UKPC POPLA Draft - Deadline: 10th Feb 2017

Pyro908 · 29 January 2017 at 1:36PM

Hi All,

The vehicle in question was parked on a yellow line within a private residence in early December. The driver of the car is a tenant of one of the flats in the residence and due to the severe lack of visitor bays, has verbal permission from the landlord to park on the yellow lines in the premises. It can be noted that while parked on the yellow line, the vehicle was not blocking any access routes. It can also be noted that in this instance, the purpose of parking on the yellow line was for the purpose of loading.

The car was parked on the yellow line overnight and received two £100 PCNs in this time. Looking at the ‘evidence’ photos on the UKPC website, it is obvious that the first PCN was removed from the windscreen in order to administer and take photos of the second PCN.

Both PCNS state “Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space”.

It should be noted that the car was parked next to a UKPC sign. The driver did not see the sign as it was a dark winter evening and the sign is positioned high on a post i.e. above driver eye-level. The UKPC evidence photos show the sign in close proximity to the car but the photo is bad quality and the text of the sign cannot actually be read in the photo.

The poster has carried out a lot of research through this forum including a thorough read of the NEWBIE thread.

The keeper of the vehicle appealed both PCNs on day 26 individually with the template in the NEWBIE thread.

The keeper submitted both appeals with a different postal address to the one the DVLA has on record. In the keeper’s appeal to UKPC, the keeper stated:

“For the avoidance of doubt, I do not give you consent to process data from the DVLA relating to this vehicle, whether you have already obtained it or not.”

UKPC responded to the keeper rejecting both appeals on 17th Jan 2017. The keeper has now drafted a POPLA appeal which shall be submitted for each PCN separately (the purpose of this post is to ask for feedback on these draft POPLA appeals).

Today is day 56, the keeper has received only one NTK (dated 19th Jan but actually received a week after).

The NTK was delivered to the keeper’s registered address NOT the address submitted with UKPC the appeals. This means that UKPC disregarded the keeper’s statement regarding data from the DVLA. Does this help the POPLA case at all?

Please see the keeper’s draft POPLA appeal in post #2. Any thoughts, comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

Many thanks

Pyro908 · 29 January 2017 at 1:53PM

Edited to avoid confusion - Please see later POPLA Appeal Draft

twhitehousescat · 29 January 2017 at 2:46PM

no assistance from the landlord?

2 tickets within short period ? does the signage state "£100 per 24 hrs " etc

only one NTK , chances are they have cheated the DVLA out of £2.50

you have ask the landowner for assistance in getting those dropped hav,nt you?

Fruitcake · 29 January 2017 at 3:59PM

What does the driver's lease/tenancy agreement say about parking? A third party such as a parking company can't add on Ts and Cs to an existing contract between the landowner and tenant.
This was highlighted by a judge in the Jopson case that can be found on the Parking-Prankster's blogspot.

Pyro908 · 29 January 2017 at 9:25PM

Thank-you both for your replies. Please see comments below:

Twhitehousecat -
There is a management agency that runs the block of flats. They would be the ones who would be able to dismiss UKPC's claim however they are very non-responsive. The keeper has contacted them twice but has not yet had a response. The keeper is therefore continuing under the assumption that the managing agent will not be cancelling the PCN charge and will not be assisting in this matter.

The two tickets are indeed within a very short period. Nowhere on the signage does it state £100 per 24 hours. Through my searches of the forum, I have not yet found an example POPLA appeal which mentions two tickets in unreasonable succession, I'll write up a paragraph and add it to my second draft for your comment.

The keeper is currently treating each POPLA appeal as separate. Should the keeper instead add a reference to each POPLA appeal? For example reference that the keeper has a second appeal for a ticket given within 12 hours with no prior warning of any additional charge?

Also, should the fact that they cheated the DVLA out of £2.50 feature in either of the appeals?

Yes I have asked the landowner but so far haven't had a response.

Fruitcake -
I'll check the driver's tenancy agreement and also request a copy of the flat owner's contract. Will get back to you on that one.

Coupon-mad · 31 January 2017 at 12:15AM

Should the keeper instead add a reference to each POPLA appeal? For example reference that the keeper has a second appeal for a ticket given within 12 hours with no prior warning of any additional charge?

Yes that could be added with the other POPLA appeal code (at least to ensure consistency).

