UKPC Licence plate error

TBrown302818

Coupon-mad said:

TBrown302818 said:

Going through the newbies post, Eurocar parks limited did not acknowledge my appeal and did not send me and did not give me a popla number 

Use that as an argument at Mediation, to settle for £10 or so, because:

1. they behaved unfairly and in breach of the Code by not responding to an appeal (which any Judge will find unfavourable) and

2. you have cost them nothing because they didn't spend any time or money on a SAR and nor did they spend the £30 that POPLA costs them nor any hours of work on evidence.

State those words to the Mediator to justify your stance. Only offer £5 increments if you feel you have to, see these cases:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81236906/#Comment_81236906

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81236599/#Comment_81236599

You're a god send. Thanks
Ill post on here when I get to that step
Appreciate you

TBrown302818

TBrown302818 said:

Coupon-mad said:

TBrown302818 said:

Going through the newbies post, Eurocar parks limited did not acknowledge my appeal and did not send me and did not give me a popla number 

Use that as an argument at Mediation, to settle for £10 or so, because:

1. they behaved unfairly and in breach of the Code by not responding to an appeal (which any Judge will find unfavourable) and

2. you have cost them nothing because they didn't spend any time or money on a SAR and nor did they spend the £30 that POPLA costs them nor any hours of work on evidence.

State those words to the Mediator to justify your stance. Only offer £5 increments if you feel you have to, see these cases:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81236906/#Comment_81236906

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81236599/#Comment_81236599

You're a god send. Thanks
Ill post on here when I get to that step
Appreciate you

I had my mediation call today.
Mediator said that the ticket was now valued at £300+
DCB have valued it at £245

I was offered 3 options.
1) Pay in full
2) Pay a reduced amount
3) Go to court

I offered a final offer of £5

12 minutes later a counter offer of £145 came under the preface that 'they've put in the work' and I didn't engage with them to defend it
I declined. The mediation was closed

A call came after that, £35. I said no. He then offered the £5 with authority of DCB. I accepted.
£5 paid. Matter over

Thank you for everyone on here and a massive appreciation to @coupon-mad

Coupon-mad

TBrown302818 said:

I had my mediation call today.
Mediator said that the ticket was now valued at £300+
DCB have valued it at £245

I was offered 3 options.
1) Pay in full
2) Pay a reduced amount
3) Go to court

I offered a final offer of £5

12 minutes later a counter offer of £145 came under the preface that 'they've put in the work' and I didn't engage with them to defend it
I declined. The mediation was closed

A call came after that, £35. I said no. He then offered the £5 with authority of DCB. I accepted.
£5 paid. Matter over

Thank you for everyone on here and a massive appreciation to @coupon-mad

Yay! That's a win. A fiver! Congrats.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

This is further evidence that DCB Legal appear not to have to recover money in individual cases. This CANNOT be right. DVLA data is issued with strict KADOE rules but it seems once it is transferred in bulk to DCB Legal, literally anything goes. This is paying lip service to 'reasonable cause' in my opinion.

We keep seeing cases settled from zero to £25 at mediation. But ONLY where the litigator is DCB Legal.

That's less than the £35 fee it cost to file the claim. I suggest that something is not right with the way DCB Legal are processing bulk DVLA data, in my view.

It cannot be right that they ship in hundreds of thousands of data files with what looks like no individual requirement to make even the discounted PCN value for their client.

Then there's the fact that they use PRE-SIGNED notices of discontinuance dated 2023, as seen more than once. Again seen today.

This is a conveyor belt model, churning DVLA data with no semblance of the PPC even being involved, after the data is transferred to DCB Legal.

It smells of a model akin to (banned) MIL Collections to me.

In fact, it stinks.

TBrown302818

Hi all

Due to a number of reasons I am only just now doing my POPLA appeal.
Thanks to @Coupon-mad for getting me back on track as this thread merged into another parking ticket I had confused the original UKPC one with.

I definitely see the value of reading and not copying& pasting. I think Ive correctly applied the points from other UKPC POPLA appeals. The first one is 100% my own. Can you guys take a look please:

Appeal ref REF:  v UKPC

Vehicle Registration: PLATE

POPLA ref: REF

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration PLATE. I received a Notice to Keeper from UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC) on DATE for a parking charge of £100 issued on DATE for an alleged breach of contractual terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle. My response via the website provided evidence of full payment and highlighting the single digit error to UKPC. This was submitted on DATE. This was not responded to with a cancellation letter as warranted but with a request for the drivers details. I responded to this letter and it was acknowledged on DATE. This letter from ukpc fraudulently stated that they had not received the communication they confirmed receipt of on DATE.

