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
    • protien
    • By protien 12th May 18, 12:23 PM
    • 5Posts
    • 3Thanks
    protien
    UK Parking Patrol Office - 19 minute overstay
    • #1
    • 12th May 18, 12:23 PM
    UK Parking Patrol Office - 19 minute overstay 12th May 18 at 12:23 PM
    So i got this private PCN for a 19 minute overstay.

    I did research and appealed it saying this:

    I am the registered keeper and I am appealing this parking charge from ParkingEye at Wye Valley Visitor Centre Car Park. To protect the driver, they have not been named.
    My appeal as the registered keeper is as follows:
    1. Insufficient grace period
    2. The Notice to Keeper does not conform with the statutory requirements of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore UKPPO can no longer hold the registered keeper liable for the parking charge
    3. Unfair treatment
    4. The sum sought is not representative of any loss suffered by either Highview or the Landowner as a result of the driver's actions
    5. Inadequate signage

    1. No period of grace given for the driver to read the additional signs within the car park, or to exit the car park following the parking period.
    Photographs taken show merely the time of entry into and exit from the car park but do not establish the time at which the car was parked.
    The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) states that parking operators "should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action." As stated previously, the entrance signs to this car park are insufficient to allow the driver to decide whether parking in the car park would breach any contract. The additional sign is within the car park and past the point where the ANPR camera has captured an entry time and therefore a grace period should be given to read the additional sign and decide whether to adhere to the terms of the contract or leave the car park.
    Kevin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at BPA states that:
    ‘There is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.
    “An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.
    “No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”
    The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.
    Kelvin continues: “In the instance of a PCN being issued while a ticket is being purchased, the operator has clearly not given the motorist sufficient time to read the signs and comply as per the operator’s own rules. If a motorist decides they do not want to comply and leaves the car park, then a reasonable period of time should be provided also.”’
    In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (13.4) states that the parking operators “should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted”
    During a BPA Professional Development and Standards Board meeting in July 2015 it was formally agreed that relevant changes to the Code of Practice would be made to ensure compliance with the DfT guidelines regarding grace periods.
    The driver of the car at the time was captured by ANPR cameras driving in to the car park at 17:25 and driving out at 19:14 on the same date. They were unable to park immediately upon entering the car park due to congestion from other vehicles, on top of that time to digest, read and understand the poorly laid out sign.
    2. The Notice to Keeper does not conform with the statutory requirements of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore UKPPO can no longer hold the registered keeper liable for the parking charge
    3. Unfair Treatment
    The PCN delivered by post is represented in an unfair manner. The 14 day dicount period is not the fair regulated amount of 50% (half the full amount of £100) required, resulting in this PCN to be lawfully disgarded.
    4. The sum sought is not representative of any loss suffered by either Highview or the Landowner as a result of the driver's actions
    5. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.
    Therefore it is respectfully requested that this parking charge request appeal be upheld on every point.


    Yours faithfully
    The Keeper



    It got rejected below is there response:




    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Thank you for your letter of appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued by us on 01.05.2018
    Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:

    The vehicle was parked on private land that is well signed with blue & white contractual notices stating; “90 Minutes Maximum stay, No Return Within 1 Hour”, see attached.

    Please be advised that the above vehicle registration mark was captured via the Automatic Number Plate Recognition system (ANPR) entering the parking area at 17:25 on the 26.04.2018 and again upon exiting at 19:14, as can be seen on the photographic evidence that has been provided to you. Therefore, the driver exceeded the maximum stay and the cameras automatically issued a PCN, at Wembley Stadium Retail Park, by us,The Company, not the location cited by you and not by ParkingEye.

    The 10-minute grace period was adhered to and the notice was issued in accordance with the POFA. Therefore, we can hold the Registered Keeper liable unless they provide the name & address of the driver.

    As reconfirmed in the recent Supreme Appeal Court decision parking charges on private land do not have to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss if they are commercially justifiable. Please refer to the judgement in the ParkingEye V Beavis case.

    The site has been audited and approved by out Accredited Trade Association. Therefore, the signage is sufficient and adheres to current legislation

    In summation; it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that they comply with the terms of the contract entered into when parking on private land. If they fail to do so they agree to pay the parking charge in accordance with the terms of the contract.

