PPC charge on a hired vehicle **Appeal upheld**

[DJXFM]

Hi all,

 

Thanks to the contributions from this forum I am successful PPC ignorer when I've been incorrectly charged by these people. However today there was a twist!

 

I own a flat in a leasehold development patrolled by UKPC. There are numbered spaces and the lease allows access to the paved area in front of the main door for the purposes of loading and unloading. I hired a van today to move a load of stuff out, and whilst parked in the "loading area" I received a comedy parking charge from UKPC. The area is not marked as a space but is regularly used by residents when stuff needs moving, in accordance with the lease. I very much doubt that these clowns know anything about the lease...

 

Normally, of course, I'd ignore this charge and move on, however, the vehicle I was in was hired and I am concerned about the response from the rental company. I asked in the office when I returned the vehicle about the procedure for this kind of event and the chap implied there would be various admin charges from the company if they have to forward the nonsense from the PPC to me. I haven't yet found out the cost of these admin charges, but if they are less than the cost of the fine, I'll just pay the rental company and let the fine go away as usual. However, I suspect it'll cost me more.

 

Should I pay up and then seek to reclaim the money including charges for my time and expenses? I need to get the rental company out of the picture ASAP as far as I can see.

 

Thanks for your ideas!

[silverfox1961]

Hi,

I assume there was a windscreen ticket?

 

If so, you need to remove the rental company from this equation and the only way to do it is to admit you were the driver. I don't think it will do any harm as it is in the lease what the space is for so UKPC cannot make any claim.

[DJXFM]

Would it be best to write to UKPC with an appeal admitting I was the driver? I'm concerned that they will unilaterally decide to chase the rental company nonetheless, incurring further charges for me.

[DJXFM]

Sorry, windscreen ticket, yes.

 

During the 2 seconds I wasn't in attendance at the vehicle!

[silverfox1961]

Once identified as the driver, you include that in the appeal. They cannot go after the keeper as you have admitted to being the driver.

 

In all likelihood they will reject your appeal but then they should issue the POPLA code to appeal further.

[DJXFM]

Ok thanks for that. I assume by giving them my details they'll have no need to pursue the rental company. It's been a while since I've had to appeal a parking charge so I'll spot up on the latest advice from the forum and keep my fingers crossed. POPLA route still waiting to be tested by me!

 

Regards.

[DJXFM]

Just as a heads up, is the current protocol still to ignore these clowns? Clearly the charge is punitive (£60 or £100 if after blah number of days) so I guess it's unlikely they'll chase me if they choose to deny my appeal. I'll be handing over my name and address to these people!

[ericsbrother]

correct, they wont even ned to use the DVLA lookup so if they do they are in breach of the regulations under which they can access ther database.

Will be easy to kill this one.

Just use what you have said, your lease allows loading and therefore you have supremacy of contract and UKPC have committed an act of trespas against you by putting the ticket on the van. Tell them that if they dont cancel the charge then you will consider any further demands as harassment and treat them as the same.

[armadillo71]

Just as a heads up, is the current protocol still to ignore these clowns? Clearly the charge is punitive (£60 or £100 if after blah number of days) so I guess it's unlikely they'll chase me if they choose to deny my appeal. I'll be handing over my name and address to these people!

 

 

You respond to the NTD and state that you were the driver of the vehicle at the time of the event, giving your name and address to UKPC.

This releases the rental company from any potential liability for the charge and takes them ' out of the loop '.

 

 

Then add the details about your lease allowing loading etc. and that you expect the charge to be cancelled, or a valid code for the independent appeals service POPLA to be issued to you.

 

 

And always get proof of postage with every letter sent to any PPC.

[DJXFM]

UKPC should have received my appeal yesterday so here's a rundown of what I went for. Firstly I admitted being the driver thus taking the rental company out of the loop with all this. I hit them with:

 

1. Lease states "...vehicles delivering or collecting goods may be parked temporarily on the Private Accessway or vacant Visitor Parking Spaces." (Enclosed coopy of the relevant page)

2. The £60 (or £100) cannot constitute a GPEOL and asked for evidence that it is.

3. Quoted District Enforcement Ltd v Gary Husdon from a different thread on CAG in which the judge stated "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."

 

Was also going to ask for a copy of the contract with the landowner (I am pretty sure one does not exist!) but wanted to keep the letter to one side of A4 so as to not waste a penny more than I have to on these fools! Maybe I'll leave that one for POPLA.

 

Thanks again everyone I'll let you know how it develops.

[DJXFM]

UPDATE:

 

Received two replies from UKPC with the same date. One of them rejects my appeal and the other one invites me to send a copy of my lease to their appeals department. The lease weighs a ton so I'm clearly not going to do that but fortunately the rejection letter includes a POPLA reference number.

 

Allegedly, UKPC have contacted the land owners and ascertained that the area I parked in is not included as an area suitable for loading and unloading. There is no mention of the pre-estimate of loss, and their summation of the issue about parking outside the bay is that the signage clearly states that it isn't to be done (although the private accessway - which can be used for loading according to the lease - has no marked spaces on it!)

