UKPC totally unfair ticket

lamped12

I recently attended my sons graduation, the night before I reserved and paid for a parking space in New Bird Street Liverpool. I attended New bird street and saw the baltic creative carpark. Thinking this was were I had paid for I pulled into the car park as I couldn't read the signage from the road and there was heavy traffic. I got out of my car to read the signage I then went back to my car and checked my email on my phone. I was still unsure if I was in the corrct car parki. i then saw a worker on a tea break and went and asked hum if he knew where I should be parked. He directed me to spaces alongside the next building. I returned to my car and as i was trying to drive out had to wait as the traffic was heavy again as the photo of my exit supplied by UKPC shows my exit is blocked by a car. When I was able to I moved to my prepaid parking place. The total time I was in the car park was 10minutes and 28 seconds. I did not leave the car park whilst trying to ascertain where my parking permit was for. I appealed to POPLA who rejected my appeal. I find this parking charge to be totally unfair. I am very stressed out by it all but on principle feel I should take this matter further. I have also applied to the landowners to dismiss the charge and have asked UKPC not to instruct debt collecters as I contest this charge. Can anybody give me advice as to what to do please.

Gr1pr

Hope that plan A works out for you

Ignore the powerless debt collectors letters

Wait for the Letter of Claim from either DCB Legal or possibly from Oak Legal ,by post

Then respond with the LoC response template to the Lawyers, as found in post 2 in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum

Then come back to this thread if or when you receive a court claim pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL in the post

yarpsnehpets

Could you please show us the POPLA response?

lamped12

The appellant states that they entered the site as a result of a satellite navigation error while attempting to locate a pre-booked parking location elsewhere. The appellant explains that, after entering the site, they stopped temporarily in order to determine whether they had arrived at the correct car park. The appellant states that they had to leave the vehicle to read the signage, review a parking confirmation email and seek directions from a nearby worker. Having established that the correct parking location was elsewhere, the appellant states that they immediately left the site and proceeded to the correct car park. When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers whether the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly and whether the motorist complied with the terms and conditions applicable to the site. The operator has provided ANPR evidence showing that vehicle BF74SXA entered the site at 12:52:17 and exited at 13:02:45, resulting in a total stay of 10 minutes and 28 seconds. The operator states that the site operates as a Registered Users Only location and has provided evidence of the signage displayed at the entrance and throughout the site. The signage advises motorists that parking is restricted to registered permit holders and that staff and visitors must register their vehicle details in the Management Suite. The appellant does not dispute that the vehicle remained on site for 10 minutes and 28 seconds, nor is it disputed that the vehicle was not registered in accordance with the site's parking requirements. The appellant's position is that the stay was solely for the purpose of determining whether this was the correct parking location and that the time spent on site should be treated as part of a reasonable consideration period. I have carefully considered this submission. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice provides for a consideration period to allow motorists to enter a site, review the parking terms and conditions, and decide whether to remain. However, the operator has explained that the minimum consideration period applicable to this type of permit-controlled location is five minutes and that the vehicle remained on site for substantially longer than that period. I acknowledge that the appellant took additional time to review booking details and seek assistance from a nearby worker. However, these activities related primarily to locating an alternative pre-booked parking facility elsewhere and not to determining whether the appellant could comply with the parking terms applicable to this site. The evidence shows that the vehicle remained on site for 10 minutes and 28 seconds whilst the appellant sought to establish the location of a different car park. I have also considered the appellant's comments regarding the visibility and prominence of the signage. The operator has provided photographs and a site plan showing signage at the entrance and throughout the location. Having reviewed that evidence, I am satisfied that the signage was sufficient to advise motorists that the site was restricted to registered users and that vehicles were required to be registered in accordance with the site's parking arrangements. The appellant has produced evidence of a pre-booked parking session at another nearby location. While I accept that such a booking existed, it does not provide authorisation to park at Baltic Creative CIC. The relevant issue is whether the vehicle complied with the parking conditions applicable to the land on which it was parked, and the operator's records show that it did not. Accordingly, I conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly. Appeal Refused.

yarpsnehpets

Another shocking POPLA decision which completely ignores the CMA open letter and the comments relating to the consideration period - 5 mins is the minimum period on not the maximum.

You'll now need to ride this out and wait for the Letter Before Claim - this is highly unlikely to see the inside of a court room.

Coupon-mad

Yep nothing to worry about.

Ignore it (unless you move house, of course, but telling them your new address is common sense not parking charge related).

If you get a court claim defend. No court hearings happen with this bunch.

jimjames

While I accept that such a booking existed, it does not provide authorisation to park at Baltic Creative CIC.

Surprised (or maybe not) that the reply said this when it was clearly stated in the appeal that they were never parked at all.

yarpsnehpets

@lamped12 Who was the Assessor please?

Basically the Assessor spends the whole assessment desperately attempting to circumvent the requirements outlined in the CMA open letter.
The assessment is full of half truths and sections of it make no logical sense.

Additionally, the Assessor guesses at the thought processes undertaken by the driver.

The appeal should have been upheld at the operator appeal stage.

This is EXACTLY the type of PCN which the Government are clamping down on.

lamped12

(Removed by Forum Team) was the assessor. My prepaid parking permit was for 4 hours and the address was Baltic triangle new Bird street. The sat nav had taken me to that location and seeing the name Baltic on this carpark is what drew me to investigate further which I could not do without pulling in as the road was busy and I could not read the signage from the road.

James_Poisson

If your exit was blocked your exit was blocked, but UKPC have no interest in that and it appears that POPLA glossed over that too (assuming you included that).

Also the usual UKPC evidence pack includes office master copies of signage rather than actual photos taken on the day, and a plan of where the signs might or might not be none of which is actual evidence and should have been rebuked.

Too late now follow Coupon's advice and ignore until their court claim comes in, defend and go to the wire where they will pull out.

yarpsnehpets

(Removed by Forum Team) is a new name to me.

Looks like they've been pre-programmed to refuse valid appeals.

You'll never find a clearer case of, "I left in the consideration period".