PCNs outside my own home.

During the very wet weather in early Spring, my car received 4 (5?) PCNs in the space of a week, as it was parked in my designated space without displaying a permit (it "fell off" due to the exceptionally damp/humid weather). Now UKPC accepted this for the first of the PCNs. The next they didn't (and I'm getting the threatograms for this) as I didn't mention POPLA in the letter of mitigation. The next three I did request a POPLA code, I appealed and I have just received their decision.

Here's my POPLA appeal ripping off something Daisy suggested:

<START>
"...POPLA appeal (XXX) regarding UKPC Ref No. XXX

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle (XXX) and this is my appeal summarised below. I am not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. As such, the parking 'charge' notice (PCN) exceeded the appropriate amount and is unenforceable.!

PERMIT HOLDER
As I am in possession of a UKPC issued permit to park my car, in my designated parking bay in front of my home I contend that UKPC has no right to issue a PCN. Due to the exceptionally wet /humid weather we were experiencing at the time of the alleged infringement, the adhesive securing my permit to the failed and the permit had fallen to the floor of my vehicle. I have supplied evidence to UKPC that I have the right to park in my parking bay.

UNCLEAR, NON-COMPLIANT AND LACK OF SIGNAGE
Due to their high position and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read and understand. I also contend that as there is no signage above my parking pays as they are elsewhere on our road and thus, the inference is that UKPC's terms are not applicable to my bays outside my house. Also the other signs (at the start of !!!! Street) and any core parking terms UKPC are relying upon are too small for the driver to discern when driving in and that the signs around the car park also fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I request that POPLA should check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point. I contend that the signs for our street (wording, position, and clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach (as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011).!

CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS
UKPC do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents for the owner/occupier.!

In their notices and in the rejection letter for my original appeal, UKPC has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. I do not believe that the operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings in VCS v HMRC 2012). I require POPLA to check whether UKPC have provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed pre-printed slip of paper saying it exists) and check that it specifically enables UKPC to pursue parking charges in the courts, and whether that contract is compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.


NON-EXISTANT ADDRESS
The PCN issued by UKPC to me was issued at my abode: XX !!!! Street (nb my home's number is clearly marked as is the street name). But the PCN details the location as “Pooh Road...” which does not relate to a legal, valid address. Thus, I contend that the PCN is unenforceable as it details a non-existant (after checking with the Post Office) address.!


BPA CODE OF PRACTICE BREACH - NO 'CREDITOR' IDENTIFIED
The PCN I have received makes it clear that UKPC is relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, 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 'charge'. UKPC has failed to comply in the wording of their Notice to Keeper since they have failed to identify the “Creditor”. This may, in law, be UKPC or indeed some other party. The Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is….”!

The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Act does not indicate that the “creditor must be named, but “identified”. The driver is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom he has allegedly contracted and in failing to specifically identify the “Creditor”, UKPC has failed to provide any evidence that it, or a third party, is entitled to enforce an alleged breach of contractual terms and conditions.



NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
UKPC are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice and must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular episode where my car was parked in my designated car parking spot in front of my house for this particular 'contravention'.!

Since it is my own 'free' car parking space (I have two) with UKPC receiving no other income than these 'charges' then UKPC cannot possibly expect POPLA or me to believe that they are operating at a permanent loss at this site. I contend there has been no!pre-estimate!(prior!to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) prepared or considered in advance. Thus, there can have been no loss arising from this non-event. Neither can UKPC lawfully include their operational day-to-day business running costs (such as costs for signage, operators wages and uniforms etc.) in any 'loss' claimed.!

Also, it is assumed that any financial 'loss' incurred by UKPC caused by my permit becoming detached from the vehicle's windscreen would remain constant. As UKPC have demanded £60 (or £100 if payment is not received within 35 days) and a final discounted rate of £15 (unless I appeal to POPLA or fail to pay within 35 days) I believe that this is evidence that the 'charge' is not related to UKPC's 'loss' and is in effect a revenue-raising scheme which negates the PCN as this can only relate to recuperation of losses incurred by UKPC.


UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), in Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012).!

This transparently punitive charge by UKPC is a revenue-raising exercise and is therefore unenforceable in law. UKPC's own website is damning in this regard:

http://www.ukparkingcontrol.com/faq.html

From UKPC website June 2013:!
''frequently asked questions
How much would it cost us to use your parking management services?!Nothing at all! We provide parking management services to our clients free of charge (subject to site survey).
So how do you earn your money?!
Our revenue is generated from the parking charges issued.!In many instances we are also able to provide a client revenue!rebate of 10%.''


So in conclusion, this is (by their own admission on the Operator's own website!) a revenue-raising scheme disguised as a 'parking ticket' - so in fact it is an unenforceable penalty.

I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed."
<END>

Now I have just received POPLA's decision:

<START>
"...born_3 (Appellant)
-v-
UK Parking Control Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXX
arising out of the presence at Pooh Street on January XX
2014, of a vehicle with registration mark XXX.

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has
determined that the appeal be allowed.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

At XXXX, on January XX 2014, a parking operative observed the Appellant’s vehicle parked at Pooh Street.

The Operator’s case is that the Appellant breached the car parking
conditions by parking in a permit space without displaying a valid permit.

The Appellant made representations stating his case. One of the points raised by the Appellant was that the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The parking charge appears to be a sum sought for liquidated damages, in other words, compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss any breach may cause. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms.

The Operator has submitted a breakdown of their genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms. The Operator cannot include in its pre-estimate of loss costs which are not in fact contractual losses, but the costs of running its business and which would have been incurred irrespective of the Appellant’s conduct. The list submitted by the Operator does not appear to be directly
related to the Appellant’s breach on this occasion and as there are no figures, it is difficult to ascertain what costs were incurred by the Operator.

Consequently, I cannot decide that the Operator has shown that the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

I need not decide any other issues.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed..."
<END>

I find it interesting that POPLA still maintain that the PCN was issued at a non-existent address.

But what should I do about the 'threatogram' - ignore it all the way to the threats of court action or nip it in the bud?