Total Victory against UKPC!

[buzby]

Honestly - FILE IT in a drawer. There is nothing useful you can contribute without raaising your pulse rate, and satill not resolving the situation. If you leave it, it'll go away eventually.

[the_freedom_trail]

I have just received a 'charge certificate' from UKPC for 'Vehicle owner left site'.

Following advice found here I plan to contest the charge.

Please advise me of contacts and other helpful responses that will support my case.

For example from Hampshire Constabulary, Rushmoor District Council, Trading Standards.

 

If only there were a charge to contest. I threw my last PPC invoice on to the floor of an ASDA car park; however, just in case I would advise you to keep your paperwork but forget about these half-breeds

 

Regards,

 

TFT

[doctorrupert]

I cannot understand how UKPC have managed to continue this [problem] for over 2 years. I have sent the following as an foi request to DVLA to try to get their perpective. I share it here so that it might help other victims.

Last month you supplied UKPC with my details as the registered keeper of XXxx XXX.

As a consequence of this I received from them a 'CHARGE CERTIFICATE' that prompted my research into the parking scheme that they operate at the Solartron Retail Park in Farnborough, Hampshire.

Use of Google yielded numerous references that establish that a great many shoppers believe that they have been the victims of a scheme that has little to do with parking control but is simply a means of UKPC acquiring a considerable income. Reports in a local newspaper [Ref 1 & 2] state that Legal & General, the owners of the site, contracted UKPC to introduce the scheme late in 2007. In spite of much outcry, many unwary visitors to the Park continue to be fleeced; it is time that a stop was put to the [problem].

The helpful section on your website [3] states

"... when a private car parking enforcement company requests us to release information, before we do so, it must provide a résumé of its operations and confirm that adequate ticketing arrangements and signage are in place".

You also advise that private car parking companies requiring access to DVLA data are obliged to be a member of the British Parking Association and follow their Code of Practice [4].

To understand the law that applies here I studied references [5 & 6] and note the following extracts.

PRIVATE PARKING COMPANIES RELY ON THE LAW OF CONTRACT

Unlike official parking tickets, when on private land, it is the DRIVER, not the owner, who is liable, because a contract to park is formed between the landowner and the driver.

If you weren’t driving, you’re not liable and you’ve no need to tell who was.

...don’t state you’re 'appealing', merely that you're refusing to pay. By stating you are appealing, it gives unnecessary legitimacy to the ticket.

A parking company has NO POWER to force you to pay an invoice unless it first chooses to take you to court, which is a hassle, and then it needs to win the case which is by no means certain.

Only having a sign at a car park’s entrance, isn’t suitable as it's arguable when turning or manoeuvring you’ll need to be concentrating on your driving to stay safe, not reading parking signs. Signs need to be visible from all over the car park to be sufficient.

... the charge must reflect the loss to the landowner by you parking there. And can a company really justify a penalty of up to £150?

If parking’s free, the firm hasn’t technically lost anything. Why, therefore, do the PPCs seek to charge the users of the car parks figures like £50 and £70? Simply because people do not know any better than to pay.

To add legitimacy, their phrasing and design is often carefully contrived to give the sense it is a police or council ticket. They often use chequered lines or call them PCNs, mimicking the Penalty Charge Notice acronym of official council tickets. (invoices issued by PPCs are not in any way covered by the provisions of the Road Traffic Act.)

The Administration of Justice Act 1970.

Section 40 of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she

(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

I attach copies of the main UKPC sign, their ticket and their Charge Certificate.

What is adequate signage? From the motorist's point of view, adequate would mean that every driver entering the site would be made aware of the bizarre condition relating to leaving the site. However in this case UKPC would issue virtually no tickets and reap no income. Every ticket issued is actually proof that the signage is inadequate. The reality is that UKPC have deliberately designed the signs with the specific clause in lower case, with small font size, so that their [problem] can succeed. Potential victims can easily drive past the signs and park at such a distance from any sign that they are unable to read the small print. Rather than specifying minimum sign size it would be better if BPA specified a minimum size for the lettering of critical conditions.

So what do the signs mean? You can park here for free, for up to 3 hours, but if you cross the road we can charge you £90. What can be fair and reasonable about that?

