UKPC - Evidence Rebuttal

Oakley2702

Hello,

My wife parked in a car park that is free to use but has 'zoned areas', which aren't obvious whatsoever. I've submitted my original POPLA appeal and UKPC have now responded.

Just a couple of questions before I write up my reply:

Firstly, in their case summary they state "On **/**/2024, a parking event occurred relating to vehicle registration *******. The event was recorded by our ANPR cameras at Carters Lane New (Zone: Carters Lane - Zone 2 - Royal Mail) because the vehicle was not registered to park on site." 

This site does not use ANPR, the only proof of a 'contravention' supplied was a photo of the vehicle from the front as it was parked, very clearly taken by someone on foot - is this a point I can argue? 

Secondly, is this a contradiction?

"The vehicle was parked on private property without the VRM of said vehicle being registered to be parked on site. Terms and Conditions of parking on site states that parking on site is for Registered Users only, and that the terms and conditions of parking apply at all times. Whilst UKPC note the comments, the vehicle was parked on private property without the VRM of said vehicle being registered to be parked on site. Terms and Conditions of parking on site states that parking on site is for Registered Users only, and that the terms and conditions of parking apply at all times. We have provided evidence to show the VRM was not on the allowed parking system for Zone 2 Royal Mail - where the vehicle was parked. However, the evidence does show that they entered the VRM into Zone 1 Safari play. UKPC contend that the appellant was attending the Safari play but parked in the wrong car park ( Royal Mail )."

The 'Zoned areas' as mentioned above are not obvious at all, the only distinction is that a small metal plate has been attached to the curb but upon parking a car they are completely hidden - now I did evidence the metal plates in my evidence in a photo, but I didn't directly refer to them, I assume this is something I can't bring up now - although I had included the photo in the section about the signs being 'hidden and illegible'?

One of my main points is that there is no sign upon entry into the car park:



Their counter argument was a photo hidden away in the car park behind a disabled parking space!

Am I able to argue against this?:

" The contract between UK Parking Control Ltd and the landowner (or their managing agent) authorising UKPC to provide parking management, and therefore issue parking charges to vehicles breaching the terms of parking, is confidential and we are unable to provide a copy for reasons of commercial sensitivity. As a member of the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme, UKPC is regularly audited to ensure that all relevant contracts are in place. UKPC will provide a copy of the contract to the court if they require it. At this stage we have included a witness statement that confirms the agreement authorising UKPC to issue parking charges at Carters Lane New (Zone: Carters Lane - Zone 2 - Royal Mail) . This statement complies fully with section 23.16b of the Code of Practice and confirms our authority in an agreement."

And can I argue against this?:

"The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking."

Thanks for your help

Coupon-mad

I don't think there's much you can say about those final 2 points because they have supplied a Witness Statement from the landowner.

Your main issue is with a complete lack of an entrance sign and some impossible to see little silver discs in the tarmac.  You should call their evidence out on both these things because your appeal did argue that the signs weren't clear about the different 'zones' and needed to be far more prominent and differently marked and delineated.

Oakley2702

Coupon-mad said:

I don't think there's much you can say about those final 2 points because they have supplied a Witness Statement from the landowner.

Your main issue is with a complete lack of an entrance sign and some impossible to see little silver discs in the tarmac.  You should call their evidence out on both these things because your appeal did argue that the signs weren't clear about the different 'zones' and needed to be far more prominent and differently marked and delineated.

That's great - thank you kindly. 

Oakley2702

My reply, it's fairly short and concise, but is it acceptable?

UKPC state:

We have provided evidence to show the VRM was not on the allowed parking system for Zone 2 Royal Mail - where the vehicle was parked.

To respond:

The zoned areas that you refer to are in no way prominent or clear, the zones and the corresponding bays should be differently marked and delineated. UKPC will argue that each bay is marked, this can be seen in the first photo on page 4 of my appeal. The tiny metal plates attached to the curb are what they would be referring to, but how anyone is supposed to see those and know what they are when they are driving and parking is beyond me. Even more so once the car is parked as the vehicle would cover over those plates.

UKPC State:

However, the evidence does show that they entered the VRM into Zone 1 Safari play. UKPC contend that the appellant was attending the Safari play but parked in the wrong car park ( Royal Mail ).

To respond:

This further illustrates the point that the zones and bays are not clearly marked as the driver has entered their details into the system at Safari play, believing that they had parked in an appropriate space.

UKPC state:

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. Entrance signage advises motorists that terms of parking apply, and that notices within the car park should be checked to identify the full terms and conditions.

To respond:

As you can see from the photo on page 2 of my appeal, there are no signs near the entrance of the site to say that there are any kind of parking restrictions. The two examples UKPC have supplied are not within the entrance to the site, one is actually tucked away behind a disabled bay.

 

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Your comments are for POPLA to read.  UKPC don't see them. It's not correct to say "you".

Oakley2702

Coupon-mad said:

Your comments are for POPLA to read.  UKPC don't see them. It's not correct to say "you".

Good point, I will amend now - would you say that its okay to submit now?

Oakley2702

Just to update that we won the POPLA appeal for this one - thank you as ever for the help provided 

Coupon-mad

Oakley2702 said:

Just to update that we won the POPLA appeal for this one - thank you as ever for the help provided 

Very good!

Please paste the decision - BUT WITH TEN PARAGRAPH BREAKS ADDED PLEEEEASE - in POPLA Decisions, with a link to this thread and state which PPC you beat.