Is it within 29-56 days

Well I have more the one ticket for my own spot.

For the previous ones I received no followup however for this ticket its dated 5th July 2018 so it is in the range you specified.

also scan it up please to pdf read upload

Hi All

Sorry for the delay and my lack of manners in responding. Unforutnately I have let this slip further and received a followup from UKPC saying as they have not received a response in 28 days they have now deemed me the register keeper and I have 14 days to make the payment.

Ive attached the letter that I got today.

any advice on how to proceed will be greatly appreciated. I made a mess and have seven of these tickets in my own spot, so of course dont want to fork out £700.

Thanks

Parking Charge UKPC 04092018.pdf

they cant deem you to be anything and the POFA has things to say on this matter, they either follow its protocols or they lose the right to create such a liability.

Show us the NTK your received in august, this letter is meaningless.

read a load of other threads about residential parking and especially the DAVEY thread (have to look back a bit).

You can then let UKPC that they are heading towards another £10k loss and make sure the management co are aware that you will be doing the same to them unless they can provide evidence that they told UKPC to desist from their harassment.

Read up first though so you get the letters right

Hi again

I've attached the first notice to keeper that I received just over a month ago. Can someone please advice on how to go forward. I unfortunately have seven of these tickets so potentially could be out of pocket by £700. I know its my own fault in not getting the permit sorted sooner.

Thanks

Parking Charge UKPC 1st.pdf

Not really you have supremacy of contract

But I am not sure on the next course of action. Should I be appealing to them or should I wait?

well you do

read post 30

for ease of searching use the search cag box in the red top toolbar

davey UKPC

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**

So I've been reading for the last couple of hours. I am getting confused with how to go forward.

Some of the threads the people are adviced to get in touch with UKPC when the ntk arrives, other threads say just completely ignore UKPC, others say go to popla. Others say to wait till I get a N1 form.

Also the letter I have which I uploaded in regards to one of my seven tickets has a date over 60 days later than the parking charge date. Does this mean it is no longer valid?

Ok I will start the ball rolling and others will add more later as their are many variables involved.

The parking companies know their paperwork is flawed and they also know that if they took many more motorists to Court they would block up the Court system and

cause a huge outcry so they only take something under 10% of the tickets issued to Court. So if you only have one ticket against you it is often better to keep your head beneath the parapet so your name does not come to the attention of the parking company. Hence the reason we say ignore them most of the time

. You understand that when people write to challenge the charge they run the risk of giving away that they were the driver and/ or exhibiting ignorance of the Laws they are citing as well as not being sufficiently robust in their challenges. This leads the PC to think that by rejecting the challenge [which they do 99% of the time] and racking up the pressure that person will pay up.

Anther reason that we say "ignore" is because there is still insufficient evidence to ensure the driver will win in Court even though an error has already been identified with their paperwork or signage for example. This is because sadly not all Judges are au fait with the legal complexities of POFA and parking contracts and can be swayed by a lawyer or their own self belief [or ignorance] rather than the evidence before them.

If you write to the PC and point out why there is no contract between you too early, they not being too honest will slightly amend their position so it now appears that

they are still correct in demanding money from you.

On this Forum we always advise never to challenge until the NTK has arrived. And if we then advise to challenge it is often because the keeper has posted up the signage; confirmed there is no planning permission and generally done all the homework asked for by those on the Forum. It may also be that there is history with that particular car park-the Peel Centre Stockport for example-so a strong warning shot was sent so that the PC knew not to go any further with this case.

Although the odds are small we have to assume that each thread could end up in Court so we need to find as much ammunition as possible so that even if the defendant doesn't do a good job in getting their points across there will be enough they got right to win anyway. Just having one point against them may not be enough in all cases to win so the more things we can find wrong the better.

Moving on to POPLA you do realise that it is not an even playing field. Not all points that would win in Court are taken into account at POPLA and we are finding that there is a seeming lack of impartiality in some of their decisions. And of course you know that appealing to the IPC version [the IAS] is a complete waste of time.

In your case with seven tickets care has to be taken. Yes you do have supremacy of contract but they will use a good lawyer if ti goes to Court not their usual run of the mill ones so more work may be needed in your case.

That is by no means a comprehensive answer to your question but gives you an idea of the complexities involved. Each thread may contain different problems and the different PCS often require different reactions there is no one solution that fits all problems. But I am pleased that you are reading other threads and hope that I might have cleared up some of your problems rather than making the situation even more unclear than before.

I am posting a judgement below which involved a supremacy of contract in a different situation to yours where the original case was heard just using the paper arguments of each without either side being present. The tenant had the courage to appeal the decision and won at the County Court. That Judge gave a very good definition of what parking which PCS should take notice of when issuing tickets for short stays..

Really appreciate your response and taken the points on board. From UKPC point of view they dont know that I own the spot. Now I have received the NTK I am inclined to just keep it simple and write an appeal letter simply saying that I own the spot, with a copy of permit attached, and ask them to cancel the ticket.

The NTK letter says if they reject it they will issue me with a popla code so I can go down the popla route if they reject it.

Do you see any issue around me taking this approach. Of course they will then know who I am as it will be my first point of contact.

It's not they don't know you own it. They don't care that you own it. Plenty of threads around where they are told outright that the person owns the space yet the ppc keeps chasing.

Follow the advice given already.

Well the NTK has arrived so from the advice given some of the responses say this is the time I should get in touch with UKPC. I will come back with a draft later and post it into this forum so advise on that would be helpful.

