POPLA appeal against vehicle present during restricted no parking period

apn8keh

UKPC took control of a carpark used by a 24/7 emergency vets and placed a no parking between 8.30 pm and 8.30 am rule approx. 5 weeks ago and seemingly have been ticketing most people going to the vets out of hours. We took our dog in for a 7.30 am surgical appointment and have been issued with 2 tickets (we took 2 cars) even though the vet receptionist took down out number plates to enter on the UKPC website as genuine customers. UKPC were supposed to be sending terminals to the vets for customers to enter their car reg details, but they still haven't arrived. To compound the problem the vets have been struggling with internet server problems over this period.

We contacted the vets who have put in a cancellation request for us with UKPC but said they had been battling for the past month or so to get a lot of tickets cancelled and not really had any luck.

We appealed directly with UKPC submitting confirmation of appointment emails, credit card receipt & proof of internet outages. They cancelled the ticket for one car but for the other they rejected the appeal & reduced it to £20. The rejected appeal related to a hire car & so incurred a £50 admin fee too. The only way to get this refunded is to get proof the ticket has been cancelled hence applying to POPLA.

I feel we have a strong case as were genuine customers at the vets and given they have cancelled one ticket they are showing an inconsistent approach to appeals. By appealing to UKPC we have already admitted the drivers names so we can't use that as an excuse.

I couldn't find many appeals for this charge on the POPLA outcomes thread so could anyone help with some professional sounding text with grounds for appeal to POPLA?

Gr1pr

Complain about it to the landowner or landlord if the vets are not contracted with UKPC

Plan A in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum, so complain ASAP

Coupon-mad

You can win this at POPLA on two points, as long as you didn't already admit to driving:

1. Non-POFA compliant Notice to Hirer due to no enclosures with the notice they addressed to the hirer
2. No additional warning sign about the new restriction (quote the Joint Code of Practice about new restrictions).

I'd also get this in your local paper (WITHOUT ADMITTING TO DRIVING) because UKPC are ruining the Vet business and customers will leave. That term is not fit for purpose for a site including a Vets' surgery which has early morning appointments.

Surely the vets have kicked up a massive fuss with the landowner?!

Half_way

In addition to the above from CM:

Is the /are the drivers identities already known?

Who is the landowner?

Where is this car park?

What are the exact terms of the car rental agreement, regarding parking, fines and "other" charges?

Le_Kirk

You can win this at POPLA on two points, as long as you didn't already admit to driving: by @Coupon-mad

Is the /are the drivers identities already known? by @Half_way

By appealing to UKPC we have already admitted the drivers names so we can't use that as an excuse. From the OP

Coupon-mad

OK (are you SURE you admitted to driving though? You realise you were only named as 'hirer' by the fleet company).

But if that winning point was binned by the first appeal - never do that again, doh! - you can still win at POPLA with my second point.

apn8keh

Thanks for all the helpful comments. Plan A is still being pursued by the vets on our behalf, but we did the appeals to UKPC as the vets weren't optimistic of success and we were on a tight time limit to try to avoid the £50 hire car penalty. We naively just explained that we'd been customers at the vets when we appealed (without including all the legal jargon that is recommended to use) so I think in doing that we have admitted driving.

I visited the site yesterday to take photos of the signs & I feel that they are non-compliant in that they just say in large text Max stay 2.5 hrs & then in much smaller writing no parking between 8.30 pm & 8.30 am. The signs are positioned really high (I'd say above 2 metres) with none at eye level, so someone in a wheelchair could not read them. Surely, they should also have to have additional signs that say NO OVERNIGHT PARKING. Also, as they have not provided the terminals to the vets in which they expect customers to enter their car reg details surely they shouldn't be allowed to impose penalties? Also, there are no instructions either in the car park or inside the vets that explains that you must enter your car reg so they have really stacked the odds in their favour to generate tickets.

My understanding is that the vets have kicked off massively and there are going to be changes to the parking terms, but until then there are a lot of people getting stung. I think HINES Global Income trust are the landowners. The carpark is on the Junction 27 retail park in Birstall, near Leeds so there is no option to park nearby as you have to walk down the A62 past junctions to the M62/M621 where there isn't really a footpath.

Yes, I have been tempted to contact the Yorkshire Evening Post as UKPC are incredibly scummy regarding this one, as there is no paid for parking so they're relying on catching people at the emergency vet or people who park in that car park & then wander over to some other shops and overstay.

I don't have the lease agreement but it was with Europcar. I understand that they name you to transfer liability and allow you to appeal and if you can prove the charge has been cancelled they will refund their £50 admin fee.

Should I upload the photos of the parking signs?

Coupon-mad

Yes you can show us those.

apn8keh

OK so here are some images. One is at the entrance that just says refer to signs in the car park. The others have the full terms & conditions & one is to show that they're all positioned very high so you definitely can't read them from within your car.

The lines of argument I've pulled out from the Single Code of Practice so far are:

NOTE 4: Where the terms and conditions require the driver to do something off site, such as input their vehicle registration mark inside a pub or restaurant, the sign should make clear how this is to be done. (Found under section 3.1.3)

Signs must be designed and installed so as to be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions during which the controlled land may legitimately be accessed, at a height that takes account of whether the signs are intended to be viewed from the vehicle (including by headlight in the hours of darkness) or having left the vehicle by a driver on foot or in a wheelchair. (Section 3.2?)

3.4. Material changes – notices

Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has been open for public parking, the parking operator must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the change making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges. NOTE: Examples of material changes can include introduction of parking enforcement where none has previously applied, introduction of time-limited free parking, or reductions in the time limit within which free parking is available. Given the need to avoid confusion and clutter at entrances the test is whether the fact that a change has been made is clearly signalled to drivers on entering the land and the nature of the change is clearly displayed thereafter – it may also be necessary to install repeater notices depending on the scale of the premises.

The parking operator must ensure that at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking can be viewed without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, in order for drivers with a disability to be able to make an informed decision on whether to park at the premises. (Section 4.4)

NOTE 3: Particular care is needed to establish appropriate contractual terms, including the application of parking terms and conditions, in respect of controlled land where leaseholders may have rights that cannot be qualified or overruled e.g. by imposing a requirement on the resident of an apartment block to display a permit to park in contravention of their rights under their lease, or to ensure that free parking periods do not breach planning consents. (Section 14.1g)-not 100% if this is applicable, but surely the vets original lease would have indicated they have access to parking during their hours of business (24/7)

There is also an argument that the landowners have not appropriately considered the needs of the users of the land, hours/days on which land may be occupied.

Have I missed anything?