UKPC parking ticket at Screwfix customer car park

camelcx · 31 August 2016 at 4:33PM

@The Deep: Well, the car would not be parked there if the landowner had clearly stated parking out of hours is not acceptable. However, if the 'punter' did checked the working hour and got confirmed that parking there wouldn't affect the shop's business since it's closed, should he still be charged by an unnoticeable charge?

I get it that it might be too long for a single thread and had asked too much from everyone. But I do appreciate everyone's help here and the forum. I may not even have decided to fight the charge without the help and support. However, I did feel this is right to do from the beginning as we fight to make PPCs aware that they cannot put unnoticeable signage and take parking charges rather than being a dodgy trespasser...

Coupon-mad · 31 August 2016 at 9:54PM

Umkomaas wrote: »

There seems to be a more stroppy git responding to complaints at the BPA nowadays.

'J' was particularly memorable as being a brick wall of unhelpfulness compared to how nice and FAIR 'S' and 'G' were whenever I contacted them a few times in the past.

I always knew when I saw her name acknowledging a complaint that a fob-off in favour of the parking firm would follow from 'J'. Not something for such staff to be proud of in a consumer-facing environment where you are actually having the bare-face to defend (very often) clear examples of sharp practice which I knew 'G' would have pushed the PPC about.

It is now embarrassing to see some of the rubbish coming from the BPA sometimes. We even saw a recent thread where they said something like they would not step in because the PPC 'could have' replied to an appeal and they can't be sure...game over. And I recall another case where the BPA declared that the checks that the CoP requires, before issuing a PCN, no longer required Premier Park to check & find with a view to cancelling at the outset, any PCN planned where it was a single-digit VRN typo.

And when challenged that the CoP was being watered down, they put up a brick wall.

Yet a year or two before, Watchdog was told the exact opposite in a case when Excel were in the BPA, their statement was that they 'were required' to carry out checks and cancel a PCN if it was a mere typo in the VRN.

So, it seems, if it's on the BBC they say one thing but otherwise, in reality - tough.

BobJameson · 31 August 2016 at 10:30PM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

We even saw a recent thread where they said something like they would not step in because the PPC 'could have' replied to an appeal and they can't be sure...game over. And I recall another case where the BPA declared that the checks that the CoP requires, before issuing a PCN, no longer required Premier Park to check & find with a view to cancelling at the outset, any PCN planned where it was a single-digit VRN typo.

Who is this "we" ?

camelcx · 8 September 2016 at 4:20PM

Finally my POPLA code for the 02/04 ticket. It was a 'G' who sent me the first reply asking if i responded to UKPC's letters. But it's also the same 'G' get me back with the POPLA code.

The other ticket is under investigation by a 'J', still no response yet.

The draft I've put together is as follows (I've changed the POFA part here):

UKPC, PCN No. xx

xx/xx/2016

POPLA Code: xx

VRN: xxxxxx
References:

REF [A] - BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice Version 6 Dated: October 2015
REF - Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

I am the keeper of this vehicle and this is my appeal. I respectfully ask that all points be taken into consideration.

On the above date, the quoted Parking Charge Notice was issued sighting “Parked for longer than the maximum period permitted”. This charge has been appealed directly with UKPC within the allowed 28 days and rejected.

I challenge this 'PCN' as the keeper of the car. The driver believes that the signs were not seen/are ambiguous and the terms unclear to drivers before they park. Furthermore, I understand UKPC do not own the car park and have given me no information about their policy with the landowner to issue such a charge. UKPC have failed to provide such documentation despite being requested to do so.

I contest the charge and request it is dismissed on the following grounds:

1. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.
2. NO KEEPER LIABILITY UNDER POFA 2012
3. No Landowner Authority

1. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.

The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18 of the BPA code of practice.

(a) Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice it states that “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.”
(b) Section 18.3 that “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.”

The signage failed to comply with the above requirements as the terms and conditions regarding parking charge and maximum stay period are printed in unreadable small font-size. The driver cannot read any of these terms from within a car nor during the parking process. Furthermore, the signage is set up on a wall with other posters of advertisements with much larger font-size than even the biggest font-size on the signage, which makes the signage hard to identify. Thus, the signage is neither “easy to find” nor “easy to see/read”.

(c) Appendix B, Mandatory Entrance Signs, of the BPA CoP states:
(iv) “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual.”

This requirement is not complied with since enforcement is ‘At All Times’ but the signs are neither lit by lighting nor made of retro-reflective material.

Quoting a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis, Judges were impressed that (from the evidence they were shown) the signs were large, prominent and with the charge in 'large lettering' throughout the site, which they felt gave the driver every opportunity to discover the terms by which he would later be bound.

The signage from the operator here is not prominent and with the charge and other terms in unreadable small letter. Therefore, no consideration flowed between the parties and no chance of accepting a contract that a consumer cannot read and does not know is there at all, even when looking around the car park the signs are obscured, sparse and illegible which is hardly compliant with Lord Denning's 'red hand rule' for onerous terms like a disproportionate and unknown 'fine'.

2. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - No Keeper Liability

The requirements of Schedule 4 POFA are quite clear in that there must be strict compliance with all of its requirements in order to take advantage of the rights granted under that Act to pursue the registered keeper in respect of a driver’s alleged debt. The BPA Ltd AOS Code of Practice (version 6, October 2015) supports the need for strict compliance (para 21.5 refers). UKPC has however failed to comply with the statutory requirements as followed.

a) In regards to paragraph 8(2)(a) of Schedule 4, POFA 2012, the 'period of parking' is not 'specified', only the time and date the parking charge was issued. It does not specify the period of parking as demanded under POFA 2012 paragraph 8(2)(a) and paragraph 7(2)(a). In fact the observation time is not specified. The Notice does not state the period of parking, merely the time of the alleged contravention.

b) The Notice to Keeper does not, as per Paragraph 8(2)(c), state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f), with 7(2)(b) requiring that it “describe(s) those charges, the circumstances in which the requirement arose”. The “breach” was alleged to be for “parking for longer than the maximum period permitted”, however it does not make clear to the keeper what the maximum period permitted was, and how the driver had (allegedly) exceeded this.

c) Paragraph 8 (2)(g) requires the operator to inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment. The ‘Notice to Keeper’ fails to offer any discount and is therefore neither in compliance with the strict requirements of POFA nor with the BPA Ltd AOS Code of Practice (version 5, October 2015) paragraph 21.10.

UKPC have failed to comply and thus have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.

3. No Landowner Authority

As UKPC do not have proprietary interest in the land then I demand that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner that authorises them to offer contracts for parking in their name, to issue Parking Charge Notices and take legal action in their name for breach of contract. I do not believe they have such a contract.

I do not believe they have such a contract and specifically they must demonstrate that they can enforce this charge in their own name and all of the following from the BPA CoP:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

Coupon-mad · 8 September 2016 at 11:48PM

Finally my POPLA code for the 02/04 ticket. It was a 'G' who sent me the first reply asking if i responded to UKPC's letters. But it's also the same 'G' get me back with the POPLA code.

Gemma? Maybe she is covering UKPC complaints as they were banned briefly last year and they need someone robust to shepherd and 'police' them. She's fair, and very good at getting POPLA codes late from the nastier AOS members, like getting blood out of a stone.

We'll take a look at your POPLA appeal, no rush as long as the code was issued in late August or September (the code would have 240 or a later number as the middle 3 digits, if issued last week, for example). You do not have to use any code checker, as long as it's a number higher than 240 in the middle of the POPLA code then it's OK to use this month.

camelcx · 9 September 2016 at 2:53PM

Yes, it's her. Since she gets me the POPLA code, i guess she's fair

I guess i had 251 in the middle start from digit 4 to 6. It's a 10 digit code. The letter says It's issued on 7th Sep. I believe I have 28 days from that. Yes, no rush

Coupon-mad · 9 September 2016 at 6:54PM

camelcx wrote: »

Yes, it's her. Since she gets me the POPLA code, i guess she's fair

I guess i had 251 in the middle start from digit 4 to 6. It's a 10 digit code. The letter says It's issued on 7th Sep. I believe I have 28 days from that. Yes, no rush

Yep, we'll take a look over the weekend but do reply if it goes too quiet.

camelcx · 11 September 2016 at 2:22PM

Could anyone please have a look at my POPLA appeal if that's enough? Many thanks.

camelcx · 16 September 2016 at 10:11PM

Hi guys, can I get some advice on my POPLA appeal please? Many thanks.

Coupon-mad · 17 September 2016 at 12:28AM

Take a look at the template POPLA appeal points starting to be added here in 'POPLA Decisions':

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71285691#post71285691

There is a stronger 'unclear signs' argument there and also a new extra point (for all cases where the appellant is a keeper and already arguing 'no keeper liability' like you are) which is about the keeper appellant not being identified as the individual driver liable for the charge.

And you have stated there were issues with the Notice to Keeper when compared to para 8 of Schedule 4 of the POFA but I don't think you've ever mentioned receiving one? If you have NOT received a NTK then you want this instead of your point #2:

A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

UKPC have attempted to establish keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012. However, they have failed because they have not fulfilled the second condition for keeper liability and as a result, UKPC have no lawful authority to pursue any unpaid parking charges from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served, then keeper liability simply does not apply.

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’

The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As UKPC have evidently failed to serve a ‘notice to keeper’, not only have they chosen to flout the strict timelines set out in PoFA 2012, but have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability.

Also re this issue:

I received debt collector letter asking for £160 regarding the 16/04 PCN (which was £100...). I've never received a POPLA code before this. I believe I should complain to BPA...

...I would say you should include an extra point about a clear breach of the BPA CoP in terms of not stopping work on a case and sending it to debt collectors even though you had appealed and were awaiting your POPLA code for months. Mention your BPA complaint and attach as proof, the email trail from Gemma.

And is there scope for a point saying something like this:

'Inadequate photo evidence that a contravention occurred nor the location where the car was parked'

UKPC parking ticket at Screwfix customer car park

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free