The Forum - Service Yard UKPC

BroccoLi7

Hi All,

I appealed using the template for the first Parking Charge notice letter, unfortunately that hasn't worked and I received a following letter which was asking for driver details without POPLA code.

I reused the template and reappealed again, after some time thinking they gave up I finally received the below letter with POPLA Code.

Seeing some other examples with UKPC POPLA Cases do I have any chances fighting this? First time posting, as on few rare occasions over the the years the generic templates did the job. 

Coupon-mad

Nobody pays UKPC here, so it really doesn't matter if the POPLA appeal wins or not.

The first appeal wasn't designed to 'work'.  Just to get a POPLA code and buy you the time to get the landowner/retailer/service yard to cancel it.  

KeithP

Depending on where you lifted that template from, one or more of the links don't work.
Suggest you check that all the URL LINK work as intended.

BroccoLi7

KeithP said:

Depending on where you lifted that template from, one or more of the links don't work.
Suggest you check that all the URL LINK work as intended.

I checked all the URL Links in my letter (can't post them here due to forum restriction), they all appear to be working. I have made a few changes to the letter, I noticed there's a new version (V8) of BPA Code of Practice, had to change the references. 

How's the letter overall? Can I send it like that? 

Edit:

Final version of the appeal letter.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S1FfnOLPVM9JwCENMmEh3ThGM_HwhgqwT10t5muIJv8/edit

LDast

Without reading the whole appeal, you should stop referring to "my vehicle". There is the driver (always liable) and the keeper (may or may not be liable). So, you appeal as the keeper and refer to the driver. The vehicle is the vehicle. No "my" vehicle.

If the driver has not been identified by the keeper, inadvertently or otherwise, then the driver is unknown. The keeper is known. If you are trying not to identify the unknown driver then stop digging holes for yourself and stop using references such as "my vehicle" because it isn't relevant and you are likely to "inadvertently" identify the unknown driver, whether that be the known keeper or someone else.

BroccoLi7

UKPC provided their generic evidence folder failing to address multiple parts of the appeal, here's my response to them, as always any advice would be greatly appreciated. 

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am writing to address the evidence provided by UKPC in response to my appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued for vehicle registration [XXXX]. The documentation submitted by UKPC fails to substantiate their claim and contravenes industry standards, raising significant doubts about the validity of the parking charge notice. The deficiencies in their evidence are outlined below:

1. Insufficient Time-Stamped Photographs:

UKPC has not provided clear, time-stamped photographs showing the vehicle parked in the alleged restricted area. According to the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, Section 21.5a, such photographs must be clear, legible, and include a date and time stamp. The absence of these photographs means there is no verifiable proof that the vehicle was parked as claimed by UKPC.

2. Lack of Comprehensive Site Map:

UKPC has not provided a detailed site map delineating the boundaries of the area designated for registered users only. Without this map, it is impossible to confirm whether the vehicle was allegedly parked in a restricted area. This failure undermines the validity of the parking charge. A site map is crucial to determine the exact location of the alleged contravention and to ensure the enforcement area is well-defined and transparent to users.

3. Inadequate Signage Evidence:

UKPC has not provided clear images of all relevant signage as it appeared on the date of the alleged infraction. Specifically, they have not shown:

• Signage from the perspective of a driver entering the car park.

• Signage from the location where the vehicle was allegedly parked.

According to the BPA Code of Practice, Section 19.1, signs must be clear, legible, and visible to drivers from all parking spaces. The failure to demonstrate compliance with this requirement means the signage was inadequate, making it unreasonable to expect drivers to be aware of the parking terms.

4. Legibility of Terms and Conditions:

UKPC has not provided evidence that the full terms and conditions were legible and comprehensible from a driver’s seated position before parking. The Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 mandates that 'adequate notice' of the parking charge must be given. Close-up images of signage in isolation or ‘stock examples’ are insufficient to prove that a driver could read and understand the terms from the vehicle. Without this evidence, it is unreasonable to assume that the driver was aware of or agreed to the terms and conditions of parking.

5. Authority to Enforce:

UKPC must provide a full, unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner to demonstrate they have the authority to issue and enforce parking charges. This includes details on enforcement times, specific areas under their control, and any exemptions. Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements for landowner authority, including:

• The definition of the land on which UKPC may operate.

• Conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations.

• Responsibility for maintaining signage.

• Definition of services provided by each party to the agreement.

6. Failure to Address Appeal Points:

UKPC has not individually and comprehensively addressed each point raised in my appeal. Their inability to refute these arguments should be considered an admission of their failure to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. A thorough response to each appeal point is necessary to demonstrate that UKPC has conducted a fair and comprehensive review of the circumstances surrounding the parking charge.

7. Compliance with Consumer Rights Act 2015:

According to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, contract terms and notices must be fair and transparent. The lack of clear and visible signage and the failure to provide legible terms and conditions contravenes these requirements. This lack of transparency and fairness renders the parking charge unenforceable.

8. Case Law Reference:

In the landmark case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of clear and adequate signage in establishing the enforceability of parking charges. In this case, the signage was prominent and clear, a stark contrast to the inadequate signage presented by UKPC. This precedent highlights that without clear signage, a parking charge cannot be deemed enforceable.

9. Burden of Proof:

The burden of proof lies with UKPC to demonstrate that the charge is lawful and enforceable. Given the significant gaps in their evidence, they have failed to meet this burden.

Conclusion:

Given these significant gaps in the evidence provided by UKPC, it is clear that they have not met the necessary legal and procedural requirements to enforce the parking charge. The specific deficiencies outlined above, coupled with the additional legal points and precedents, demonstrate that UKPC has not adhered to the BPA Code of Practice, has not provided adequate notice of the parking terms, and has not substantiated their authority to enforce the charge. Therefore, I respectfully request for the parking charge to be cancelled.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your fair and thorough review.

Yours sincerely,

NAME

BroccoLi7

I tried looking for the landowner contact details, but there's nothing online or gov site and everything is managed via a big agency.  

KeithP

BroccoLi7 said:

I tried looking for the landowner contact details, but there's nothing online or gov site and everything is managed via a big agency.  

And it is that 'big agency' that you need to be complaining to.
Start with Luke Sowerby at CSP Retail... www.cspretail.com/properties/the-forum-shopping-park

Although I have to say, why did you park in their service yard?
There appears to be a clear sign at the entrance to the service yard...

 [click on the image to go to GSV]

BroccoLi7

KeithP said:

BroccoLi7 said:

I tried looking for the landowner contact details, but there's nothing online or gov site and everything is managed via a big agency.  

And it is that 'big agency' that you need to be complaining to.
Start with Luke Sowerby at CSP Retail... www.cspretail.com/properties/the-forum-shopping-park

Although I have to say, why did you park in their service yard?
There appears to be a clear sign at the entrance to the service yard...

 [click on the image to go to GSV]

That is not the location, it was here - MAPS LINK

Edit:

https://i.postimg.cc/5tk0JyQ9/Clipboard.png - There're multiple different signs across the whole site, its not clear what is managed by UKPC. 

Coupon-mad

POPLA Comments should be concise and focussed only on their evidence and the main point or points you think - after reviewing their pack - might win.

If it doesn't work, ignore them and the £170 debt demands.

BroccoLi7

Got the DCBLegal LoC.

Is it better to schedule a reply email with the form towards the end of the 30 days deadline? I'm going to give searching for landowners another try, but I doubt I'll find anything, I complained to the bakery I was collecting from, maybe they'll help.