Also, should the fact that they cheated the DVLA out of £2.50 feature in either of the appeals?

No, I don't think so.

The_Deep · 31 January 2017 at 9:18AM

The keeper has contacted them twice but has not yet had a response. The keeper

Why should they respond? The MC answers to your landlord, not to you.

What does your landlord say about this? What does his/her lease say? What does your AST say? Why did you park where you did? Have you read the Jopson case?

You appeal dwells on Beavis, have UKPC raised it? If not, take it out.
Also, remove references to the Highway code and comparing this to the Public Highway. You also mention trespass? Are they alleging trespass, or breach of contract?

You have lots of good stuff to fight them with, but a lot of your appeal is irrelevant. Concentrate on your rights to "quiet enjoyment", wrong address ,contract, signs, etc., but in future, do not park where you are not allowed to, you could get your landlord in trouble.

Guys_Dad · 31 January 2017 at 10:52AM

Fruitcake wrote: »

What does the driver's lease/tenancy agreement say about parking? A third party such as a parking company can't add on Ts and Cs to an existing contract between the landowner and tenant.
This was highlighted by a judge in the Jopson case that can be found on the Parking-Prankster's blogspot.

There is no contract between landowner and tenant if tenant is renting from a leaseholder.

Coupon-mad · 31 January 2017 at 1:07PM

True but a tenant can still have rights to park/access/pass and re-pass, under their AST.

Pyro908 · 1 February 2017 at 1:27AM

Thanks guys,

I'm going to do some more research into the points you have all raised and then draft a second POPLA appeal.

Also hopefully going to receive a copy of the landlord's lease on Friday.

Thanks to you all for all your help so far

On a side note, is it worth me emailing UKPC requesting that they use my postal address rather than my registered keeper address for correspondence? Or should I wait until after POPLA for that? (Obviously I'd word it differently)

Pyro908 · 3 February 2017 at 11:46AM

I'm going to draft a new POPLA appeal this weekend, given the advice in this thread on my first one. Regarding the Beavis element, I only added this in because I read other threads which said that it's best to mention it before the PPC does. Fair point, I'll take this out. Similarly, the trespass part was to mention before the PPC could. I'll take this out also.

I'm going to take some photos from driver-level around the site to support my claim of insufficient signage.

I have reviewed a copy of the landlord's lease but unfortunately it is far from vanilla - See Below. I don't see anything in the wording that I can use. If anything it strengthens the PPC's case not mine! As a side note, the reason that the car is not parked in the allocated space is that the Landlord uses this space for his/her vehicle.

- The right for the Lessee and the tenant or occupiers of the demised premises and his or their employees and visitors to go pass and repass at all times and for all purposes of access to and egress from the demised premises and the allocated parking space only with or without vehicles (as appropriate) over and along adoptable roads (if any) the external common parts of the Estate and over and along the passageways corridor lift(s) (if any) and staircases forming part of the internal common parts of the building in which the demised premises is situate.

- The right to the use of the allocated parking space for the purpose of parking a private motor vehicle not exceeding three tonnes gross laden weight.

- The right to use in common with all other entitled to a like right on a first come first served basis any parking spaces marked "v" on the Plan (if any) for the temporary parking of visitors private motor vehicles not exceeding three tonnes gross laden weight.

- Not to use the allocated parking space for any purpose other than for the purpose of parking a private motor vehicle not exceeding three tonnes in gross laden weight or motor cycle thereon and not to park or allow to be parked any motor vehicle wheeled vehicle or other form of transport on any other part of the Estate save as may be permitted under the terms of the rights granted elsewhere in the Lease.

To answer "The Deep" 's question - the car was on a yellow line in the grounds of the estate so that it could be used for loading large heavy items for transport to the dump the next morning. The car was parked from 7pm to 8am and received 2 x £100 tickets (1 at 7:15pm and one at 7:30am). I'll review the Jopson case now.

The car has a permit for visitor bays but there are only 2 of these on the whole site so are never available. There is a general lack of visitor parking and lots of residents often park on the yellow line.

In this instance, the car was on the yellow line outside the front of the flat (causing no obstruction) because the keeper did not want the car to be left on the streetside outside while full of visible items.

UKPC POPLA Draft - Deadline: 10th Feb 2017

Comments

Categories

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