UKPC Leamington Macdonalds

Robes72

Hi everyone,

I have tried to read through the various Newbie posts, and to be honest I am a little overwhelmed and lost, my mild dyslexia does not help.

Basically, I innocently parked in a so call restricted area of the abandoned public house next to the Macdonalds in Leamington after they got my order wrong, and as I was in a large van there was no where to park in the Macdonalds car park.

I received a PCN from UKPS, looked at this site and send the template email not admitting I was the driver just the vehicle owner, as they do not have CLEAR visual proof of who was driving.

I have ignored all following corrispondance, and have now received a letter from Moorsdie Legal trying to reclaim the now £170 amount.

Can I please get advise as to my next steps?

Many thanks.  

fisherjim

If this is Waterside this car park is a known honeytrap the PPC want you to park there that's why the barrier isn't closed.

But how on earth do you think they can have "CLEAR visual proof of who was driving" they can't and don't rely on that anyway.

Gr1pr

You have mentioned 2 different parking companies,  UKPC in the thread title and UKPS in the post, so which one is it  ?  I suspect that it's UKPS , not C

As mentioned above,  it's a well known honeytrap site,  because people going to McDonald's do stop on the pub land nearby 

Your next step is to read the newbies sticky thread in announcements,  second post and email the LoC response template to Moorside Legal 

Ps , Ownership is irrelevant,  nobody appeals as owner,  but as the Registered Keeper or keeper or driver are relevant 

Robes72

Gr1pr said:

You have mentioned 2 different parking companies,  UKPC in the thread title and UKPS in the post, so which one is it  ?  I suspect that it's UKPS , not C

As mentioned above,  it's a well known honeytrap site,  because people going to McDonald's do stop on the pub land nearby 

Your next step is to read the newbies sticky thread in announcements,  second post and email the LoC response template to Moorside Legal 

Ps , Ownership is irrelevant,  nobody appeals as owner,  but as the Registered Keeper or keeper or driver are relevant 

Thanks you, and yes its UKPS not C as in the title, my error.

fisherjim

Here is another case at this very scammers hotspot:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6535120/ukps-controlled-land-waterside-inn/p1

Coupon-mad

Robes72 said:

Hi everyone,

I have tried to read through the various Newbie posts, and to be honest I am a little overwhelmed and lost, my mild dyslexia does not help.

Basically, I innocently parked in a so call restricted area of the abandoned public house next to the Macdonalds in Leamington after they got my order wrong, and as I was in a large van there was no where to park in the Macdonalds car park.

I have now received a letter from Moorside Legal trying to reclaim the now £170 amount.

fisherjim said:

Here is another case at this very scammers hotspot:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6535120/ukps-controlled-land-waterside-inn/p1

From that other thread (quoted below with several more victims cases linked) it's clear this is a cash cow site.

But of course the DVLA will have missed this because they just trust PPCs to have reasonable cause in any old place in the UK & don't bother with location postcodes.

Look how (mainly IPC) PPCs are now calling any little road or car park a 'no parking/restricted area' to cash in on the mistake in the Code that says the consideration period for places with this restriction is 'ZERO' ... which Hurley knows full well is impossible in contract law. 

No site or bays should ever be subject to a PCN in under 5 minutes, except clearly marked - AIRPORT ONLY - red routes with repeater signs and extraordinary 'sensitive' spaces like ambulance bays or accessible bays but even they all need a minute at least (not mere seconds) for a driver to realise a mistake they've made by stopping there.

This place needs at least 5 minutes fair consideration period or ideally, a barrier as the place is closed and only trespass notices possible.

fisherjim said:

Is this The Waterside Inn Leamington, if so this honey trap has been making money for these scammers for years?

If so it crops up here regularly unfortunately posters rarely come back with the outcome to their battle with these scammers.

According to GSV there is a sign saying:

"....... fines are currently being issued to non-patrons who park there"

If so that is misrepresentation of authority and needs reporting to The IPC (probably not much use they are useless but it's fun), but it is installed directly under a UKPS sign so they must be aware of it as the pub has been closed for so long.

This is quite clearly a trap, as the premise is closed the landowner (Cresco Investors) could quite clearly barrier it off (with that open gate!) to stop unauthorised access but have not.

The signage is clearly deficient, it does not comply with the IPC COP.

The external signage basically invites you in to review the terms and conditions, then when you get in park and read the signs they have been changed to tell you there is no parking offered.

 it's a scam by any explanation

https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/IPC Code of PracticeV9 V4.pdf

:

@Gr1pr said

This has happened previously when People park there due to going to the nearby McDonald's 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6359356/ukps-parking-ticket

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6320266/ukps-ltd-waterside-inn

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6261238/next-steps-after-receipt-of-response-topcn-appeal

https://www.warwickshireworld.com/news/people/its-like-a-trap-motorists-warning-about-fines-for-using-car-park-at-disused-leamington-pub-3379421

DottiDiva

I just won my appeal with the IAS for a parking ticket issued at this location - vehicle never entered the car park, it turned in the entrance road and was there for 5 mins 38 secs. Only one image was provided showing the reg number of the vehicle which was the 'entry' image, all other images were long distance CCTV images where the reg was not visible nor the make/model/colour of the vehicle. The camera used for the long distance images also had a huge smudge on it. There were multiple reasons this ticket was invalid but the IAS found in my favour based on the signage so anyone else who stumbles upon this thread having also been caught out that's what you need to use.

"This PCN was issued on the basis that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in an area where no parking is permitted. One of the first issues I must consider when determining an appeal such as this is whether the signage was sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site. Indeed, one of the Appellant's main grounds of appeal is that the signage was not sufficient. The Appellant states that there was no clear signage at the entrance stating that no parking was permitted and the signage within the site itself was not clear or visible from the position that the vehicle was stopped. The Appellant also states that a number of the signs shown on Google Street View are no longer present on the site. The Appellant provides a number of annotated maps and images from Google Maps in support of her case. The Operator provides a site map and signage proof. No site photographs are provided save for the images of the Appellant's vehicle entering and parked. I am unable to see any signs on those images of the Appellant's vehicle. The Operator does not address the issues raised by the Appellant concerning the signage. Whilst the Appellant accepts that signage is present further into the site, in light of the Appellant's representations about that signage not being clear and visible from the period parked and the absence of signs that were previously in situ, in the absence of site photographs from the Operator showing clear signage, I cannot be satisfied that the signage on the site is sufficient and I will allow the appeal on that basis.

The Appellant should be aware that I am allowing the appeal on the basis of insufficient signage evidence only; not on the basis of her other grounds of appeal.

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am not satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued and therefore this Appeal is allowed.
"

As your appeal has been accepted, the charge has been cancelled by the operator and you do not need to take any further action.

Coupon-mad

Unheard of! Buy a lottery ticket! 🤣