    You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and have a number of options:
    1. Pay the Parking Charge Notice at the prevailing price of £60 within 14 days. Please note that after this time you will lose the chance to pay the discounted rate and the full amount of £100 will become payable.

    2. If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). Please be advised that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case and are unsuccessful, the full amount of £100 will become payable. In order to appeal, you will need your parking charge number, your vehicle registration and the date the charge was originally issued. Appeals must be submitted to the IAS within 21 days of the date of this letter. Please visit for full details.

    3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.
    The Independent Appeals Service provides an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme for disputes of this type. As you have complied with our internal appeals procedure you may use, and we will engage with, the IAS Standard Appeals Service providing you lodge an appeal to them within 21 days of this rejection.

    How to Pay:
    YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PAY £60 WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE ISSUE OF THIS CORRESPONDENCE. CHEQUES/POSTAL ORDERS SHOULD BE CROSSED AND MADE PAYABLE TO:
    The UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd and posted to:
    Parking Patrol Collections

    Office 309, Great Northern House

    275 Deansgate, Manchester

    M3 4EL
    Alternatively, you can pay online at

    I know im in the wrong here legally since the grace period is around 10 minutes.

    What i ask is:

    1) They ignored my point of the 14 day discount is not 50% - is this an actual law?
    2) Is there anything wrong and do i have any angle to persue if i complain further?

    Thanks in advance for your help.

    p.s i would attach the images of the PCN but dont know how too (my first post)

Page 1
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 12th May 18, 12:33 PM
    • 2,862 Posts
    • 3,593 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    • #2
    • 12th May 18, 12:33 PM
    • #2
    • 12th May 18, 12:33 PM
    hi, and wellcome


    "I know im in the wrong here legally since the grace period is around 10 minutes."

    no it is not .... you have fallen into the PPC trap and believing them ....

    if they type ... they lie

    if they speak .. they lie

    you get the message

    the time of parking is NOT the time of entry into the car park

    a period is allowed to park !


    "
    1) They ignored my point of the 14 day discount is not 50% - is this an actual law? "

    see below ... there is no law !!

    "
    2) Is there anything wrong and do i have any angle to persue if i complain further?"

    you appear to have done some research .... good .... but you have mixed up the BPA and the IPC ... both are useless ... but separate ...

    read up re complaints to the IPA ... or whatever they are called theses days ......

    watching reading the below will give you a better idea what you are dealing with ...

    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 only way to stop this early is to complain to the landlord/owner

    Read up re waiting for court action and ignoring debt crawlers ...

    Ralph



    Last edited by Ralph-y; 12-05-2018 at 12:36 PM.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 12th May 18, 12:48 PM
    • 37,946 Posts
    • 22,059 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #3
    • 12th May 18, 12:48 PM
    • #3
    • 12th May 18, 12:48 PM
    Apart from complaining to the land owners to get this cancelled you are now at the end of the appeal process (See FAQ to learn about the futility of appeals to IAS)

    Now ignore everything except a lbcca or Court correspondence.

    #4 in the FAQ advises on the debt collectors stage

    They have 6 years to start legal proceedings
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 12th May 18, 12:58 PM
    • 3,289 Posts
    • 5,062 Thanks
    fisherjim
    • #4
    • 12th May 18, 12:58 PM
    • #4
    • 12th May 18, 12:58 PM
    As Ralph-y has stated you have done some research but not very well, your appeal (which would fail anyway) is a miss match, jumble of wrong information.


    Mixing up the BPA the IPC, getting the name of the car park wrong, naming the wrong PPC twice, etc etc.


    If they did try a punt in court you would need to do much better.


    You are now really in ignore mode, but face a barrage of debt collectors rubbish.


    If you get real court papers for goodness sake come here first don't make a mess like that again.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th May 18, 1:27 AM
    • 64,101 Posts
    • 76,680 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 13th May 18, 1:27 AM
    • #5
    • 13th May 18, 1:27 AM
    do i have any angle to pursue if i complain further?
    Do nothing.

    Certainly do not pay, and do not try IAS stage. The NEWBIES thread tells you that.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • protien
    • By protien 14th May 18, 11:23 AM
    • 5 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    protien
    • #6
    • 14th May 18, 11:23 AM
    • #6
    • 14th May 18, 11:23 AM
    Hi All!


