Pcn - ukcps ltd

[Alipops1986]

Hello All,

 

 

Today, my car received PCN from UKCPS LTD during my visit to my local small retail park.

 

 

The PCN is unclear as to whether they're fining the driver for parking outside a marked bay or parking in parents and toddler without a child.

 

 

As the registered keeper of the car I shall be appealing.

 

 

Having never been in this position before, can anyone predict whether I have a decent change of being successful if I was to appeal?

 

 

Many thanks in advance,

Alipops

Edited February 12, 2015 by Alipops1986

[Homer67]

Yes wait until you get the Notice To Keeper (NTK) otherwise you are admitting you were the driver by responding to a windscreen ticket.

 

All markings on private property including disabled bays are unenforceable in highway laws, you will need to do a 'soft appeal' to UKPC on these grounds and that their invoice is not a Genuine Pre-estimate Of Loss (GPEOL) and they will in all likelihood reject your claim but they then have to give you a POPLA code.

 

Using the POPLA code you appeal on the same grounds to POPLA making the most of GPEOL and they should allow your appeal.

 

Have a read around the forum, there are plenty of cases with UKPC and they are not particularly keen to go to court or take these appeals too far, they may even drop it at the first stage when they realise you have consulted on it and have a clue on what to use to appeal.

[f16]

Alipops1086

Could you also put up a photo of the sign ?

[armadillo71]

UKCPS Ltd are members of the IPC not the BPA.

 

 

So no POPLA...

 

 

As above, can you post up picture of the signage and redacted copy of the NTD please?

[Alipops1986]

Thanks - I have hopefully attached a picture of the PCN itself. I'm going to go back today and take a photograph of the signage.

 

 

 

 

Photograph now removed.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Alipops1986

[Nev Met]

You need to in the first instance a) anonymize your first post so that the driver is not identified and b) remove the NTD thumbnail post completely because UKCPS will be able to identify your specific case from it and in any case it serves no purpose posting it up.

 

Wait for the postal Notice to the (registered) keeper.

 

As Armadillo has said they are members of the IPC Ltd so they don't use POPLA but the IPC Ltd's own 'independent' appeal service.

 

Also, UKCPS generally don't go down the 'damages' route their Parking Charges are based on a 'Contractual Sum' and therefore arguing (solely) that it is 'not a genuine pre-estimate of loss' is a sure fire way to lose both appeals.

[ericsbrother]

take a picture of the signage that is at the entrance to the site. Chances are the wording is not clear enough to form a contract. This is doubly so if you have to refer to other notices either elsewhere or they ticket for breach of non-existent clauses.

The IAS arent fit for purpose so when you get the NTK appeal to the parking co and then IAS if necessary but only to prove a paper trail, they arent actually interested in the laws that they adjudicate upon. Most of all, dont worry about this, a robust rebuttal of their claim will normally stop them bothering to pursue the matter further as they know that they are going to lose money in the long run if they carry on.

[ericsbrother]

BTW, I read the tick as being in the "parent and toddler box" and would defy them to argue differently. Plainly, as you had your baby with you then no breach could possibly have occurred.

[armadillo71]

The NTD has to follow the requirements of paragraph 7 of the POFA to begin with, if keeper liability is going to be claimed at a later stage.

 

 

Plenty do not.

 

 

That is why it is worth seeing a redacted copy of them...

[Alipops1986]

Signage as promised.

[f16]

Alipops1986,

 

The photos are too small to read.

You will be advised by Site Team how to make them larger.

[Nev Met]

The NTD has to follow the requirements of paragraph 7 of the POFA to begin with, if keeper liability is going to be claimed at a later stage.

 

 

Plenty do not.

 

 

That is why it is worth seeing a redacted copy of them...

 

It's an interesting discussion point but first and foremost the NtD that was posted was next to useless for checking for PoFA compliance but what it did show was the serial number of the ticket which would link this OP with that specific ticket.

 

Back to the discussion point. The NtD was issued today, so whether it complies with PoFA or not does not necessarily preclude the PPC from later (lawfully) claiming keeping liability under PoFA. PoFA states (in laymans terms) that it's either a NtD at the time or a NtK by post to the keeper within 14 days.

 

There is therefore nothing to prevent a PPC from remedying a 'non (PoFA) compliant' NtD by serving a followup 'PoFA compliant' NtK within 14 days.

 

As the NtD posted in this case identified the specific incident and was issued only today any issues of compliance could potentially have led to a PoFA compliant NtK being sent out in plenty of time. Unlikely I'll admit but still an interesting discussion point and the reason that i always advise people who've received a 'shoddy' NtD to wait 14 days before kicking up a fuss with the BPA Ltd, DVLA etc etc......

[armadillo71]

It's an interesting discussion point but first and foremost the NtD that was posted was next to useless for checking for PoFA compliance but what it did show was the serial number of the ticket which would link this OP with that specific ticket.