I contend that as the keeper, I am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1)      Refusal to adhere to BPA Cde of practice to cancel parking charges owing to minor key errors

2)      The parking charge of £100 does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss

3)      UKPC have no proprietary interest in the land and no standing

4)      The penalty charge is unlawful

5)      Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice

 

A detailed explanation of these points is given below.

 

1.      BREACH OF BPA CODE OF CONDUCT

 

‘17.4 The Code recognises that keying errors can be grouped into 2 main areas;

A)      Minor Keying Errors Examples of a minor keying error could include:

• 0 instead of o

• I instead of L

• 1 instead of I

• Up to one letter wrong, removed, or swapped

• Up to one number wrong, removed, or swapped

• Numbers and/or letters in the wrong order (but where the correct registration is still recognisable) These are minor errors where up to one character has been entered incorrectly, or where the registration has been entered in the wrong order.

If a typing error such as this leads to a PCN being issued and the motorist appeals, the PCN must be cancelled at the first stage of appeal.’

 

2)      NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS

The Notice to Keeper from UKPC alleges that the driver of the vehicle “breached the terms and conditions of parking” and so the charge levied must be damages that UKPC are seeking in redress.

The car park at which the alleged contract breach occurred has a prepay machine which was used, therefore the parking charge levied. No damage nor obstruction was caused so there can have been no loss arising from this incident.

UKPC 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. UKPC 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.

3)      CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER — NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE CHARGES

UKPC do not own the land mentioned in their Notice to Keeper and have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. I require UKPC to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner as I believe it is not compliant with the CoP and, without it, UKPC have no legal standing nor authority at this site which could impact on visiting drivers.

If UKPC produce a ‘witness statement’ I contend that there is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract terms or, indeed, is even an employee of the landowner. I contend, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, that this should be disregarded as unreliable and not proving full BPA compliance nor legal standing.

4)      UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE

Since there was no genuine loss or damage and a breach of contract has been alleged in this car park, this ‘charge’ can only be considered an unlawful route of revenue generation. UKPC's own website states:

“Frequently Asked Questions
How much would it cost us to use your parking management services?
Nothing at all! We provide parking management services to our clients free of charge (subject to site survey).”

This indicates that UKPC generates revenues from these parking notices alone. Therefore, this is not a loss, rather a revenue source for them. Hence, it is against the principles of parking charges and should be quashed.

5)      UNCLEAR, INADEQUATE AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE

Due to their high position and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read. I contend that the signs and any core parking terms that UKPC are relying upon were too small for the driver to discern when driving in and that the signs around the car park also fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice. I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they ‘must’ have been seen by the driver — who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a free car park — and, therefore, I contend the elements of a contract were conspicuous by their absence.

Considering all of the above points, I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Le_Kirk

2)      NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS

Not used anymore, suggesting you have found an old POPLA appeal.  Check the POPLA Appeals thread for more recent successful appeals.

1505grandad

As above  -  and make sure that any references/details re CoP are as used/stated in the "joint" private parking sector single Code of Practice:-

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/Sector Code Templates/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1.1130225.pdf

TBrown302818

Thanks guys. The thread may be old but I wasn't sure how to verify if it was still valid. Hard to know. I just trust in the info I find.
Thank you greatly @1505grandad! 

TBrown302818

Le_Kirk said:

2)      NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS

Not used anymore, suggesting you have found an old POPLA appeal.  Check the POPLA Appeals thread for more recent successful appeals.

Yeah I see it's out of date now.  I chose the best out of the successful ukpc popla appeals. I wasnt confident enough to use the information.

TBrown302818

Coupon-mad said:

When you search the forum always change from 'best match' (which is awful) to NEWEST results.

Okay! Thanks.

I actually have another issue. My popla code has expired. I also found notes (thank goodness) referencing a postal appeal. Dated 11/11/2024 so I did do my appeal but never heard anything. On top of that Ive got a MCOL this morning. sigh

TBrown302818

just as an update, popla wont help. they claim to have not received the appeal. BPA only self service and no option to get any help.