Hi, can anyone help ?

I can't see how to 'Attach' a copy of the letter. It is scanned to my laptop, does anyone know how I can post it on to here please ?

OK, so I have just seen at the lower part of this page, that I can't post attachments, so please bear with me, and I will try to summarise their reply.

So, they say that in order to make a final decision, we need to provide details of the driver within 14 days. If not, they will have to make a decision on the info they already have, and at that stage, a POPLA code will be provided.

Now, of course, I believe that to be a clear attempt to ID a driver, but I will quote in full the following Para :

<<< " Paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, states that we must inform the registered keeper that the driver of a vehicle is required to pay the parking charge in full. It also notes that as we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, the registered keeper, if they were not the driver at the time, should inform the operator (i.e. us) of the name and current address of the driver and pass the notice to them.
The Act also warns that if, at the end of a period of 28 days (beginning with the day after the Parking Charge is sent), the parking charge has not been paid in full and the operator does not know both the name and current address of the driver, the operator has the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from the registered keeper. This warning is given under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to us complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that act (which we consider we do comply with, to the letter). " >>>>>>

They then state that their signage complies with the guidelines and they reject that they are unclear in any way.

They do not comment on what constitutes 'the site', and they simply repeat that the photos can be seen on their site. I will check again, but there was nothing to evidence that the driver left the site, and they make no comment on that.

They make no mention of the original Parking Charge Notice being wrong, and do not refer to it, or include a copy.

They then state that they are a member of the BPA and are entitled to access DVLA records.

They end by saying the charge is on hold whilst under appeal.


I am sorry if I haven't explained this as fully as required, but any advice would be appreciated.

Are they right about the registered keeper being liable, if the Driver's details are not provided, and does the Reg Number error on the original Parking Charge mean that they have not followed the correct procedure ( As the Photo does show the correct number )

Thanks for any guidance :-)

It's standard UKPC procedure (covered countless times in most UKPC threads from the past 12 months) to send out their 'phishing for the driver' letter before making their decision.

Just ignore it and your formal rejection will come through around day 35 after your initial appeal - with a POPLA Code to use.

UKPC are fraudsters, read this

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

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. U

Thanks Umkomaas,

Yes, I know it is covered countless times, and as I wrote, I do see this letter as another attempt to obtain the Driver's details.

But are they stating a fact about the Reg Keeper being liable in the circs they describe ?

I would also like to know, whether the incorrect Reg number on the original Charge Notice means that they didn't follow the procedure for getting the details from DVLA ?

I do understand your point about waiting for the POPLA code, but surely at that stage I am going to need to know, on what to base my appeal to them ?

Think about it.

If they had requested keeper details from the DVLA using the wrong registration number, they would never have found your name and address, would they?
They obviously used the correct reg no when asking for keeper details from the DVLA.

It is often thought that PPCs deliberately mis-spell a reg no to attract a response something like "but you got the reg no wrong. The car I was driving had a reg no ABC123".
Bingo!! They now have the driver's details.

Wait patiently for your PoPLA code.

Thanks The Deep,

However, I have seen all the negative posts about UKPC, and I am not deluded into believing them to be a bunch of 'Fluffy Bunnies'. I think I read on the previous thread MSE asking us to moderate our comments about these bods, so I intend to do so.

For those, like me, who have been unfortunate and received one of their Parking Charges, the fact that they have solicitors who will take cases to Court, even if they lose most, does actually mean they win some. Similarly, pinning hopes on this Gov't to do anything about them, now or by Xmas, is no help to those with an outstanding case at the moment.

Hence why I posted as much individual circs about this case as I did.

KeithP

Thanks for that.

I read previously about the deliberate 'Wrong Reg No' ploy, to illicit a response, and therefore ID the driver, so I left it until we had the Letter to Reg Keeper. That letter effectively gave a completely different Parking Charge Number ( and that it replaced the original one ).

It was based then on the Photo of the car, and of course, the correct Number.

I will take your advice, and await their next reply with the POPLA code, and then return here.

Their interest in issuing court proceedings seems to be focused on those who have racked up multiple tickets, starting somewhere around £600's worth.

'Fluffy Bunnies' are cute nice things ..... UKPC are financial thugs
and approved by an organisation called the BPA who belong
in the history books as one of the most useless companies of the
decade

UKPC invented the word unscrupulous with their fraudulent
activities

The idiots do not know who the driver is/was and you
will keep it that way.

Once you have your POPLA code, come back here for all
the help you need to beat these money terrorists

UKPC make the BPA look more stupid every day

If you believe that UKPC is scamming you, and you believe that
the BPA is a worthless organisation which is not fit for purpose,
then tell Sir Greg Knight MP who instigated the new private members
bill regarding private parking companies

https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/sir-greg-knight/1200

You have nothing to worry about, and will win at POPLA.

UKPC have failed to properly issue a Notice to Driver (wrong VRN, so it was a nullity and has been 'replaced'). Then the postal PCN/Notice to Keeper has failed to 'repeat the information in the Notice to Driver' and arrived too late to be a postal NTK in accordance with para 9 of Schedule 4.

So, both documents together do not comply with Schedule 4 and cannot be put right by 'reissuing' what appears to be a new PCN by post with fresh vehicle details, because that arrived after the 14 day period for postal PCNs (and cannot be a NTK as described in para 8 of Schedule 4 either, because UKPC admitted that the postal document 'replaced' the wrong PCN that is a nullity).

Either way, there can be no keeper liability. Neither the NTD nor the NTK were properly issued in compliance with the POFA.

Hi coupon-mad,

And thank you so much for actually addressing the legal points to be made at the POPLA stage.

I really understand the Anger / Hatred of these bods, but I can only suggest, that those, like me, who have come here (prob via a google search), NEED a reply like yours, that points out their failure to comply with time guidelines etc.

Just replying with derogatory remarks about these B***ards, however understandable, does nothing to assist with individual claims.

Thank you again, and I now feel confident if this does go to POPLA stage :-)