    Thank you for all your responses and advice!


    So...I have found a few things:


    1) The notice they have given states they are holding the driver liable this does not comply with POFA POFA 9 (2) (f)
    2) The attachment they sent me with the rejection email ("Wembley Contractual Notice") has a 'Member of the BPA' stamp on there as well as an IPC one. The BPA appeals process is POPLA which is better than the IAS. So in theory I have a right to go through POPLA - so I sent an email requesting my POPLA code (see email in blue below)


    Thank you for your response which I have acknowledged.

    Looking at the attachment "Wembley Contractual Notice" I observe you are a member of the BPA (British Parking Association).

    Please provide me with my rightful POPLA code to proceed matters further.

    As a request of information:

    1) Please provide all images taken of this vehicle on that day, at the material location.

    2) Please provide dated photos of the signs on site, which you contend formed a contract.

    Regards
    The Registered Keeper


    To which they replied:

    UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd

    Department 309,

    Great Northern House,

    275 Deansgate,

    Manchester

    M3 4EL



    Parking Charge Number: 408934



    Vehicle Registration Mark: *******

    Dear Sir/Madam,


    Thank you for your letter of appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued by us on 16.02.2018

    You have been provided with date & time stamped photographic images of the vehicle entering and exiting the parking area. This is how an Automatic Number Plate Recognition Car Park works.

    Please be advised that as we are not subscribers to the Ombudsman scheme we are unable to supply you with a POPLA code. If you would like to seek independent arbitration of your appeal then you would need to do so with the IAS, see initial response.

    A copy of the contractual notice has been attached again.



    Kind regards
    Appeals Dept

    UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd


    There is a few things here:

    1) The date which they stated 16.02.2018 is completely wrong the letter states the offence took play 26.04.2018 (letter issued 01.05.2018)
    2) They ignored my request of images of the signs.

    The reason I am perusing this is for my own learning general learning. And am willing to go all the way since I feel I now have a solid case to win.

    My next steps im thinking is:

    1) Write up an appeal with all the evidence against this parking ticket through the IAS
    2) If rejected I will take the case further (is this possible?)

    What do you think?



    Thanks in advance!
    p.s still cant figure out how to post images lol
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 14th May 18, 11:38 AM
    • 3,977 Posts
    • 4,784 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #7
    • 14th May 18, 11:38 AM
    • #7
    • 14th May 18, 11:38 AM
    Gah, whyd you send off that email?
    they can be a member of both BPA and IAS, but only a member of ONE of the ATAs - in this case, the IPC. The ATA membership governs the appeals process. You would have found that out from the newbies thread

    Quoting someoine doesnt magically notify them of your post, so all youve done is clutter your thread with useless posts. Id suggest dleeting them.
    DO NOT appeal to the IAs. You woill lose
    Where else further do you think you could go? This isnt YOUR case to pursue, but theirs. YOU can only do one thing to end this, and that is pay up 0- whcih we dont say to do, of course.

    You really have to read the newbies thread more thoroughly.
    • protien
    • By protien 14th May 18, 1:31 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    protien
    • #8
    • 14th May 18, 1:31 PM
    • #8
    • 14th May 18, 1:31 PM
    I'd rather not have a 6 year wait on me.


    Whereas if I go through the IAS and they reject me I will not pay until they approach me this way if they do magically send me a county court letter I have more of a chance in court since I did go through the right procedures.


    I have read the newbies section. Under the Q&A:


    Q - ''My PCN is from an IPC member, should I really not try IAS, and why not?''

    A - If it's PCM then give it a go as they seem to enter 'no contests' sometimes, but otherwise, no chance unless you have something ground-shattering like proof there are NO signs up, or if they've said you were the driver/keeper and you are neither


    The PCN letter states in the last paragraph:


    "Please be warned: that if after the 28 days beginning with the day after that on which this Notice is given (i) the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full, and (ii) we do not know the both the name of the driver and a current address for services for the driver, we will have the right to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the driver of the vehicle. The notice is deemed to have been given to you on the second working day after the Date of Sending above."


