Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • ShellyWidd
    • By ShellyWidd 2nd Mar 18, 1:40 AM
    • 9Posts
    • 3Thanks
    ShellyWidd
    ukpp ltd Newcastle Airport
    • #1
    • 2nd Mar 18, 1:40 AM
    ukpp ltd Newcastle Airport 2nd Mar 18 at 1:40 AM
    Can anyone please advise as to whether I should pay these apparent cowboys or not?

    On the 2nd December 2017 I dropped a friend off at their Christmas party at the Double Tree Hilton Hotel, which is situated on a road leading into Newcastle Airport, I stopped just in front of the hotels car park barrier for approx. 30 seconds while they got out of the car and I then backed back out onto the road and left.
    Approximately 1 week later I received a parking charge notice from UK Parking Patrol Ltd saying I was in breach of bylaw 1315. they said they had requested my details from the DVLA on the grounds of a PCN 6.3 - parking in a prohibited area.
    I was very incensed by this and contacted them through the appeals process. Unfortunately however I had not seen or heard about this company before this time and stupidly told them I was the driver of the car at the time of the supposed offences saying the following:-

    I have been sent a parking charge notice by your company and I wish to appeal this charge for the following reasons.
    1. I did not at any time leave my vehicle, therefore was not parked, I merely dropped someone off.
    2. There were no signs on the barrier to say I could not do this
    3. There was extremely poor / no lighting on the sign which I believe has now been put on the fence adjacent to the hotel which neither of us saw on the night in question therefore no clear signage.
    4. The above statement is obvious from the car which came up behind me and did exactly the same thing!
    They replied within minutes with this response
    Thank you for your letter of appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued by us on 07.12.2017

    Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:
    The vehicle was captured via CCTV footage unloading whilst stationary in an area that is well signed with notices stating: "No Stopping/Loading/Unloading In This Area". There are signs around the entire airport complex including at the entrance that clearly state the restrictions in place. Security at the airport is paramount and any vehicle captured loading/unloading in any area other than the official car parks is immediately issued a notice by the CCTV operator.!!!12288;

    The picture they sent me of the supposed sign is actually facing the Airport building which is some distance from the hotel and also in the opposite direction to the way I drove in. There was definitely no sign where I stopped at the time.

    I obviously did not pay and have since received 2 quite threatening letters from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd demanding payment on UKPP behalf or they are taking me to court

    I realise now that I was stupid to admit that I was the driver of the vehicle at the time and wondered if this makes as difference as to if they have a case or not.


    Thanks in advance for any help and/or advice
    Last edited by ShellyWidd; 02-03-2018 at 1:47 AM.
Page 1
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 2nd Mar 18, 5:54 AM
    • 17,326 Posts
    • 27,298 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #2
    • 2nd Mar 18, 5:54 AM
    • #2
    • 2nd Mar 18, 5:54 AM
    I obviously did not pay and have since received 2 quite threatening letters from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd demanding payment
    Debt collectors are totally ignorable. Please read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #4.

    or they are taking me to court
    DRP won't - they can't.

    Will UKPPO do so, make your own mind up!

    https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203755671-UK-Parking-Patrol-Office

    http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/UK_Parking_Patrol_Office.html

    Just to say, we have seen no PPC issue any real court proceedings for any airport byelaws case. There's nothing you can do right now, as the next move is in the hands of UKPPO - if you get a formal Letter Before Action/Court Claim (from UKPPO or their solicitors, not DRP) or real court papers, come back on this thread for more advice.

    You'll probably get a few more harassing letters from DRP, including a 'discount' offer. Then all will go quiet. The PPC, in law, has 6 years to pursue an alleged debt, but it's not something to lose any sleep over.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • ShellyWidd
    • By ShellyWidd 2nd Mar 18, 6:15 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    ShellyWidd
    • #3
    • 2nd Mar 18, 6:15 AM
    • #3
    • 2nd Mar 18, 6:15 AM
    Thanks for the info.
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 2nd Mar 18, 10:57 AM
    • 928 Posts
    • 719 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    • #4
    • 2nd Mar 18, 10:57 AM
    • #4
    • 2nd Mar 18, 10:57 AM
    UKPPO currently do NOT take any court action.....so simply ignore all their begging letters [unless REAL court papers turn up...in which case come back here and we will help you easily defeat them.....]
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • waamo
    • By waamo 2nd Mar 18, 11:20 AM
    • 3,015 Posts
    • 3,896 Thanks
    waamo
    • #5
    • 2nd Mar 18, 11:20 AM
    • #5
    • 2nd Mar 18, 11:20 AM
    As they are clearly invoking byelaws then I'm not convinced any of them could take court action.

    The time limit for action may well be 6 months as a byelaws offence rather than the 6 years for civil debt.it would seem to me to be an abuse of process of I say it's a byelaws offence then sue for a civil debt.
    This space for hire.
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 2nd Mar 18, 11:44 AM
    • 928 Posts
    • 719 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    • #6
    • 2nd Mar 18, 11:44 AM
    • #6
    • 2nd Mar 18, 11:44 AM
    tHE REASON THEY DON'T DO COURT IS THAT THEY [oops] are using byelaws...and in theory they should be passing the income they get from all 'fines/byelaw breaches' to the COURTS...but they don't do this...they keep the money!!!


