UKPC charge notice

[Anubis1275]

Good afternoon all, after batting these off or my company for a while I now have to do it for my niece so I need to get my ducks in order. My niece attends a college up north for which she as a parking permit. She has received a windscreen ticket from UKPC for 'Not parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space'. On the day in question all the car park bays were full so she parked at the back of the car park, out of the way - no bays, no hatching or any signs indicating that there was no parking in the particular area. The car park is solely for the use of the college.

 

I advised her to wait for the notice to keeper that arrived the other day, within the alloted time frames. I (we) intend to make UKPC wait a few more days then contest on the grounds of GPEOL to get a POPLA reference then hit them with some good defence gleaned from both here and the parking prankster web site.

[armadillo71]

The NTK states breach of terms and conditions, so the charge has to be a gpeol.

 

UKPC know they will lose at POPLA so it will be interesting to see if they give you access to it.

 

Get free proof of postage with every letter sent.

 

Which college was this?

[ericsbrother]

what specific condition was allegedly breached? Your niece shoul photograph the sign at the car park entrance so we can offer an opinion as to whether such a condition actually exists.

[Anubis1275]

Hi all, sorry for the tardy reply, had a bit of an IT failure.

 

I have asked for photos of the car park signs. Sorry I think I mislead when I said college was up north, I was (still am) born and raised in Kent so up north is anything over the Thames. Niece lives slightly up north, the college is actually Maidstone Kent. The parking prankster has recently posted some excellent advice on this 'breach' that we intend to make good use of.

[armadillo71]

From the MidKent college website;

 

 

Is parking available?

Student parking at the Medway Campus is only available for students registered disabled and Government Blue Badge holders. Students from outside the Medway local authority area can apply for a parking permit – call 01634 383000 for more information. Student parking is available at the Maidstone Campus so please remember to collect a parking permit from reception. You must display a valid permit or you may receive a parking fine.

 

 

http://www.midkent.ac.uk/courses/how-to-apply/applying-to-college-frequently-asked-questions

 

 

 

[Anubis1275]

Many thanks Armadillo.

 

I have also found out that the web site section specific for the Maidstone campus states free parking so even more good news!

[Anubis1275]

Good morning,

 

We have received UKPCs response to our appeal, a copy of their letter is attached. They have provided a valid POPLA code and we have until 19 Feb to lodge an appeal. We did have a giggle at UKPCs refusal to provide a breakdown of the GPEOL due to 'commercial sensitivity', probably so we can't tell how much they spend on coffee or staff uniforms. I will be formulating our appeal later but would appreciate any advice on the wording.

 

Thank you very much

[ericsbrother]

Staff and uniforms arent part of their loss, they are establishment costs so dont apply. They wont say because the answer os ZERO. This is how these companies can sell themselves as a free service to the landowner, they tell lies.

[Anubis1275]

Good aftenoon. I have managed to put some thoughts on paper for the appeal:

 

UKPC have issued a charge notice on the alleged grounds of “not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space”.

 

1. There was no infringement.

 

I put it that no infringement has occurred as in order to be correctly parked within a marked bay there must be a marked bay in which the car was parked. On the particular section of the road on which the car was parked there were no marked bays. The car was not parked either in or across any marked bays and as such there can be no infringement. UKPC have not provided any evidence of the alleged bay or any evidence of the car not being parked correctly.

 

In District Enforcement Ltd v Gary Hudson of 17 November 2014 Deputy District Judge Evans dismissed District Enforcement Ltd’s claim on such a matter stating “…I can completely understand that where there are marked bays anyone parking across the lines and taking up two bays would be causing a problem. But for that to apply there must be a marked bay and all down that area there are no marked bays. There are no double yellow lines or hatched areas to indicate no parking. The claim is dismissed." This information is taken from the website www.parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk and documentation is attached..

 

2. Sum charged is not a Genuine Pre-Estimated of Loss..

 

UKPC have stated in their appeal rejection that the sum they have charged, £100.00, represents a Genuine Pre-Estimated of Loss but have refused to provide a breakdown on how they reached the sum. UKPC have also stated that “Our breakdown of costs flowing from such parking violations has previously been provided in redacted form to POPLA and the county court”.UKPC are invited, once again to provide, unredacted this time, a breakdown of their costs arising directly from the alleged infringement.

 

I put it that the sum charged of £100 does not represent any Genuine Pre-Estimated of Loss to UKPC and this is further highlighted by their offer to accept a reduced payment of £60.00 as stated in their appeal rejection as this indicates that the initial sum is a blanket sum and not proportional to any actual costs incurred as a direct result of the alleged parking infringement. A copy of their appeal rejection letter is included.

 

Any constructive comments or advice on what to add /delete will be welcomed.