    This is a crucial error and a winner in black and white along side the grace period rules stated in the IPC contract with Uk Parking Patrol. This is "ground shattering"
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 14th May 18, 2:38 PM
    • 10,728 Posts
    • 11,151 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #9
    • 14th May 18, 2:38 PM
    • #9
    • 14th May 18, 2:38 PM
    So what are you going to do with this "ground shattering" information?

    All it is is a non-POFA compliant NtK.

    You still have to wait up to six years for them to take you to court.
    .
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 14th May 18, 2:43 PM
    • 3,977 Posts
    • 4,784 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    It isnt.
    The IAS will, absolutely, state that they will presume you are the driver unles syou have proven otherwise.

    If you want to appeal to the IAS, then follow the advice here, read every single thread you can find on the almost zero winning appeals, and its on your own head
    Not appealing to the IAS is absolutely no barrier to winning in court. None.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 14th May 18, 3:37 PM
    • 37,946 Posts
    • 22,059 Thanks
    Quentin
    The only way to get the 6 years wait out of the way is to pay it off! Not recommended

    The FAQ explains why you should not appeal to the IAS.

    Their rejection is to your detriment!

    Ignoring debt collectors is not onerous, just treat their mail like all your other junk mail you now know will be continuing to arrive during the next yesrs
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th May 18, 3:46 PM
    • 64,101 Posts
    • 76,680 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Do nothing.

    Certainly do not pay, and do not try IAS stage. The NEWBIES thread tells you that.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    So I said the above, very clearly.

    And you then decided the complete opposite?
    My next steps im thinking is:
    1) Write up an appeal with all the evidence against this parking ticket through the IAS
    Forget it.

    This is a crucial error and a winner in black and white along side the grace period rules stated in the IPC contract with Uk Parking Patrol. This is "ground shattering"
    No, it's not even an error and certainly not ground shattering. You will lose at IAS.

    My words said a worthwhile appeal might be if you are NEITHER the driver nor the keeper. You are.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 14-05-2018 at 3:48 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • protien
    • By protien 7th Jun 18, 11:42 AM
    • 5 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    protien
    Hi All,


    Thank you for the efforts of your reply.


    Despite everyone saying on here to ignore it and not appeal ect. I felt that this was not viable. Ignoring notices where if they really wanted too they could get a county court judgement to take me to court is just beyond crazy to ignore it.


    So I sent a few emails back and forth directly to UKPPO where after I finally wrote up my appeal to the IAS. I knew the point where they did not hold keeper liability and therefore not being POFA compliant was a strong case despite most of you replying it isn't.


    I can gladly say that my appeal through the IAS was won. It didn't even have to go through the adjudicator, UKPPO pulled out and stopped pursuing me.


    So goes to show don't believe everything you read on the internet eh!


    However I am grateful that this forum exists and did start to learn from here. And I am happy to post my appeal for everyone's access if you all want.


    p.s im only a 21 year old student so if you do the right research you never know what can happen!
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 7th Jun 18, 12:19 PM
    • 10,631 Posts
    • 10,480 Thanks
    The Deep
    Very well done. They probably pulled out because they realised that you were a trouble maker who could cost them lots of money

    Not everyone who comes here is so tenacious and CM writes mainly for the underdogs and dithering Doris's. Now give them more grief.

    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.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 7th Jun 18, 12:32 PM
    • 20,270 Posts
    • 32,007 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Well done, a very good (if somewhat surprising) win.

    I can gladly say that my appeal through the IAS was won. It didn't even have to go through the adjudicator, UKPPO pulled out and stopped pursuing me.
    The great likelihood is that the PPC did not voluntarily withdraw, more they were persuaded to do so by the IAS. The IAS avoids upholding any appeal in favour of a motorist against one of their precious paymasters. So there could have been something critical in your appeal which snookered the PPC.

    And I am happy to post my appeal for everyone's access if you all want.
    It would be good to read it.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    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.
    • protien
    • By protien 7th Jun 18, 1:55 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    protien
    Thanks. Sure please see below:




    Below is my summarised appeal:

    As per your website instructs I submit this appeal on the 05/06/2018 within the time frame provided by yourself (IAS). Stating i have until the 07/06/2018, 23:59.