At the site there are no toilets, cash point, refreshments, newsagent, post office - all are available a short walk away; the experience of Mr & Mrs Kempster is typical [1].

(On December xxth 2009, when I received a ticket, the Park was less than a quarter full. On December 30th 2009, when the adjacent B&Q and Asda parks were virtually full, there were still plenty of spaces at Solartron.)

Given the contractual nature of the signs, what is the significance of the word 'following' in the key clause? It makes the meaning ambiguous at best. The sign also refers to a PCN without a clear definition.

On the ticket the only CONTRAVENTION of relevance is the third - 'Vehicle owner left side'. No mention of the driver, even his right side. You might find out what percentage of tickets issued relate to this particular 'contravention'.

The Certificate dodges the same issue with owner/keeper/driver. It presents a subtle misrepresentation of authority with the format and the threat of involving a debt recovery agency.

Ticket, Certificate and follow-up letter do not display BPA and AOS logos as the BPA code of practice recommends (B4.3).

According to [2] the site owner did acknowledge the need for a climb-down.

"She (Rebecca Backhouse, shopping centre manager for King Sturge, the company that runs the site for owners Legal and General) said rules had been changed to avoid penalising genuine customers who broke the rules by walking off into town before or after shopping at the retail park stores. She added that large signs made the rules evident and there was a clear appeals process"

However, eighteen months later, the signs do not mention 'genuine customers' or an 'appeals process'.

The BPA website states:-

Unlike on-street parking, there are no regulations governing off-street parking enforcement when it is carried out on private land.

If you feel strongly that this should be changed please write to your local MP.

Local MP Gerald Howarth is concerned about the damaging effects of the scheme on his individual constituents but also on the retailers involved.

Given the above information, were you correct in giving UKPC access to the DVLA data in this instance?

In DVLA's opinion, is UKPC's system of parking control at the Solartron Retail Park completely legal?

If there is a need for tighter regulation, can you suggest where that might best be introduced?

[1] Surrey Hampshire Star, February 28, 2008, CAR FINES 'A CHEAT', [/url]http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/s/2022718_car_fines_a_cheat

[2] Surrey Hampshire Star, May 21, 2008, Parking row man slams Solartron retail park, http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/s/2028657_parking_row_man_slams_solartron_retail_park

[3] Data release to the parking industry, http://www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/data/parking.aspx

[4] The BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, http://www.britishparking.co.uk/files/aos/bpa_codeofpractice_v4.pdf

[5] Private Parking Tickets are often invalid, don't pay, http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-parking-tickets

[6] PRIVATE PARKING COMPANIES A guide to an effective defence, http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?autocom=ibwiki&cmd=article&id=56

[letshelp]

I cannot understand how UKPC have managed to continue this [problem] for over 2 years. I have sent the following as an foi request to DVLA to try to get their perpective. I share it here so that it might help other victims.

You will get a standard, 'we are obliged to provide details to anyone with a reasonable request'. DVLA have been pushed on this before and always refere to their default position as outlined before.

regards

[buzby]

Afraid I concur.

 

ANYONE can request your private details if they have 'reasonable cause' and pay the fee. You are asking them to be an arbitrator of whp they should release the data to, this isn;t their job and never will be.

 

Your complaint needs to be made to the property owner/retailers at the site - unless and until people refuse to use these (free) car parks, there will always be those who say they SUPPORT UKPC's actions as it cuts down on 'illegal' (more properly inappropriate) parking, especialy for overstayers and those using disabled bays.

 

Those in the know ignore them, and the vast majority do not pay, but there is still enough who do to stop them giving up and finding some other way of making money. It's no different from these Nigerian 419 Scams, aimed at conning you out of money. You just need your wits about you.

[letshelp]

It's no different from these Nigerian 419 Scams, aimed at conning you out of money.

You mean that email from my long lost relative in Nigeria asking me to house $100m in my bank account, is a [problem]?

regards

[kiptower]

blimey LH are we related I have the same thing

[Blagton]

blimey LH are we related I have the same thing

 

How have they got your details ? The ones you have received are false - you are being conned - no, honest you are. Don't be a mug

 

I have the genuine claim on the $100m. I'm just waiting for my passport to come back from them (they said they needed it to confirm who I was) and the money will be in my bank account. I will e-mail from my Caribbean Island.