OK,

do not ask them for anything!,

do not be polite,

they are totally in the wrong so telling them that you WILL sue them for harassment as per Davey v UKPC may well stop them from doing anything stupid.

UKPC are however, particularly stupid so not a certainty.

make sure the management co know that you will sue them for allwoing these bandits to disturb your "quiet enjoyment" of your own property and that any injunction you seek against UKPC will also have their name on it as UKPC are only there at their request so they carry the respinsibility for stopping their servaants from misbehaving

anyways the NTK isnt POFA complaint, it doesnt say who the creditor is and it doenst have a sevice address for legal documents on it, usually the company registered address. A PO box isnt a legal address

Hi All

I am going to appeal to UKPC after receiving the below NTK.

Can you please let me know if you would make any adjustments to the below. Any advice as always is appreciated. I want to keep it short and sweet. Bare in mind I am sending this for the three NTK's I have received so far as I havent received anything for the other four parking charges yet.

Dear Sir/Madame

I have received the NTK in response the above reference number and as am appealing the parking charge.

I legally own this parking spot and as such can this parking charge please be cancelled.

I require you to respond within 10 days, then either cancel the invoice or issue me with a POPLA code. Any communication other than cancelling the invoice, acknowledging this appeal or issuing a POPLA will be treated as harassment.

Yours faithfully.

I wouldnt even bother appealing. If theyre stupid enough to go to court, it would cost them a lot more and theyre guaranteed to lose.

But thats just me, and i understand a lot of people dont want the hassle of it

I understand what your saying.

I guess the question is am I doing any harm in appealing. worst case they say no and give me the popla code and I go forward from there?

I think EB had something in mind more like post #40 as there's no point being polite. You might want to wait for him to comment.

HB

My opinion is slightly different to ericsbrother. I can't see any harm in appealing as even if you lost with UKPC and POPLA, they would still have to take court action to get their pound of flesh. POPLA are also fairer than the IPC (but not by much) and it's been noted that some companies will not bother defending themselves at appeal.

You could also do nothing and wait to see if court papers are issued. That's no bad thing but some people don't want the thought hanging over them and follow the appeals process.

IF you do decide to appeal the ticket with UKPC make it a weak one as what you really want is the POPLA code where you can use facts (not mitigation) against them.

You could always appeal to the company and say a wild sparrow ate your ticket. Theyd still have to issue a popla code, then you can simply appeal to popla as you have supremacy of contract.

UKPC rarely ever defend themselves to popla when they know they messed up. They just want to milk money from people with the least amount of hassle possible. Throw something in their way they know is right and they just run off after someone else.

Appealing will be a waste fo time as far as outcomes go BUT if you want to create a paper trail the by allmeans do so but be careful what you say. may peopel want to explain themselves and then drop themselves in it. in your case just a short statement that you have supremacy of contract so their stupid conditions dont apply and that you are reminding them of Davy v UKPC being the persuasive argument here.

Let them worry about this and if they do respond then by all means appeal to POPLA. You wont win there either because they will say you must obey the signs. Their remit is so limited they cant consider your position, just whether the signs were up. Utter nonsense but there you go, that is what you have to work with.

Reading back through the thread I can't see that OP has ever confirmed whether or not his lease contains a clause giving the landlord &/or managing agent the power to make rules about the use of the allocated parking spaces at the development. For example, anything like the use of the allocated parking space being "subject to such regulations as the Lessor may make from time to time”. This is quite common in leasehold developments. If such a clause does exist then the 'supremacy of contract' argument put to the OP here, and on similar threads, is not the killer argument against the PPC that is being suggested.

If such a clause is in a lease it won't automatically mean the PPC can do what they like. There are other things that have to be got right as well, not least signage. But it doesn't make it as easy to dismiss the PPC's case out of hand as it would be if there is no such clause.

The relevance of Davey v UKPC [2013] is overstated in my view. The legal status of Davey's parking space was very different to OP's. Davey owned his parking space freehold and it was marked as such on the Land Registry plan. There was no landlord who could make requirements about his freehold land and no lease. The case would be difficult to cite anyway as (a) it was settled by a Consent Order (in Davey's favour) and (b) it is unpublished - it has been asked for several time here and on other sites, including direct to Roger Davey, but no court report of it appears to exist. (Or does anyone here know where it is?)

but such a clause will need to be enacted and placed on the land registry file.

If it isnt there then it doesnt exist.

Likewise the managing agents and parking co cant alter the terms of the lease nor add their own desires to it.

This has been well tested before with parking co's claiming that a clause saying the clauses can be altered makes it OK for the MA to insist that the residents play along when it doesnt say that nor allow it even if the landowner wishes it. It would be very rare for a landowner to give away their rights over their property to a third party they ahvent even heard of.

The Davey case was twofold, the original was UKPC sued him for parking charges and he raised the ownership of the land as his defence but they still ticketed him a number of times after this and the he decided to sue for harassment. It was this second action that damages were awarded Like all county court judgements they are persuasive in nature, not compelling

The arguments used by UKPC held no water in either court case and as the parking co is UKPC they will be acutely aware that they are unlikely to have any authority so letting them know that you know about their past prefpormance is not just showing your teeth but making them remember what it is like to be bitten.

being balanced and cautious will invite futher attempts to collect the money because they think that even a small chance of them being right wll make it worthwhile. This is basically telling them you have a big stick and the stick has their name on it and the desire is they just slink off rather than risk a fight. If it comes to a fight you still have a stick even if it isnt the only weapon available