UKPC Leaving site NTK - Unsure of appeal position

grovel · 27 March 2018 at 2:37PM

Apologies if this is catered for elsewhere & I have missed it - I have read the Newbies Sticky, searched the site and google, but the particular circumstance may affect the outcome / chances of success (appreciate in all instances the details of any 'breach' are irrelevant as the argument is there can be nothing to breach in the first place..). A little help appreciated.

- A car registered to a keeper in our household has received a UKPC NTK (no sticker it appears), issued for a driver (unknown) alleged to have 'left site'.

- The UKPC website shows some still images, however.. it had included 2 video clips that appear to be shot from above the shop itself, though they do show the leaving & return of the unknown driver.
These are now absent from said UKPC site, & only the pictures remain (four in total; ingress, number plate, driver apparently in the car parking, same at end of period) . One assumes the CCTV is still present with UKPC?, (Strangely the website itself states an 'alleged contravention' )

- The parking period was somewhere between 1 & 1.5 hrs or so.

I won't give much more detail for now.

I have read these forums, and am concerned that a significant amount of effort & time / hassle could be taken up to eventually have to pay a court fine, vs paying up when I potentially have no other reason to do so than my own resignation and hassle from the PPC. Appreciate advice, as I'd be concerned about the deeper knowledge required and trying defend myself unaided if it went beyond POPLA.

The signage has no time limit expressed (image is available), and warns the driver *may* be charged for leaving site. My IT-logical brain takes this to be a conditional statement, such that it does not further detail under which conditions I would not be fined, and under which I would be alleged to be in 'breach' . Signs say 'customer parking only' but do not indicate which store the customer must be for.

I have visited the site, directly adjacent to another retail car park, which looks contiguous if you are driving along the side road on approach: signage for both are at one point next to each other, which at speed look to be one-in-the-same.

Sure I may get berated for not reading one part or another of the forum

, but as always these 'charges' turn from annoyance to concern.

Many Thanks

G

Fruitcake · 27 March 2018 at 2:43PM

It is not a fine.

This is a scam. UKPC were previously caught doctoring time stamps on their photo "evidence".

Send the initial appeal template from the NEWBIES thread.

If/when it is rejected, appeal to PoPLA using all the relevant points available to you from post 3 of the NEWBIES.
You also put them to strict proof that the driver left the site. Even if they have a video of a random person, that still does not prove it was The Driver, or The Keeper.

What happened when you complained to the landowner/retail manager?

Follow the NEWBIES guidelines. Nobody has ever lost a "left site" PCN, so don't you go being the first.

Please also complain to your MP.

These are some of the comments made by the MPs in Parliament concerning the unregulated parking industry (Feb 2018):

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

These are the exact words used, so you should quote them to your MP in a complaint and ask him/her to contact Sir Greg Knight MP if he wants further information about this scam.

The_Deep · 27 March 2018 at 2:46PM

UKPC are fraudsters, read this

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473
/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html

Leaving site is almost impossible for a PPC to win in court. Indeed, it was recently condemned in the House of Commons as a breach of civil Liberties, and is possibly an unfair term in a consumer contract. UKPC would be unwise to take such a caim to court.

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.

grovel · 27 March 2018 at 3:28PM

Thanks both, very much helpful & reassuring.

Fruitcake, can you elaborate on: 'You also put them to strict proof that the driver left the site'?

I have not complained to Landowner/Retail manager (Landowner unknown at this point) as of yet.

For the avoidance of doubt, I take it this is the blue font template appeal? (no windscreen sticker and NTK / charge notice as first form of notice) and I go straight to online appeal on the UKPC site (ukpcappeals(.)co(.)uk)?

Nothing to add to the template as I have no blue badge / receipts in my possession, unless you recommend something.

I still contend that without expressing the specific conditions under which they consider leaving site (with no denomination of said site) being unacceptable/acceptable, nobody could remotely be expected to be able to agree to any alleged contract where the terms are not stipulated.

nosferatu1001 · 27 March 2018 at 3:32PM

It means exactly what it means
You get them to prove the DRIVER left the SITE. So they have to prove who the driver was. And they have to prove they left the site. And they have to prove the site was well defined such that someone would know they were leaving it.

Yes there is only one appeal .

Its a scam. Of course its a scam. Theyre dishonest - UKPC especially - as an "industry". Its how they make money.

Fruitcake · 27 March 2018 at 3:39PM

Putting them to strict proof means exactly that. You say (at PoPLA stage) prove that the driver of this car left the site. Prove this was a breach of the Ts ad Cs displayed on the site. Prove that the signs detail the boundaries of "the site" etcetera.

If they provide images of someone, tell them to prove they were the driver.

I am interested in the alleged video footage. From where did they get it? Did they follow all current legislation in obtaining it? Has it been stored in accordance with DPA rules? These are questions to ask at PoPLA rebuttal if it gets that far, and they actually produce said video.

grovel · 27 March 2018 at 5:11PM

Regarding the Video it appeared to be from above the window of the shop - so I would hope that it has not been passed from retailer to UKPC. Were it to show the driver getting into/out of the car, I assume this is still irrelevant; The conditions are not detailed regarding 'leaving' site, and neither as you say is the site boundary identification.

As I work in IT security I'll check the DPA position WRT associating individuals with vehicles & therefore personal details via 3rd party CCTV footage (such as PII Data law)

grovel · 27 March 2018 at 5:28PM

..............So to be clear, if there is video of any driver leaving a car, then the site, & then returning, this would not materially affect any challenge to the charge? (note: regardless of the origin and legality of the any footage, which one assumes is a separate issue)

Coupon-mad · 27 March 2018 at 11:03PM

Regarding the Video it appeared to be from above the window of the shop - so I would hope that it has not been passed from retailer to UKPC.

IMHO that would breach the DPA.

As I work in IT security I'll check the DPA position WRT associating individuals with vehicles & therefore personal details via 3rd party CCTV footage (such as PII Data law)

Do check it and if you find some useful rules/regs to cite in future, please tell us what you find. We need that for several MET Parking cases on the forum right now, where hand held camera photos were taken by an unidentified random (hidden) person, not ANPR, following families around a retail park.

You are overthinking this, we see these all the time from UKPC and they NEVER have photo evidence. When we say 'put them to strict proof that the driver left the site' that's all you need add to the template. Not saying 'that I left' of course!!

Umkomaas · 28 March 2018 at 7:34AM

The last (known) 'leaving the site' court case went horribly wrong for the parking company and ended almost disastrously for their solicitor. Read the issues involved for a PPC to have to deal with should they be daft enough to proceed to court. But you're a loooong way from that at the moment, so don't get consumed by any negative thoughts on that front.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231)

fisherjim · 28 March 2018 at 8:16AM

If you think about it PPC's "sell" their scam operations to landowners to manage parking and increase footfall/carpark utilisation.

If leaving site is so detrimental to the profitability of the site, why did they film it, and let the alleged driver do instead of preventing it?

No it's just another made up scam to increase their ill gotten gains, and parking Muppet attendants (who aren't usually the brightest or most dynamic on the planet) can often be seen warming themselves in shops/ cafe's etc in cold weather and popping out when the victim is safely out of site!

UKPC Leaving site NTK - Unsure of appeal position

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