 

 

 

 

A redacted copy was asked for as always. And of course it does need to be legible...

 

Back to the discussion point. The NtD was issued today, so whether it complies with PoFA or not does not necessarily preclude the PPC from later (lawfully) claiming keeping liability under PoFA. PoFA states (in laymans terms) that it's either a NtD at the time or a NtK by post to the keeper within 14 days.

 

There is therefore nothing to prevent a PPC from remedying a 'non (PoFA) compliant' NtD by serving a followup 'PoFA compliant' NtK within 14 days.

 

 

 

Yes there is. If the PPC issues a NTD, then they have to follow paragraph 8 of the POFA. They cannot mix and match between paragraphs 8 and 9.

 

As the NtD posted in this case identified the specific incident and was issued only today any issues of compliance could potentially have led to a PoFA compliant NtK being sent out in plenty of time. Unlikely I'll admit but still an interesting discussion point and the reason that i always advise people who've received a 'shoddy' NtD to wait 14 days before kicking up a fuss with the BPA Ltd, DVLA etc etc......

 

 

A NTD, no matter how ' shoddy ', should not normally be responded to ( some exceptions obviously),as a compliant NTK still needs to be sent to the RK for any chance of keeper liability.

 

 

 

 

The POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is clear on the two types of NTKs and the time frames for them both.

 

 

They cannot be mixed and be compliant in my opinion....

[Nev Met]

You've got yourself into a bit of a muddle here, which is entirely understandable because it's not as straightforward as it first seems.

 

Lets go back to the 1st Oct 2012, when PoFA first came in.

 

At that time, in England and Wales, PoFA was supposed to be the ONLY way for PPCs to enforce private parking tickets. This is evident from two sources. First the new BPA Ltd CoP which only covered PoFA and secondly because the KADOE contracts between the BPA Ltd members and the DVLA were for PoFA purposes only - I want to be quite specific on that, the KADOE contracts only permitted the use of DVLA data for PoFA purposes. nothing else.

 

Your argument about 'they can't be mixed and compliant' was 100% correct at this point in time and for the next three or four months only.

 

You see what happened was that over the following three(ish) months, it was discovered that NtKs were being served out of time and further investigation showed that the DVLA was largely at fault because they were failing, on a significant number of occasions, to turn around data requests so that the NtK could be served within the required 14 days.

 

As I recall, the DVLA's first response was that if the PPC got the data late then tough luck, they couldn't use it and would have to destroy it. However, by the end of January (maybe February) the DVLA had altered it's position (I'm guessing from BPA Ltd pressure who's members were paying for and requesting data in a timely fashion but through no fault of their own were then effectively hamstrung from using it simply because the DVLA couldn't service the requests in time).

 

So the 'new' arrangements were that if the PPC got the data in sufficient time then there was an expectation (from the DVLA) that it should be used for PoFA purposes only and if they got it late then they could use the old pre-PoFA 'driver only' method of enforcement.

 

At the stoke of a pen the DVLA had created a two tier system of parking enforcement.

 

Now this has since changed again and the DVLA has finally surrendered it's position with the expectation that in time it's PoFA out of time it's not, and have left it down to the PPCs to enforce as they see fit with the data they obtain so long as they stay within the CoP (more or less)

 

This means that the DVLA are happy for a PPC to start off with PoFA and switch to non-PoFA or start off with non-PoFA and switch to PoFA so long as they follow the rules.

 

So who can say with 100% certainty exactly what the Notice is that the PPC sticks on the windscreen of the car, is it a NtD served under PoFA or is it simply a pre-PoFA PCN?

 

This isn't helped by the fact that when PoFA first came in the DVLA was lobbied to put pressure on the industry for all PoFA Notices served to be called specifically a 'Notice to Driver' and a 'Notice to Keeper' - after all that the name given to those documents in the Act. Had they done so then motorists would have been 100% sure from the outset whether or not the PPC was seeking to pursue using PoFA - the DVLA declined to do so.

 

In summary, we have a situation today where the Notice on the vehicle either may or may not be a Notice to Driver given under PoFA, if it isn't (either by design or mistake) then it follows that it is not a NtD (as prescribed under PoFA) and if the PPC were so inclined there is nothing therefore to prevent them serving a postal NtK within 14 days and getting themselves (back) on track.

 

There is nothing in Sch 4 of PoFA that prohibits any such action.

[f16]

You've got yourself into a bit of a muddle here, which is entirely understandable because it's not as straightforward as it first seems.

 

Lets go back to the 1st Oct 2012, when PoFA first came in.

