UKPC charge for "commercial vehicle" parking

NotMyName51

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81953968#Comment_81953968

I wasn't sure if you were being facetious or sarcastic, then I saw you've linked mine as an example for other. I am well chuffed with that! Had a telling off on this forum before (from you, actually) so extra chuffed I got this one right 😂

Thank you so much for all your help, I'll fire this one off then and hope for a favourable response.

NotMyName51

Hi all,

I have received notification that UKPC provided their details to support their claim. They address some of my points, but not all of them. What they ignore is that a) they didn't give time for consideration and b) my vehicle isn't classified as a commercial one. Is it worth commenting on the evidence? My points were pretty clear in my POPLA appeal, so I wasn't sure that further comments on the evidence provided by UKPC would do any further good?

Coupon-mad

Yes comment. Steer the assessor concisely. Bullet points. The third post of the NEWBIES thread tells you about this stage.

NotMyName51

Awesome, thank you. The evidence pack UKPC provided included their written response to my appeal, a heavily redacted copy of their contract for the supply of car park management services, a site and signage plan and their T&Cs for a rolling contract. I kept my comments to their evidence pack fairly brief. Here is the first draft:

I submit the following comments in response to the operator’s evidence pack.

1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012The operator asserts that its Notice to Keeper complies fully with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 PoFA. This is incorrect.

Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires a Notice to Keeper to specify “the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

The Notice to Keeper does not state any period of parking. It merely states observation/issue times. These are not the same as a period of parking and do not satisfy the statutory requirement. As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with PoFA Schedule 4, keeper liability has not been established.

As the driver has not been identified, the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper and the appeal must be allowed.

2. The operator has failed to prove that the vehicle was a prohibited “commercial vehicle”The operator alleges that the vehicle was a commercial vehicle but has provided no objective evidence to support that assertion.

The vehicle is registered as an M1 classification passenger vehicle, not a commercial vehicle. It is also a Ford Tourneo, a passenger vehicle model which is visibly badged as such. It is not a Ford Transit van or goods vehicle. This would have been apparent to any competent operative observing the vehicle. The operator appears to have made a subjective visual assumption based solely on general appearance, despite the vehicle’s classification and visible model designation clearly identifying it as a passenger vehicle rather than a commercial van.

Further, the signage does not define what the operator considers to be a “commercial vehicle.” The operator’s signage depicts a twin-axle trailer / goods vehicle style graphic, yet in its evidence pack the operator states that this illustration is merely indicative and does not exclude other vehicle types. However, the operator still fails to explain what criteria it applies when determining whether a vehicle is “commercial.”

The term is therefore undefined, ambiguous, and subject to subjective interpretation. Any ambiguity in contractual signage must be interpreted contra proferentem against the drafter.

In any event, the operator has failed to establish that this passenger vehicle falls within any prohibited category. Accordingly, no contravention has been proven.

3. The operator has not proven that signage was legible in the prevailing conditionsThe operator relies on daylight photographs of signage, which do not establish visibility or legibility at the material time.

The operator’s own contemporaneous nighttime photographs demonstrate that the signage is largely illegible in darkness, with the parking charge text barely visible. This directly undermines the operator’s assertion that the signage was clear and readable.

Generic daylight photographs are not evidence that the contractual terms were legible in the actual conditions at the time of the alleged contravention.

4. No adequate consideration period was affordedThe operator refers to a consideration period but its own evidence shows photographs taken less than 30 seconds apart. This is plainly insufficient to constitute a reasonable consideration period under the BPA Code of Practice, which requires operators to allow drivers sufficient time to read the terms and decide whether to stay or leave.

The operator’s position is circular and self-serving: it asserts that because signage was present near the vehicle, the driver must have seen and read it immediately, and therefore 30 seconds was sufficient. That is not a reasonable inference. The mere presence of signage does not establish that the driver saw it, nor that it could be read, understood, and considered instantly—particularly in darkness.

A driver would need time to exit the vehicle, locate the relevant signage, read and understand the terms, determine whether the vehicle fell within any prohibited category, and decide whether to remain or leave. The operator’s own evidence demonstrates that no such reasonable opportunity was afforded.