    Going to court would be very dangerous for them....that's why [all??] the airport ppc scum don't do courts.
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • ShellyWidd
    • By ShellyWidd 2nd Mar 18, 6:43 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    ShellyWidd
    • #7
    • 2nd Mar 18, 6:43 PM
    • #7
    • 2nd Mar 18, 6:43 PM
    Thanks everyone for all your comments as I suspected they appear to be cowboys.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 2nd Mar 18, 7:45 PM
    • 6,666 Posts
    • 5,868 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #8
    • 2nd Mar 18, 7:45 PM
    • #8
    • 2nd Mar 18, 7:45 PM
    Thanks everyone for all your comments as I suspected they appear to be cowboys.
    Originally posted by ShellyWidd
    As you say... they appear to be cowboys.

    You are not the only person to think that.

    Four weeks ago today in the House of Commons our MPs debated this parking issue.

    Sentences like "Rip-offs from car park cowboys must stop." and "Too often the parking cowboys dress them up as fines; they are not fines." were used.

    Those words are direct quotes from Hansard.

    Have a read of the full debate here:

    ...or watch this video:

    Of course having seen that video you will then be very keen to let your MP know your views.
    .
    • ShellyWidd
    • By ShellyWidd 9th Apr 18, 11:33 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    ShellyWidd
    • #9
    • 9th Apr 18, 11:33 AM
    • #9
    • 9th Apr 18, 11:33 AM
    New tactic today from the idiot company. Apparently my "debt" has now been passed to Zenith collections, who have kindly offered me a discount from the original 160, which was actually 100 more than the supposed fine, to 136.00. They have given me 14 days to pay up or else saying it exactly like the following statement "IT IS OUR INTENTION TO COLLECT THIS DEBT AND PERSUE IT TO A LEGAL CONCLUSION IF NECESSAEY"


    I am presuming this company is exactly the same as the previously mentioned one, but would appreciate any further advice


    Thanks
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 9th Apr 18, 12:18 PM
    • 928 Posts
    • 719 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    They are simply 'letter senders'......


    I suggest that you refer them to the court case of Arkell vs Pressdram 1971.
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 9th Apr 18, 12:36 PM
    • 9,070 Posts
    • 8,765 Thanks
    The Deep
    Arkell v Pressdram is the correct procedure.

    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.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 9th Apr 18, 1:36 PM
    • 2,264 Posts
    • 4,018 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    IT IS OUR INTENTION TO COLLECT THIS DEBT AND PERSUE IT TO A LEGAL CONCLUSION IF NECESSAEY"
    I'd complain about the spelling and the use of capitals. Whatever next.
    Idiots please note: If you intend NOT to read the information on the Notice of Allocation and hand a simple win to the knuckle dragging ex-clampers, then don't waste people's time with questions on a claim you'll not defend.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 9th Apr 18, 1:55 PM
    • 1,643 Posts
    • 2,204 Thanks
    Castle
    I am presuming this company is exactly the same as the previously mentioned one, but would appreciate any further advice


    Thanks
    Originally posted by ShellyWidd
    I would point out to them that Airport Byelaws do not apply to any roads that are covered by Road Traffic Enactments.

    You should also contact DVLA to find out if UKPPO used KADOE to get your information; because they can't for Byelaws.
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 9th Apr 18, 2:04 PM
    • 928 Posts
    • 719 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    You should also contact DVLA to find out if UKPPO used KADOE to get your information; because they can't for Byelaws.
    Originally posted by Castle

    Oh nice one!!!!


    Can see lots of 500 claims for breach of DPA!!!!!!!!
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 2:55 PM
    • 56,275 Posts
    • 69,911 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    New tactic today from the idiot company. Apparently my "debt" has now been passed to Zenith collections...

    I am presuming this company is exactly the same as the previously mentioned one
    Originally posted by ShellyWidd
    Yep:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3829727

    Known and laughed at, for many years on this very forum!

    And this times out after 6 months because I assume they called it a PENALTY CHARGE under byelaws?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Castle
    • By Castle 9th Apr 18, 3:03 PM
    • 1,643 Posts
    • 2,204 Thanks
    Castle
    Oh nice one!!!!


    Can see lots of 500 claims for breach of DPA!!!!!!!!
    Originally posted by Computersaysno
    Actually it could be better than that, because back in 2015 UKPPO LTD didn't even have a contract with the Airport.... of course they may have fixed that by now.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 3:04 PM
    • 56,275 Posts
    • 69,911 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Was that when they only had a contract with 'Park & Fly' Ltd, a non-landowning agent?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 09-04-2018 at 3:39 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Castle
    • By Castle 9th Apr 18, 3:26 PM
    • 1,643 Posts
    • 2,204 Thanks
    Castle
    Was that when they only had a contract with 'Park & Fly' Ltd, an non-landowning agent?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Yes.....it should have been Newcastle Park and Fly Ltd. Of course that doesn't help UKPPO because the Byelaws are in the name of Newcastle International Airport Ltd.
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 9th Apr 18, 4:31 PM
    • 928 Posts
    • 719 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    Actually it could be better than that, because back in 2015 UKPPO LTD didn't even have a contract with the Airport.... of course they may have fixed that by now.
    Originally posted by Castle

    yes that's fixed now
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 9th Apr 18, 4:34 PM
    • 928 Posts
    • 719 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    the byelaws make reference to 'or our agents' ion the parking bit.


    Of course they are still stuffed because the byelaws are written saying they can fine you etc....but the fines don't get passed to the magistrates court.....


    That's why they'll never look to get anywhere near a court.....
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,020Posts Today

8,705Users online

Martin's Twitter