UKPC Norwich for not parking within the bay - NTK - now received advice please

Fruitcake · 22 February 2018 at 1:09PM

Use all the template appeal points available to you from the NEWBIES.

Forget no loss, forget what happened on the day.

You should be looking at Non POFA compliant if applicable (as previously advised)
Inadequate signage
Lack of grace periods
Not the landowner
No standing to bring charges in their own name
The keeper is not the person liable for the charge.

Anythng else relevant.

The_Deep · 22 February 2018 at 1:15PM

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]UKPC are fraudsters, read this[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3229165/Is-PROOF-private-parking-firms-scamming-motorists-Drivers-say-timings-photos-doctored-legally-parked-cars-issued-fines.html
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (who take hundreds of these cases to court, and nearly always lose), who have also been reported to the regulatory authority. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.[/FONT]

Coupon-mad · 22 February 2018 at 11:58PM

Free car park - no loss?

NOPE absolutely NOT.

You knew this at the start, the day you had that windscreen PCN in November:

I've read the newbies section.
Am I right in thinking they now wait 26 days then appeal online using the BPA template as the KEEPER?

But you blew that idea and waited for the NTK, blowing the 'no NTK' appeal point completely?

cazyp · 23 February 2018 at 11:49AM

Hi Coupon Mad,
Re no loss I meant that this car park is free therefore there was no loss to the landowner.?

Re NTK, I appealed to UKPC at day 26 after PCN was issued as the reg keeper as per forum instructions and then received an NTK after the appeal. I them received further demand to name the driver, which I haven't, and have now received the letter from UKPC saying they refuse the appeal and issuing me with the POPLA code. So far I've followed the forum advice exactly (in my understanding) so I'm not sure what you mean?

Many thanks for all the help so far.

The_Deep · 23 February 2018 at 12:18PM

no loss I meant that this car park is free therefore there was no loss to the landowner.?

So what, how do you think these scammers make a dishonest crust? They target those who breach their so called contracts, you are that person. The landowner probably gets a cut.

Umkomaas · 23 February 2018 at 3:31PM

Re no loss I meant that this car park is free therefore there was no loss to the landowner.?

Have you heard of Barry Beavis?

http://www.hardwicke.co.uk/insights/articles/the-law-on-penalties-after-parkingeye-v-beavis

cazyp · 23 February 2018 at 4:53PM

Ah ok re Beavis. I understand now that that is not an appeal point re loss.

I still don't really get coupon-mad's second point though?

nosferatu1001 · 23 February 2018 at 5:10PM

That they have, presumably, sent you a NtK. The entire point of appealing at day 25/26 is that teh PPC then fairly often DO NOT send a NtK out. If no NtK is received, then the keeper cannot be liable.

cazyp · 27 February 2018 at 5:16PM

Yes they sent a NTK within the time frame which appears to comply.
The original appeal to UKPC was sent within the time frame as the registered keeper.
I now have a popla code.

Here is my template popla submission as registered keeper:

1. No creditor info / landowner contract has been forthcoming:
No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

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

2. No signs on the car park entrance - video proof:
Contrary to BPACoP Appendix & B
section28

3. Vehicle was in car park less than 10 mins (statement of proof inc shop receipt) - grace period should apply.
No Grace period of 10 minutes contrary to BPACoP 13.1 13.2 13.4

4. Signs cannot be read from Vehicle parking space as shown from UKPC picture.
-Unsure where this is in the BPA CoP?

Guys_Dad · 27 February 2018 at 9:40PM

I think you will find that Grace applies to legitimately parked vehicles. You parked over 2 bays, so I am pretty sure Grace doesn't apply.

UKPC Norwich for not parking within the bay - NTK - now received advice please

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

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