 

At that time, in England and Wales, PoFA was supposed to be the ONLY way for PPCs to enforce private parking tickets. This is evident from two sources. First the new BPA Ltd CoP which only covered PoFA and secondly because the KADOE contracts between the BPA Ltd members and the DVLA were for PoFA purposes only - I want to be quite specific on that, the KADOE contracts only permitted the use of DVLA data for PoFA purposes. nothing else.

 

Your argument about 'they can't be mixed and compliant' was 100% correct at this point in time and for the next three or four months only.

 

You see what happened was that over the following three(ish) months, it was discovered that NtKs were being served out of time and further investigation showed that the DVLA was largely at fault because they were failing, on a significant number of occasions, to turn around data requests so that the NtK could be served within the required 14 days.

 

As I recall, the DVLA's first response was that if the PPC got the data late then tough luck, they couldn't use it and would have to destroy it. However, by the end of January (maybe February) the DVLA had altered it's position (I'm guessing from BPA Ltd pressure who's members were paying for and requesting data in a timely fashion but through no fault of their own were then effectively hamstrung from using it simply because the DVLA couldn't service the requests in time).

 

So the 'new' arrangements were that if the PPC got the data in sufficient time then there was an expectation (from the DVLA) that it should be used for PoFA purposes only and if they got it late then they could use the old pre-PoFA 'driver only' method of enforcement.

 

At the stoke of a pen the DVLA had created a two tier system of parking enforcement.

 

Now this has since changed again and the DVLA has finally surrendered it's position with the expectation that in time it's PoFA out of time it's not, and have left it down to the PPCs to enforce as they see fit with the data they obtain so long as they stay within the CoP (more or less)

 

This means that the DVLA are happy for a PPC to start off with PoFA and switch to non-PoFA or start off with non-PoFA and switch to PoFA so long as they follow the rules.

 

So who can say with 100% certainty exactly what the Notice is that the PPC sticks on the windscreen of the car, is it a NtD served under PoFA or is it simply a pre-PoFA PCN?

 

This isn't helped by the fact that when PoFA first came in the DVLA was lobbied to put pressure on the industry for all PoFA Notices served to be called specifically a 'Notice to Driver' and a 'Notice to Keeper' - after all that the name given to those documents in the Act. Had they done so then motorists would have been 100% sure from the outset whether or not the PPC was seeking to pursue using PoFA - the DVLA declined to do so.

 

In summary, we have a situation today where the Notice on the vehicle either may or may not be a Notice to Driver given under PoFA, if it isn't (either by design or mistake) then it follows that it is not a NtD (as prescribed under PoFA) and if the PPC were so inclined there is nothing therefore to prevent them serving a postal NtK within 14 days and getting themselves (back) on track.

 

There is nothing in Sch 4 of PoFA that prohibits any such action.

 

So this roughly "condensed". .....

 

You ? or the PPCs ? Have in effect produced a "loop hole".

The DVLA did not have the staff to deal with the work load. .... So the PPCs complain because it is unfair (costing them money)

So the DVLA then make a change to the rules to the benefit of the PPCs.

So large was the change that drivers could not tell if they had an NTD or a NTK. The PPCs could decide what they want to call it in order to get " their money".

 

Leaving "Joe Public" (the voters) in the dark.

Not to mention the vast erosion of the PoFA.

You clearly condone this because you make no adverse comment after your last sentence in post # 14 .

 

I believe it was " renegadeimp" that said sometime ago "Once a wheel clamper all ways a wheel clamper" .................. TRUE

[ericsbrother]

If anyone has the time to do so then a visit to "Hansard" to read the transcript of the debate on this Bill will determine what the will of parliament was.

When pistols were banned in the 1997 Firearms Act there was originally a problem determining what a pistol was and so smoem debate on what was going to be prohibited by this new act. Part of that discussion was about muzzle loading arms and an almost throw away response to a question on whether they were covered by the lew legislation meant that they are still legal. Nothing in the Act mentions them, just an answer to a question recored in Hansard. Thosw who wanted them banned were furious but in English law everything that is not prohibited is legal so legislation has to be exactly worded.

[armadillo71]

You've got yourself into a bit of a muddle here, which is entirely understandable because it's not as straightforward as it first seems.

 

Lets go back to the 1st Oct 2012, when PoFA first came in.

 

At that time, in England and Wales, PoFA was supposed to be the ONLY way for PPCs to enforce private parking tickets. This is evident from two sources. First the new BPA Ltd CoP which only covered PoFA and secondly because the KADOE contracts between the BPA Ltd members and the DVLA were for PoFA purposes only - I want to be quite specific on that, the KADOE contracts only permitted the use of DVLA data for PoFA purposes. nothing else.

 

Your argument about 'they can't be mixed and compliant' was 100% correct at this point in time and for the next three or four months only.

 

You see what happened was that over the following three(ish) months, it was discovered that NtKs were being served out of time and further investigation showed that the DVLA was largely at fault because they were failing, on a significant number of occasions, to turn around data requests so that the NtK could be served within the required 14 days.

