New parking regulations at home...

Daniel_san · 26 January 2016 at 2:25PM

Yep, you know it, I know it...... lady was helpful, but bashing my head against a wall I was! lol

Daniel_san · 5 February 2016 at 2:20PM

Update.....I was told by a lady at POPLA that I would have a ruling by today, and I have this email:

"As previously advised, POPLA placed this appeal on hold until we had considered our position in relation to this.

We have now considered our position and will allow both sides to provide any further comments or evidence regarding the Supreme Court’s decision.

We asked parking operators for their responses first, so we were able to share them with appellants. The parking operator made no further comments

Please provide your comments or additional evidence within seven days as responses after this point will not be considered.

We look forward to hearing from you shortly.

Please enter this information onto the portal using the log in details that were provided previously.

We need to receive this information within seven days of the date of this correspondence in order to include it as part of the assessment of the Appeal. Anything that is provided after this time may not be considered as part of the assessment and the decision will be made based on what has already been received".

I also have a county court claim from UKPS regarding another PCN which I had no windscreen ticket or letter about, just straight to debt letters. I'll scan and redact that before adding it, would appreciate any comments etc.

Guys_Dad · 5 February 2016 at 2:25PM

Start your submission with words such as "I am submitting this further appeal based on the fact that the Parking company have made their final submissions, as per your email of 5th February and that no more "evidence" will be submitted by them.

Should they make further submissions that POPLA accept, then I reserve the right to comment upon them, even if this is after 7 days from now."

I wouldn't trust them not to make a very late follow up, so keep watching.

Coupon-mad · 5 February 2016 at 3:16PM

I also have a county court claim from UKPS regarding another PCN which I had no windscreen ticket or letter about, just straight to debt letters. I'll scan and redact that before adding it, would appreciate any comments etc.

Start a new thread about that urgently! Get help with what to include, before defending.

Daniel_san · 5 February 2016 at 3:42PM

Thank you both

CM - I will do thank you, but, interestingly, whilst scanning and redacting the "court" documents, I've noticed there's no claim number and no date, and the "seal" is from Global Security Services Limited. Now, I may see paperwork from the court via post very soon, but right now I wonder if they can fill details in via moneyclaim online, and simply print it and send to me, after adding their own seal of course....scare tactics maybe. Time will tell. I'll add a new thread though when I know I have time to watch and reply to people on it. Thank you again

EDIT: I've just spoken to money claim and they've confirmed it would have a claim number, date, and other paperwork with it. So I'll wait and see if anything comes from the court before taking anyone's time up with a new thread.

catfunt · 5 February 2016 at 6:10PM

I think they are trying to mess with your head.

If such a claim was real (without any previous correspondence) then surely it would have no prospect of succeeding??

Coupon-mad · 6 February 2016 at 1:14AM

So you've already sent a rebuttal but it would not hurt perhaps to remind us what your appeal and rebuttal specifically said so far, about GPEOL and/or the Beavis case and the lack of any 'legitimate interest' the PPC has in charging a disproportionately high sum as a punitive fine, rather than the landowner pursuing a nominal sum for damages.

Can you reply showing us those words again from your appeal and your rebuttal, to save us scrolling back through 168 or more posts? I want to make sure you've nailed it.

Daniel_san · 6 February 2016 at 1:37AM

Thanks CM, would really appreciate it. Especially as I've just had to submit another 8 appeals through the POPLA website! Beyond a joke now!

My original appeal (as this was one of the first PCN's handled):

23rd September 2015

Dear POPLA,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark ****** and I wish to appeal against the notice on the following grounds.

1) No contract in place
2) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner
3) The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
4) False claim of land ownership

Explained below:

1) No contract in place
The car park is free to use for residents. I have a lease which does not require any vehicle parked therein to display any permit issued by any company. There is no contract between any driver or vehicle owner, and UK Parking Solutions. UK Parking Solutions’ attempts to change the terms of my lease by erecting signs within the car park, giving parking “conditions” are unlawful and null and void and no such contract and conditions have been agreed to, nor will they be.

2) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner

UK Parking Solutions lack of title or assigned interest in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, as they are seeking. Nor do they have the legal status at that site which would give them any right to offer parking spaces on a contractual basis.

I put UK Parking Solution to strict proof that they have a relevant, contemporaneous contract with the landowner that entitles them to pursue these charges in the courts in their own name as creditor (a requirement of the BPA Code of Practice). Any breach of the BPA Code of Practice means that 'registered keeper liability' has not been established, since full compliance is a pre-requisite of POFA 2012.

