It fails to clearly define the site boundary in relation to the estate and public road, and does not accurately correspond with the photographic evidence provided by UKPA. The entrance sign shown on the site plan (page 22 of their pack) does not match the entrance sign exemplified on page 27. Furthermore, the entrance sign on pages 28/29 is blocked by a vehicle (as shown on page 29) and could easily be obstructed by a high-sided vehicle (as demonstrated on page 16). This sign is not marked on the site plan, presumably because it is outside of their boundary. 

Furthermore, the signed date on the site plan dates the contract by six months, yet it is also marked as December 2018, which is inconsistent with the contract signing date.

"In this instance, this vehicle had been parked on site in direct breach of the terms and conditions of parking on site as stated on signage. The vehicle was parked in close proximity to UKPC signage, please see all photographic evidence to support this."

Response: The photographic evidence indicates that the vehicle was parked on the opposite side of the road near the entrance to the car park, yet the site plan does not denote the boundary. The sign in question is floodlit and facing the driver, which renders it unreadable, and is positioned 3 meters high. Moreover, the photographic evidence provided by UKPC is mostly timestamped well before the alleged parking event, with no clear photo of the signage on the material date. The signs could have been changed between then and now due to a previous ruling against them. Additionally, the photos provided appear to depict signs situated elsewhere in the car park, not where the alleged parking event took place and arguably bear no relevance to the event itself.

"It is ultimately the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they identify the terms of parking, and then decide whether to park their vehicle, or leave the site if they are unable to meet those terms."

Response: Conversely, I would argue that it ultimately the responsibility of the parking operator to ensure that the terms of parking are clearly communicated through adequate signage, allowing motorists to make an informed decision on whether to park their vehicle or leave the site if they are unable to meet those terms.

Smoof

Hi; any comments on the above greatly appreciated 

LDast

Did you check the timestamp on all their evidential photos, including the file ones on their website? Note the times. I tis not unknown for them to add those timestamps after the fact.

Smoof

Yes, so the timestamp on the photos in the pack pre-date the parking event. the evidential ones with my car included and the signage seem to be accurate in common with the time of the event.

Should I labour the point about there being no clear photo of the signage on the material date?

Coupon-mad

That should be the main comment.

Smoof

how's this?: 

The photographic evidence provided by UKPC indicates that the vehicle was parked on the opposite side of the road near the entrance to the car park, yet the site plan does not denote the boundary. The sign in question is floodlit and facing the driver, rendering it unreadable, and is positioned 3 meters high. Most importantly, UKPC has failed to provide any clear photographic evidence of the signage on the material date. The provided photos are mostly timestamped well before the alleged parking event, with no verification that the signage was unchanged at the time of the incident. Additionally, the photos appear to depict signs situated elsewhere in the car park, not where the alleged parking event took place, and arguably bear no relevance to the event itself. Without clear and current evidence of the signage on the date of the incident, the validity of the PCN is questionable

Coupon-mad

Yep.