 

Blagton.

[Blagton]

I cannot understand how UKPC have managed to continue this [problem] for over 2 years. ...

Simples.

 

The DVLA gets at least £2.50 from every request a PPC makes for the RK details.

 

Stop that and their current business collapses overnight.

 

Why MP's, Trading standards and others don't pusrue this simple solution is the question you need to be asking.

 

However - that alone may make things worse in some cases but if people want to charge for parking on private land they stick a barrier up or a man in a shed and charge in the good old fashioned way.

Blagton

Edited January 8, 2010 by Blagton

[doctorrupert]

Thanks Blagton.

It is the question that I will be asking, I am in touch with the MP, but I thought that I should see what DVLA had to say first.

Why is everyone else so negative?

Total Victory will only be achieved when the scheme is outlawed.

It seems clear that UKPC are issuing tickets without evidence that drivers have left the site. Proof of this would help our case,. it should not be difficult to get.

Today I received a letter from UKPC confirming " ... that the PCN was issued in error, for which we apologise."

I was lucky in that I had a receipt showing that I was a 'genuine customer'.

I did not send any letters but emailed to [email protected] and that worked. I even got a nice reply from Georgia McGuinness, Appeals Manager.

[DBC]

In the words of the beloved Jim Royle "Appeals Manager my a...". I bet that Ms. McGuinness (if that's her real name) is just another company drone who is told to reject 99% of all appeals. Otherwise their business plan would fail.

[buzby]

For 'negitive' read Realistic. You are not the first to discover this [problem] - and won't be the last. As for what you can do, the pragmatic approach is to do precisely nothing. Your MP is coming up for re-election, the DVLA will tell you what they say on their web site - they are required to release these details by law.

 

The fact someone set up a business to exploit the system. 20 years ago who would have thought there would be anyone other than BT bringing telephonyt into yiur home? Apart from Kingston (Hull) and Cable, it STILL is only these companies, we're all conned into letting firms find 'alternative' consumerism, so BT is forced to give up control of its network to third parties, has it been for the consumers benefit? I doubt it, the same hold true with any 'virtual' provided, they do it on the coat tails of another... and the parking firms are ding it because they can as the law allows anyone to get these details if they pay the fee.

[steephill44]

Nice to hear of some success. But thousands must be paying up these huge sums and many others having unnecessary stress and worry (not seen as such by the car park operators - Quote from UKPC website:

 

"Many forums/sites advise people to ignore tickets, some advise them to send standard letters to deny liability for the ticket and other outrageous defences to avoid paying a charge. A £60 parking charge is a VERY MINOR ISSUE (my emphasis!) ............"

 

 

It is more like £150 with many companies but even £60 is hardly "very minor" to most people who would think carefully before spending this on even a durable item rather than a few minutes of parking. It MIGHT be minor to millionaire car park cowboys (I wanted a cowboy outfit when I was a boy but have outgrown them now!)

 

Let's boycott (and let them know) all stores where these rip-off car parks exist (not just UKPC) and shop on-line until the site owners feel the effect and start to see sense when contracts are up for renewal.

[Al27]

Pretty major when you owe them diddly squat.

 

Let's boycott (and let them know) all stores where these rip-off car parks exist

 

Jump on the Sainsbury's forum and join in!

[Folkiedave]

Well done for your persistence.

 

I note that the DVLA gets £2.50 for every name and address supplied.

 

This seems a low price to me. Since people get the "standard" letter (We are obliged etc....) then perhaps the focus of the lobbying should be to get this pushed up to a more realistic price?

 

Has anyone tried this?

[Al27]

This seems a low price to me. Since people get the "standard" letter (We are obliged etc....) then perhaps the focus of the lobbying should be to get this pushed up to a more realistic price?

 

Would be interesting, but it costs the DVLA about 10p + a stamp for every request.

 

Remember PPCs lose about £5 on every ignored response due to the DVLA fee, postage and time.