5. Landowner authority has not been properly evidencedThe operator has provided only a heavily redacted contract with the identity of the landowner obscured.

This prevents meaningful verification that:

• the contracting party has authority over the land,
• the agreement relates to the relevant site,
• the agreement permits enforcement of this specific restriction,
• and UKPC has standing to issue and pursue parking charges in its own name.

A heavily redacted contract is insufficient strict proof of landowner authority.

For all of the above reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA allow the appeal.

1505grandad

"They address some of my points, but not all of them."

Just checking - you will no doubt state the relevant points not addressed accordingly in your submission?

NotMyName51

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81982602#Comment_81982602

I didn't phrase that well. They address the points, but not in response to what I said. So for example I wrote that the vehicle is not commercial and they simply reiterated that commercial vehicles are prohibited. But yes, all of these points are addressed in my draft.

Coupon-mad

The draft looks fine.

I always end POPLA Comments with:

POPLA must find that the PCN was not properly given.

NotMyName51

Hi all. I hope you are all well and surviving (and maybe enjoying) the heat. I have had my POPLA decision: Unsuccessful.

The appeal was refused because the assessor concluded that my liveried vehicle was a commercial vehicle, that the signage clearly prohibited commercial vehicles, that keeper liability had been established, and that the driver had sufficient opportunity to read and accept the terms before parking.

Here is a summary of the points they made:

POPLA's Key Findings

Commercial Vehicle

• The assessor accepted UKPC's position that my vehicle is a commercial vehicle.
• The deciding factor was that the vehicle was liveried with business branding.
• The assessor stated that a liveried vehicle is "often treated as a commercial vehicle because it is being used in connection with a business."
• The assessor was satisfied that the sign's wording ("No commercial vehicles permitted on site") applied to your vehicle.
• The assessor accepted that the HGV-style graphic on the sign did not limit the restriction only to HGVs.

M1 Passenger Vehicle Argument

• The assessor acknowledged my argument that the vehicle is an M1 passenger vehicle.
• However, they concluded that I had not provided evidence of the M1 classification. (My mistake!)
• As a result, they gave little weight to this argument.

Keeper Liability (PoFA)

• The assessor found that UKPC had successfully established keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
• They accepted UKPC's assertion that the Notice to Keeper contained the required information.
• They rejected my argument that the NTK failed to specify a "period of parking."
• The reasoning given was that the PCN stated the date and time the vehicle was parked, and that UKPC was not required to provide multiple images.

Consideration Period

• The assessor accepted that drivers are entitled to a consideration period.
• However, they concluded that the consideration period ended as soon as the vehicle was parked.
• They relied on:
  • the vehicle being stationary,
  • no occupants being visible,
  • the vehicle being parked close to signage.
• Therefore they found the driver had accepted the terms and conditions.

Signage

• The assessor found that:
  • there was an entrance sign,
  • there were signs throughout the site,
  • the signs were sufficiently visible and legible,
  • the signs complied with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.
• They accepted UKPC's evidence that there was sufficient lighting.
• They rejected my argument that the signs were not legible in darkness.

Landowner Authority

• The assessor accepted UKPC's redacted contract as sufficient evidence.
• They found that UKPC had demonstrated authority to manage and enforce parking at the site.
• They considered the signed agreement and presence of signage/operator activity sufficient.

Data Protection / DVLA Access

• The assessor declined to consider my GDPR/data processing arguments.
• They stated these matters fall outside POPLA's remit.
• They suggested such concerns would need to be raised with the ICO.

Beavis Case

• The assessor relied on the principles from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
• They concluded that:
  • the £100 charge was within the range considered acceptable,
  • the charge was sufficiently displayed,
  • the amount was therefore enforceable.

If needed, I can copy and paste the full POPLA response, though it is long. My plan now is: Sit tight, fight this in court if I have to.

Le_Kirk

POPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist so your decision to sit tight and await the letter of/before claim and a (possible) N1SDT claim form is correct

Coupon-mad

Please post the POPLA decision in the sticky thread of that name. And yes, sit tight.