UKPC Second stage

bearpeje · 12 April 2018 at 12:11PM

Hi,
I hope I am following the correct procedure, by starting a new thread.

A notice by UKPC was put on my son's vehicle in March, but the Reg Number on the notice was one digit wrong.

Having received a 'Notice to Registered keeper', with a new Parking Charge number ( Quote, replacing the original numbered one ), I read all the info on here, and sent this as a reply :

<<<<<<<<<
via appeals site

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re Parking Charge – Notice to Keeper Ref No:

I am the keeper of the vehicle which you claim, received this purported 'parking charge'. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. I am not liable and I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in!ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.!Your unremarkable and obscure signs are in small print and the onerous terms are not readable.

I am also very sure that you are familiar, with the guidelines relating to this 'Notice to Keeper', in that the details on the Parking Charge Notice XXXXXXXX, to which you refer in this notice, MUST be identical to this Notice to Keeper. They are not.

Should you fail to cancel this PCN immediately, I require the following information with your template rejection:

1. Does your charge represent damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.!
2. Please provide dated photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract.
3. Please provide!all!photographs taken of this vehicle.
4. The photographs on your website, show the vehicle, please provide any evidence of your claim that the driver left the 'site'.
5. Please provide a copy of PCN : XXXXXXXXX refered to by you.

I am alarmed by your contact and I do not give you consent to process any data relating to me, or this vehicle. I deny liability and will not respond to debt collectors. You must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA, and should you fail to respond accordingly, your company will be reported to the Information Commissioner.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and will also be making a formal complaint to your client landowner.

If you are a current BPA member, send me a POPLA code. If you are an IPC firm, cease and desist with all contact.

Yours faithfully,

XXXXXXXXX

>>>>>>>>>>

Today, we received a response, which I will attach to my next post, once I have redacted Identifying factors

bearpeje · 12 April 2018 at 12:25PM

Hi, can anyone help ?

I can't see how to 'Attach' a copy of the letter. It is scanned to my laptop, does anyone know how I can post it on to here please ?

bearpeje · 12 April 2018 at 12:55PM

OK, so I have just seen at the lower part of this page, that I can't post attachments, so please bear with me, and I will try to summarise their reply.

So, they say that in order to make a final decision, we need to provide details of the driver within 14 days. If not, they will have to make a decision on the info they already have, and at that stage, a POPLA code will be provided.

Now, of course, I believe that to be a clear attempt to ID a driver, but I will quote in full the following Para :

<<< " Paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, states that we must inform the registered keeper that the driver of a vehicle is required to pay the parking charge in full. It also notes that as we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, the registered keeper, if they were not the driver at the time, should inform the operator (i.e. us) of the name and current address of the driver and pass the notice to them.
The Act also warns that if, at the end of a period of 28 days (beginning with the day after the Parking Charge is sent), the parking charge has not been paid in full and the operator does not know both the name and current address of the driver, the operator has the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from the registered keeper. This warning is given under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to us complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that act (which we consider we do comply with, to the letter). " >>>>>>

They then state that their signage complies with the guidelines and they reject that they are unclear in any way.

They do not comment on what constitutes 'the site', and they simply repeat that the photos can be seen on their site. I will check again, but there was nothing to evidence that the driver left the site, and they make no comment on that.

They make no mention of the original Parking Charge Notice being wrong, and do not refer to it, or include a copy.

They then state that they are a member of the BPA and are entitled to access DVLA records.

They end by saying the charge is on hold whilst under appeal.

I am sorry if I haven't explained this as fully as required, but any advice would be appreciated.

Are they right about the registered keeper being liable, if the Driver's details are not provided, and does the Reg Number error on the original Parking Charge mean that they have not followed the correct procedure ( As the Photo does show the correct number )

Thanks for any guidance :-)

Umkomaas · 12 April 2018 at 1:56PM

It's standard UKPC procedure (covered countless times in most UKPC threads from the past 12 months) to send out their 'phishing for the driver' letter before making their decision.

