UKPC invoice received for parking during restricted period

Yanbando

Hi all,

So I disputed the PCN on 16th of Sept and I received a letter this morning asking me to provide the full name and address of the driver within seven days.

They said the failure to provide the information will give them no alternative other than to make their final decision and provide a POPLA code.

Should I reply them that I am not obliged to provide that information or should I just wait for the POPLA code?

Thank you

KeithP

Ignore that and wait patiently for your appeal rejection and a PoPLA code.

Yanbando

Hi all,

I received a letter this morning from UKPC : I now have the POPLA code.

As usual, I will need every help that you can provide please. Should I post what I have prepared here? or should I start a new thread with a different subject?

Thank You

Le_Kirk

Always keep to the original thread - this one - or it can become confusing if we have to leap about from thread to thread.  Read some of the latest POPLA success threads to see what won.

Nellymoser

Yes, post it here.
No, don't start a new thread. All info/queries relating to this PCN's journey stay on this thread. 

Yanbando

Hi all,
Here is the template of the POPLA I prepared. I read and used some of the templates that were successful. 

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx and I am writing to formally appeal against the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) ______ issued by UKPC on _____ for an alleged parking violation. I strongly believe that the charge is unjustified and should be cancelled for the following reasons:

1. Inadequate and Ambiguous Signage: The signage in the car park fails to meet the requirements set forth by the British Parking Association Code of Practice.

The signs are not prominent, clear, or legible from all parking spaces, thereby failing to provide drivers with sufficient notice of the parking charges and terms and conditions associated with parking in the area. The lack of clear information prevents drivers from making an informed decision about parking and understanding the consequences of their actions.

The signage at the parking location was inadequate and ambiguous, thereby failing to meet the legal requirements outlined in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the British Parking Association's Code of Practice.

The Car Park had confusing, unclear, ambiguous, inadequate signage and insufficient information so is not compliant with the BPA Standards and creating unreasonable and unfair terms so no contract is formed with UKPC and therefore no agreement to pay £100.

I believe the signs were confusing and misleading, the small print is too small for anyone to see read. The signs did not properly and clearly warn and inform the terms of this car park correctly and as such failed to comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice Part 18 appendix B. It is against the BPA Code of Practice requiring signage to be ample and visible. The signs are also so small that terms would only be legible if a driver got out of the car and get just under the panel to try to read them. In any photos supplied by UKPC in evidence I require them to state the height of each sign and the distance from the entrance/exit. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the 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.

18) Signs

18.1) A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.

18.3) Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.

Furthermore, According to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, Part 2, Paragraph 8, any contractual terms contained on signage must be transparent and legible, ensuring that consumers are made aware of the terms before entering into a contract. Furthermore, the British Parking Association's Code of Practice, Section 18.1, states that signs must be clear and legible, with terms that are transparent and easy to understand.

Upon visiting the parking location, I noticed several deficiencies in the signage that cast doubt on the validity of the parking enforcement:

a) Inadequate Signage Placement: the signs are placed in a manner that you can't read them unless you enter the premises, get out of the car and go under the panel. These factors created confusion and failed to provide clear information about the parking terms and conditions.

b) Misleading information : one of the panel says there is a "2 hours maximum stay" and yet a PCN has been given for being in the car park for less than 05 minutes.

c) The notice was defective: The signs at the car park said "these gates will be locked when the store is closed" and yet the PCN said parking was given for a stay between xxxx and xxxx.

2. Failure to Demonstrate Driver Liability: The operator, UKPC, has failed to demonstrate that the individual they are pursuing is indeed the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I am under no legal obligation to name the driver, and the operator cannot assume liability without providing evidence of the driver's identity. The lack of evidence and failure to establish the identity of the driver further undermines the validity of the charge.

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.!

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability

“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.!

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA/

3. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. As UKPC does not have a contract with the appointed agents for the site or proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site- is key evidence to define what this operator is authorized to do, and when/where. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorized on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement and that the attached emails from representatives of two agents provide up-to-date evidence of the absence of authority in this case. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

 

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

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

4. Disproportionate Penalty Amount: The amount demanded by UKPC is a penalty and is grossly disproportionate to any legitimate interest.

This is a paid car park with no such commercial justification for a high penalty charge. The charge of £100 is arbitrary and unjustifiable, as UKPC has not provided a breakdown of costs incurred or demonstrated a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The charge appears to be an attempt to extract an unreasonable and unfair sum from motorists, rather than a reasonable reflection of any actual damages or losses suffered.

Based on the aforementioned points, I kindly request that POPLA undertakes a thorough review of this appeal and cancels the Parking Charge Notice issued by UKPC. The operator has failed to provide sufficient evidence of liability, the signage is inadequate and does not form a valid contract, and the amount charged is a disguised penalty without 

 I look forward to your reply.

Yours Faithfully,

xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx

(Registered Keeper)

P.S: I have uploaded couple of pictures (taken at night as per the moment of the incident), I took many others, should I upload them into the POPLA portal as well?  

Coupon-mad

No - don't upload several documents - just do what post 3 of the NEWBIES thread says.