3) The charge of £100 is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore not enforceable.

I require UK Parking Solutions to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular area and for this particular "contravention". UK Parking Solutions cannot lawfully include its operational day-to-day running costs (e.g. provision of signs and parking enforcement) in any "loss" claimed. Not only are those costs tax-deductible, but were no breaches to occur in that area, the cost of parking "enforcement" such as it is would still remain the same.

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss."

4) False claim of land ownership
In rejecting my appeal, UK Parking solutions state “the driver’s use of our private land”. The land is not owned by UK Parking Solutions so they should not knowingly make such false claims.

In summary, aside from there being no keeper liability whatsoever, UK Parking Solutions are attempting to enforce a punitive charge for an alleged contravention of a contract which could not have been made. I respectfully request therefore, that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.

I'll dig out my rebuttal now....

Daniel_san · 6 February 2016 at 1:43AM

Rebuttal

Hello POPLA

1. I own property in the apartment block. My lease agreement, which is the only contract in place with “offer” and “consideration” and a “signature” as required by UK law, does not state any requirement to display a parking permit issued by any management company, or any Private Parking Company. Lease agreement section outlining parking conditions is attached to show this. If POPLA is to rule in my favour on one point alone, I would request it be this point please.

2. The operator alleges trespass (page 6, point 4), but the land is not owned by them. The decision in Beavis v ParkingEye held at 97. 'As it was not the owner of the car park, ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case it may be able to recover a small amount of damages for trespass. This is because it lost nothing.' In the Beavis case ParkingEye did not argue that their charge was merely compensation for damages or loss, but this operator is trying to argue that it is a matter of trespass, which leaves them with no sum lawfully able to be pursued by a non-landowner party. The operator also alleges breach of contract terms (page 8, point 9), but no contract exists. The operator should decide which charge to pursue, as the 2 charges cannot co exist, as they are contradictory.

3. The car park is free to use for residents, has been so since it was built. Nobody suffered any loss in the 8 years prior to UKPS coming and placing their signage, so their GPEOL calculations cannot possibly be accurate. I repeat point 3 of my initial appeal “POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss”.

4. Operators evidence park, page 4, “Specific Parking terms signage” – this sign does not exist at this site. Page 22 shows the actual specific sign.

5. The witness statement from Stephanie Hughes of Warwick Estates Management, (page 19) point 2 is extremely misleading and ambiguous. Stephanie Hughes is not the landowner. Warwick Estates are not the land owner. Despite various references to say the operator has the permission of the landowner, there is no evidence of this here.

6. The “contract” on page 23 of the operators evidence pack is between UKPS and ("location" RTM C/O Warwick Estates. "location" RTM do not own the land. Warwick Estates do not own the land. Therefore, there is no contract in place with the land owner and as such no permission can have been granted. Further, the contract is invalid as it is incomplete in that there is no “name (Block capitals)” on behalf of client.

7. Lastly, I do not actually have a permit anyway. Warwick Estates previously placed UCS Parking at Albany Heights and they proceeded to issue 22 PCN’s to me over a 6 month period, all of which were cancelled by UCS Parking before proceeding to POPLA stage. With the introduction of UKPS, I informed Warwick Estates Management that I refuse to display any permit and as such they have not issued one to me.

Thank you

Daniel_san · 6 February 2016 at 1:49AM

and right this minute, I am working on some notes (kind of spitballing to myself, if you will)

1. I am a resident and leaseholder. The lease contract with the land owner does NOT state a requirement to display a parking permit issues by UK Parking Solutions, or any other private parking company. Any changes to these terms would require my express written authorisation.
2. The car park is free to use for residents.
3. The car park can only be accessed with an electronic keyfob, which is required to open to entrance and exit gate. This keyfob is only available to residents.
4. There is no offer to park for the general public
5. There is no expectation of “turnover” of cars
6. There is no time restrictions placed on parking.
7. There is no promise to lease after a given time
8. UK Parking Solutions do not have any legal right to “offer” parking at this location.
9. UK Parking Solutions do not have a valid contract in place with the land owner.
10. The contract UK Parking solutions provide as “evidence” is with the managing agent, who are a 3rd party company and NOT the land owner.
11. UK Parking Solutions are NOT the land owner. They cannot bring charges in a court for the alleged trespass.

New parking regulations at home...

Comments

Categories

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