Just ignore it and your formal rejection will come through around day 35 after your initial appeal - with a POPLA Code to use.

The_Deep · 12 April 2018 at 2:21PM

UKPC are fraudsters, read this

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas. U

bearpeje · 12 April 2018 at 2:22PM

Thanks Umkomaas,

Yes, I know it is covered countless times, and as I wrote, I do see this letter as another attempt to obtain the Driver's details.

But are they stating a fact about the Reg Keeper being liable in the circs they describe ?

I would also like to know, whether the incorrect Reg number on the original Charge Notice means that they didn't follow the procedure for getting the details from DVLA ?

I do understand your point about waiting for the POPLA code, but surely at that stage I am going to need to know, on what to base my appeal to them ?

KeithP · 12 April 2018 at 2:37PM

bearpeje wrote: »

I would also like to know, whether the incorrect Reg number on the original Charge Notice means that they didn't follow the procedure for getting the details from DVLA ?

Think about it.

If they had requested keeper details from the DVLA using the wrong registration number, they would never have found your name and address, would they?
They obviously used the correct reg no when asking for keeper details from the DVLA.

It is often thought that PPCs deliberately mis-spell a reg no to attract a response something like "but you got the reg no wrong. The car I was driving had a reg no ABC123".
Bingo!! They now have the driver's details.

Wait patiently for your PoPLA code.

bearpeje · 12 April 2018 at 4:03PM

Thanks The Deep,

However, I have seen all the negative posts about UKPC, and I am not deluded into believing them to be a bunch of 'Fluffy Bunnies'. I think I read on the previous thread MSE asking us to moderate our comments about these bods, so I intend to do so.

For those, like me, who have been unfortunate and received one of their Parking Charges, the fact that they have solicitors who will take cases to Court, even if they lose most, does actually mean they win some. Similarly, pinning hopes on this Gov't to do anything about them, now or by Xmas, is no help to those with an outstanding case at the moment.

Hence why I posted as much individual circs about this case as I did.

bearpeje · 12 April 2018 at 4:08PM

KeithP

Thanks for that.

I read previously about the deliberate 'Wrong Reg No' ploy, to illicit a response, and therefore ID the driver, so I left it until we had the Letter to Reg Keeper. That letter effectively gave a completely different Parking Charge Number ( and that it replaced the original one ).

It was based then on the Photo of the car, and of course, the correct Number.

I will take your advice, and await their next reply with the POPLA code, and then return here.

Umkomaas · 12 April 2018 at 4:10PM

For those, like me, who have been unfortunate and received one of their Parking Charges, the fact that they have solicitors who will take cases to Court, even if they lose most, does actually mean they win some.

Their interest in issuing court proceedings seems to be focused on those who have racked up multiple tickets, starting somewhere around £600's worth.

beamerguy · 12 April 2018 at 7:25PM

bearpeje wrote: »

However, I have seen all the negative posts about UKPC, and I am not deluded into believing them to be a bunch of 'Fluffy Bunnies'. I think I read on the previous thread MSE asking us to moderate our comments about these bods, so I intend to do so.

'Fluffy Bunnies' are cute nice things ..... UKPC are financial thugs
and approved by an organisation called the BPA who belong
in the history books as one of the most useless companies of the
decade

UKPC invented the word unscrupulous with their fraudulent
activities

The idiots do not know who the driver is/was and you
will keep it that way.

Once you have your POPLA code, come back here for all
the help you need to beat these money terrorists

UKPC make the BPA look more stupid every day

If you believe that UKPC is scamming you, and you believe that
the BPA is a worthless organisation which is not fit for purpose,
then tell Sir Greg Knight MP who instigated the new private members
bill regarding private parking companies

https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/sir-greg-knight/1200

UKPC Second stage

Comments

Categories

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