It does not say upload separate pics of signs.  It DOES say you are to include signs.

And you need to re-write parts of that in normal English because it reads as if ChatGPT ate your homework.  Gaah! We hate Chat GPT.

Yanbando

lol, thank you @Coupon-mad.

Sorry for the not normal English part, it is not my first language. I copied what others put in their replies and changed few words. So I should rewrite the whole thing or just some parts of it? If it is just some parts, pls can you tell which ones? Sorry again for the English.

Coupon-mad

You are doing great but clunky words like 'furthermore' and 'aforementioned' give away the use of Chat GPT! Don't use words that you wouldn't use in speech.

Remove your entire points 2 and 4.

Put your images of signs and the lack of closed gate, embedded into your Word Doc so that when you finally save it as a PDF, it's like a storybook with pictures in it.

Also embed the date and time metadata into each photo, otherwise POPLA can't consider them as recent evidence. You can do that easily by screenshotting your photos which causes the date & time data to show.

Replace para 2 with a paragraph saying this:

The car was there for a mere 5 minutes. This is an insufficient consideration period in a car park swathed in darkness, where ambiguous messages suggest the store must be open and it took 3 or 4 minutes to ascertain that the shop was, in fact, closed. The driver then left immediately without accepting any contract.

The signage issues are fourfold (see photos):

(a) a sign in large capital letters declares: 'THESE GATES WILL BE LOCKED WHEN THE STORE IS CLOSED', but this was part of a series of mixed messages because:

(b) the gates were open, proved by UKPC's images of the car driving in and out, and

(c) the UKPC signs (unlit and obscured by foliage in the dark) in fact offered '2 hours' free stay in the largest letters at the top. No other terms could be read without stopping and getting out of the car, and

(d) it is impossible to construe a contract to pay £100 because that sum can't even be seen.  Even if UKPC show a picture of that sign (no doubt a nice fresh, but irrelevant image in daylight) and they might say £100 can be seen, the point is that it was dark and the driver left within the 5 minutes it took to realise that the store was closed. No amenity was gained from the site and there was nothing to suggest that entering through the open gate was 'prohibited'.  This is what consideration periods are for.

Yanbando

Thank you @Coupon-mad. I have tried to apply your suggestions (and I hoped I did it well). Here is the message:

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx and I am writing to formally appeal against the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) ______ issued by UKPC on _____ for an alleged parking violation. I strongly believe that the charge is unjustified and should be cancelled for the following reasons:

1. Inadequate and Ambiguous Signage: The signage in the car park fails to meet the requirements set forth by the British Parking Association Code of Practice.

The car was there for a mere 5 minutes. This is an insufficient consideration period in a car park swathed in darkness, where ambiguous messages suggest the store must be open and it took 3 or 4 minutes to ascertain that the shop was, in fact, closed. The driver then left immediately without accepting any contract.

The signage issues are fourfold (see photos):

(a) a sign in large capital letters declares: 'THESE GATES WILL BE LOCKED WHEN THE STORE IS CLOSED', but this was part of a series of mixed messages because:

(b) the gates were open, proved by UKPC's images of the car driving in and out, and

(c) the UKPC signs (unlit and obscured by foliage in the dark) in fact offered '2 hours' free stay in the largest letters at the top. No other terms could be read without stopping and getting out of the car, and

(d) it is impossible to construe a contract to pay £100 because that sum can't even be seen.  Even if UKPC show a picture of that sign (no doubt a nice fresh, but irrelevant image in daylight) and they might say £100 can be seen, the point is that it was dark and the driver left within the 5 minutes it took to realise that the store was closed. No amenity was gained from the site and there was nothing to suggest that entering through the open gate was 'prohibited'.  This is what consideration periods are for.

The signage at the parking location was inadequate and ambiguous, thereby failing to meet the legal requirements outlined in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the British Parking Association's Code of Practice.

I believe the signs were confusing and misleading, the small print is too small for anyone to see read. The signs did not properly and clearly warn and inform the terms of this car park correctly and as such failed to comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice Part 18 appendix B. It is against the BPA Code of Practice requiring signage to be ample and visible. The signs are also so small that terms would only be legible if a driver got out of the car and get just under the panel to try to read them. In any photos supplied by UKPC in evidence I require them to state the height of each sign and the distance from the entrance/exit. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the 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.

18) Signs

18.1) A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.

18.3) Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.

Furthermore, According to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, Part 2, Paragraph 8, any contractual terms contained on signage must be transparent and legible, ensuring that consumers are made aware of the terms before entering into a contract. Furthermore, the British Parking Association's Code of Practice, Section 18.1, states that signs must be clear and legible, with terms that are transparent and easy to understand.

2. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. As UKPC does not have a contract with the appointed agents for the site or proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site- is key evidence to define what this operator is authorized to do, and when/where. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorized on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement and that the attached emails from representatives of two agents provide up-to-date evidence of the absence of authority in this case. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

 

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

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

 I look forward to your reply.

Yours Faithfully,

xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx

(Registered Keeper)

I have prepared a PDF doc (from the WORD doc) with the pictures of the signs and the lack of closed gate (with embedded timestamp) as suggested