    I submit this appeal on the main basis that the NTK issued by UK Parking Patrol Office is not compliant with their acredited operator, International Parking Community (IPC) as well as not complying with, schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The fact that they tried to correct their original NTK (outside of the 14 day period), may imply UKPPO know they are not complaint.

    Please see full details of my appeal attached, under 'IAS Appeal'.


    Below is my full detailed appeal:



    I as the registered keeper appeal this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) further under the following points:

    1. The NTK (Notice to the keeper) does not comply with, schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, particularly:

    [please refer to the attachments titled !!!8216;NTK (Front)!!!8217;, !!!8216;NTK (Back)!!!8217;]

    a. Section 9 (2) (a) states; !!!8216;specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.!!!8217;

    i. It does not state anywhere on the NTK the period of parking the driver stayed.

    ii. The times given are for when the car was moving underneath the cameras and as such could not possibly be considered parked, therefore there is still not a period of parking stated, as required to hold the keeper liable.

    b. Section 9 (2) (f) states; warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given!!!8212;

    !!!8216;(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

    (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

    the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid.!!!8217;

    i. In the NTK received to myself by UKPPO (UK Parking Patrol Office) states; !!!8216;Please be warned: that if after the 28 days beginning with the day after that on which this Notice is given (i) the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full, and (ii) we do not know the both the name of the driver and a current address for services for the driver, we will have the right to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the driver of the vehicle.!!!8217; UKPPO have not complied to have the keeper liable.

    [Please refer to !!!8216;IPC Code of Practice!!!8217;]

    2. Further to point 1 (above) referring to the International Parking Community !!!8216;ACCREDITED OPERATOR SCHEME CODE OF PRACTICE!!!8217;, the NTK does not comply with !!!8216;Part C, 5.1!!!8217;. UKPPO therefore are not complying with their accredited operator which states members must !!!8216;adhere!!!8217; to.

    3. On the First rejection email issued by UKPPO on the 11/05/2018 AND an email sent on the 14/05/2018, UKPPO referred me to the !!!8216;Wembley Contractual Notice!!!8217; whereby there is a credited stamp stating they are a 'Member of the BPA'. Under these grounds I wrote to UKPPO to request my rightful POPLA code to appeal. Where they stated !!!8216;Please be advised that as we are not subscribers to the Ombudsman scheme we are unable to supply you with a POPLA code!!!8217;. Which is a deliberate attempt to mislead and confuse the public (Negligence).



    4. I refer to UKPPO!!!8217;s Accredited Operator, IPC (International Parking Community), !!!8216;Code of Practice!!!8217;:

    i. Under, !!!8216;Part B, 15. Grace Periods!!!8217;; It states!!!8217;

    !!!61623; !!!8217;15.1 - Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.!!!8217;

    !!!61623; !!!8217;15.2 - Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.!!!8217;

    Where 15.1 is referring to the point of entry and 15.2 referring to point of exit. According to the NTK issued by UKPPO the driver overstayed !!!8217;19 minutes!!!8217;. Going by the UKPPO!!!8217;s Accredited Operator, IPC, Code of Conduct 15.2 (stated above), giving the allowed 10 minute grace period brings the apparent !!!8216;Exceeded Maximum Stay Period!!!8217; down to 9 minutes, which is justified by 15.1. Therefore, UKPPO have not issued the NTK in accordance to the IPC Code of Conduct.

    5. Referring to UKPPO email sent to me on 14/05/2018 and 21/05/2018 they state: !!!8216;Thank you for your letter of appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued by us on 16.02.2018 !!!8216;. Which is INCORRECT (twice), in fact the actual date the NTK was issued is, 01/05/2018. Showing a lack of professionalism.

    Please refer to !!!8216;UKPPO Letter (Front)!!!8217; & !!!8216;UKPPO Letter (back)!!!8217;, where a letter has been issued by the UKPPO on the 30/05/2018 whilst, I am still within my appeals process. It is an attempt to correct their original non-complaint NTK, however since it has been issued outside of the 14 days to hold the keeper liable, it is invalid. This may imply that UKPPO know that they are non-compliant, but refuse to hold accountability.
    Last edited by protien; 07-06-2018 at 1:56 PM. Reason: grammar
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

199Posts Today

1,942Users online

Martin's Twitter