 

As I recall, the DVLA's first response was that if the PPC got the data late then tough luck, they couldn't use it and would have to destroy it. However, by the end of January (maybe February) the DVLA had altered it's position (I'm guessing from BPA Ltd pressure who's members were paying for and requesting data in a timely fashion but through no fault of their own were then effectively hamstrung from using it simply because the DVLA couldn't service the requests in time).

 

So the 'new' arrangements were that if the PPC got the data in sufficient time then there was an expectation (from the DVLA) that it should be used for PoFA purposes only and if they got it late then they could use the old pre-PoFA 'driver only' method of enforcement.

 

At the stoke of a pen the DVLA had created a two tier system of parking enforcement.

 

Now this has since changed again and the DVLA has finally surrendered it's position with the expectation that in time it's PoFA out of time it's not, and have left it down to the PPCs to enforce as they see fit with the data they obtain so long as they stay within the CoP (more or less)

 

This means that the DVLA are happy for a PPC to start off with PoFA and switch to non-PoFA or start off with non-PoFA and switch to PoFA so long as they follow the rules.

 

So who can say with 100% certainty exactly what the Notice is that the PPC sticks on the windscreen of the car, is it a NtD served under PoFA or is it simply a pre-PoFA PCN?

 

This isn't helped by the fact that when PoFA first came in the DVLA was lobbied to put pressure on the industry for all PoFA Notices served to be called specifically a 'Notice to Driver' and a 'Notice to Keeper' - after all that the name given to those documents in the Act. Had they done so then motorists would have been 100% sure from the outset whether or not the PPC was seeking to pursue using PoFA - the DVLA declined to do so.

 

In summary, we have a situation today where the Notice on the vehicle either may or may not be a Notice to Driver given under PoFA, if it isn't (either by design or mistake) then it follows that it is not a NtD (as prescribed under PoFA) and if the PPC were so inclined there is nothing therefore to prevent them serving a postal NtK within 14 days and getting themselves (back) on track.

 

There is nothing in Sch 4 of PoFA that prohibits any such action.

 

 

 

 

There is no muddle on my part.

 

 

This post, like a lot of your posts since your return to CAG, uses a mountain of text to try and confuse the situation.

 

 

You are stating above that a PPC will issue a NTD (non POFA compliant), then before the driver has used the timeframe stated on it to pay or appeal, will use their KADOE contract to get RK details and issue a NTK.

 

 

When has a PPC done this?

 

 

The late data details from the DVLA in the early days was for ANPR NTK requests, not NTDs. 14 days as opposed to 28 days.

 

 

Your recent postings ,especially on the C2C threads, suggest a conflict of interest. Especially when you take this statement from you into account:

 

 

 

 

 

Nev Metson4 April 2014 at 09:08

The idea and principles behind PETAS were originally conceived over a year ago by myself and a PPC operator. It was never my intention to have any further involvement other than in an unpaid advisory capacity and I saw a paid for service as merely another tool in raising the percentage of appeals and complaints to help force change. However, after seeing a number of responses today, being mostly hostile, suspicious and negative; I have decided to take a more hands on approach and work in partnership with the PPC operator to ensure that PETAS provides a cheap, safe, secure and reliable service for those motorists who (for whatever reason) simply haven't got the time or energy to deal with a private parking ticket themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/parking-company-starts-service-to.html

[Alipops1986]

Hello All,

 

So NTK received - the alleged offence listed is 'Out of marked bay'.

 

I'm wonder which letter for appeal template is best to use as they are now a member of IAS - I do have a Parking Cowboys template but that quotes POPLA/BPA so unsure if this is appropriate?

 

Many thanks,

Alipops x

[ericsbrother]

as you are appealing to UKPCS first then I wouldnt be using the template but I would be looking at the picture of the sign you took and seeing if there is such a contractual agreement to only park inside marked bays and then ask for a determination of what is prescribed as a marked bay and where that is written down for you to consider. If there is nothing on their signs about the bays then it is not a contractual agreement nor a breach of any contract.

[Alipops1986]

Thanks ericsbrother.

 

The signage says 'vehicles must not park on this private land, except where parking bays are present. Vehicles must only park where parking bays are present. Vehicles must only park within an authorised parked bay and must not park on or out of the lines forming the bay'

 

Does this change anything?

[ericsbrother]

so what is an authorised bay, how is that authorisation determined and who by? Dont attempt to answer that, it is a question for the parking company. did they mark out the bays? I doubt it so whose authorisation is needed to determine whether your car is in a bay or not. Not UKPC as they dont own the site and didnt provide the paint job

BUT, the killer bit is that there is no statement to say it is a breach of the parking conditions to park in more than one bay at a time nor does it state that you are entering a contract with anyone (unless that is a header to the sign).