 

 

Thank you very much

[renegadeimp]

Could just appeal to popla using gpeol for a guaranteed win. Although the more you put, the stupider UKPC would look, and theyre already the laughing stock of PPC's.

[Anubis1275]

Good morning

 

Appeal submitted on line today so win or lose at least we have just cost UKPC £27.50 + VAT.

[Nev Met]

Just out of interest,

 

Is your niece the registered keeper?

 

If not, does she live away from the registered keepers address whilst she is at college and have the full use of the vehicle whilst she is away?

 

Thanks

[Anubis1275]

Hi , yes niece is the registered keeper.

[Nev Met]

Hi , yes niece is the registered keeper.

 

OK thanks, nothing further to say on the matter then........

[f16]

Good morning

 

Appeal submitted on line today so win or lose at least we have just cost UKPC £27.50 + VAT.

 

Plus the DVLA fee !!

[Anubis1275]

Evening all, this will make you laugh. After submitting the appeal we eventually received a response from POPLA dated 28 Apr 2015 stating the case had been adjourned pending the court of appeal saga re Parking Eye V Beavis and that due to the high number of appeals to be processed there "may be some delay before your case is decided". Today, yes today 15 Sep 2016, we received a response from POPLA saying that they had rejected the appeal and to make arrangements to pay the car park company.

 

Me no think so.

 

Warmest Regards

[ericsbrother]

what does the rejection letter say? It woudl be helpful to others if you can post it up so we can read it. Was this one of the cases determined by Wright Hassal?

Dont respond to UKPC when they demand their money, you have a wtaertight defence as there was no breach of contract. Loads of other things wrong with claim as well I shouldnt wonder.

[Anubis1275]

Hi I cannot scan anything in right now but the text of the letter is ...

 

We have been appointed by the British Parking Association (“BPA”) to act as an independent appeals body, under the brand of Parking on Private Land Appeals (“POPLA”), in respect of the Appeal and to consider both the Appellants and the Car Park Operator’s positions before providing a decision to the parties. We are not instructed to act on behalf of either party.

We confirm that we have considered the appeal, taking into account all of the evidence at hand and applying the prevailing legislation and with reference to the BPA Code of Practice, and have decided to reject the Appeal on this occasion. To avoid further action, including Court action, the Appellant can make payment to the Car Park Operator in the next 28 days. The Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) will not be cancelled.

 

Reasons for dismissing the Appeal

 

• The Appellant stated in the Appeal that the amount of the parking charge is unreasonable. Pursuant to the guidance set out in the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis and in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice, a reasonable charge would be £100.00. As the charge the Car Park Operator has imposed is equal to or less than £100.00, we have no option but to reject the Appeal.

 

• The Appellant has stated in the Appeal that they were not parked ‘incorrectly within the markings of a bay or space’ as there were no bays where they parked. Upon reviewing the evidence provided by both parties we contend that the signage clearly states to park only within a designated bay. The Appellant has therefore not parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of the car park and accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.

 

• The Appellant has stated in the Appeal that the Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA and there is no keeper liability. From the evidence provided the Car Park Operator has complied with POFA. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) provides that, in absence of the driver’s details being provided to the Car Park Operator within the timescales set out in POFA, the Car Park Operator has the right to recover the outstanding amount from the keeper. As the registered keeper has failed to provide the driver’s name and/or address for service within the timescales set out by POFA, the Car Park Operator has the right to recover the outstanding amount from the keeper. Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.

 

To the Appellant

 

To avoid further action, including Court action, the Appellant can make payment to the Car Park Operator in the next 28 days. The Parking Charge Notice will not be cancelled.

 

To the Car Park Operator

 

As the Appeal has been rejected, you must allow the Appellant 28 days to make payment. If payment is not forthcoming, you may take further action to recover the PCN.

 

This is the final decision in this Appeal. We are not able to respond to any future correspondence from either party, nor are we able to provide any information to either party over the telephone.

 

Yours faithfully

 

WRIGHT HASSALL LLP

On behalf of Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA)

 

Right hassle - sums them up nicely

[ericsbrother]

well, I note that they claim it is for the keeper to send the driver details off in a prescribed time, WHAT UTTER TRIPE. Liekwise, they refer to signage and not parking bays. The term "designated" indicates there is a prohibitive condition and that wasnt considered by righ hassle either. Incompetent, dishonest or lazy I wonder?

typical Wright Hassal, they couldnt get it right when they were pursuing keepers on behalf of the parking co's so i dont really expect any better from them when they are paid by the parking company trade organisation to hurry througha determination. they dont send out the other side's evidence to the appellant and they ahve been know to change their mind when they ahve made a decision in favour of the motorist without any explanation. Not worth whatever they were paid to do this as it will only cause more cost to both parking co- who will now believe that they have a case to claim- and the motorist, who will ahve to spend time and effort defeating any ridiculous claim they get from the parking co.