 

Should I just ignore these people now and head straight for POPLA? Any help in constructing an appeal would be much appreciated. Not been through the process before having successfully ignored these invoices before. In order not to complicate things with POPLA, would it be best to leave out the "private accessway" issue altogether and go straight for a cast-iron defence? What if I lose at POPLA? Do I then just ignore them anyway? Lots of threats for court judgements etc but as far as I'm aware the law stands on their ability to chase me through the courts and go after a CCJ.

 

Thanks for your help once again!

[silverfox1961]

I would go for the POPLA route.

 

Include the facts you know GPEoL, lease etc.) but then put UKPC on the spot by asking for a copy of the letter where they have contacted the landowner.

 

As it stands, UKPC take very few cases to court and I suspect they won't even bother with this one as it is too complicated for them to get their minds around.

 

Ericsbrother is quite good at formulating appeals but I would rather see your efforts first. You don't need psuedo legal speak, just common english.

 

If you do a draft appeal and post it up here minus the personal details we can the ridicule your efforts. No Sorry, offer constructive critiscism

[DJXFM]

Haha! Thanks! I'll spend the evening looking how best to approach it given others' experiences and post something up tomorrow.

 

Cheers!

[DJXFM]

Hi all,

 

I'd appreciate any feedback relating to my POPLA appeal against UKPC:

 

Dear Sir / Madam,

 

On the 26th February 2015 I received PCN number xxxxxxxxx from UKPC whilst parked in a private residents car park that belongs to an apartment block in which I own an apartment. Following an unsuccessful appeal to UKPC, I am writing to you to appeal the PCN for the following reasons:

 

1.Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

 

The demand for a payment of £60 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount and has no relationship to any loss that would have been suffered to the Landowner. The reduced sum of £60 rises to £100 if not paid within 35 days of the date of their appeal rejection letter and therefore 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. To date, UKPC have not provided me with a complete break-down of how this “charge” was calculated in the form of specific evidence relating to this car park and this alleged incident.

 

In the BPA code of practice, paragraph 19.5 states:

 

“If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.”

 

And paragraph 19.6 states:

 

“If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.”

 

I am aware of previous POPLA adjudications in which day to day running costs of the business (staff uniforms, signage, maintenance etc.) would have been incurred whether the alleged breach had occurred or not therefore these may not be included as a pre-estimate of loss. There is no machine for paying for parking on the site (it is a private, residential car park), and there was no loss or damage arising from the incident. The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA that a “parking charge” is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event.

 

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

 

2.No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers

 

As a leaseholder of the land in question, I believe that UKPC have no propriety interest in the land nor the authority to form contracts with drivers on the land, nor pursue charges for breach in their own name. UKPC have not stated any assignment of rights from the Landowner in their rejection letter and have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. I demand that UKPC produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and UKPC. It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract or, indeed, is even an employee of the landowner. I contend, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, that this should be disregarded as unreliable, not proving full BPA compliance and is not sufficient to prove UKPC have the necessary legal standing at this location to bring a claim in their own name nor to form any contractual relationship between UKPC and motorists. I clarify that this should be an actual copy of the contract between UKPC and the Landowner and not just a document that claims a contract/agreement exists.

 

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

 

3.Breach of BPA code of practice regarding grace periods.

 

Section 13.2 of the BPA code of practice states:

 

“You 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.”

 

The PCN issued to me states the “time first seen” as 14:23 on the 26/02/15 and the charge “issue time” as 14:23 on the 26/02/15. It is clear that no grace period was afforded to me as recommended in the BPA code of practice. Section 13.3 states:

 

“You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.”

 

I put it to UKPC to specify their exact grace period and how it relates to the charge issued to me. I strongly suggest that no such grace period was afforded to me and that UKPC has breached best practice set out by their regulatory authority.

 

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

 

4.PCN issued in contravention of allowable use of parking areas as defined in the lease.

 

Section 2.12, Third Schedule, of the lease for the site states:

 

“vehicles delivering or collecting goods may be parked temporarily on the Private Accessway or vacant Visitor Parking Spaces.”

 

I have enclosed a copy of the relevant page of the lease. Since the lease allows loading in the area in which I was parked, I have supremacy of contract and UKPC has committed an act of trespass against me by issuing a parking charge notice on my vehicle. In their appeal rejection letter the operator states that communications with the Landowner have confirmed that the area in question does not form part of the “private accessway” as stated by the lease. I demand that UKPC produce evidence that such communication took place and ask under what legal standing has the change of use of the land been enacted. As a leaseholder I have not been made aware of any such changes to the lease.

 

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

 

5.Invalid reason for issue of the notice.

 

The Parking Charge Notice states that specific breach that is alleged to have occurred is:

 

“Not parked within the markings of the bay or space”

 

The photographic evidence supplied by UKPC does not show the vehicle to have been parked inappropriately relating to a space or bay since it was parked in an area where no bays are marked. Therefore, the alleged infringement cannot have occurred. 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 concludes my appeal. I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge be dismissed if UKPC fail to address and provide the necessary evidence as requested in the points highlighted above.

 

Thanks again for your help everyone! Generally, is it best to write to POPLA or submit via their online appeal form? I have to attach the relevant section of the lease and a copy of the PCN (unless they have one already of course...).

[armadillo71]

That'll do it I reckon! No evidence from UKPC I suspect...

 

The POPLA website is fine but keep attachments small. You can always email as well with all attachments attached just to be safe. Always make sure the POPLA code is heading any email.

 

Seems appeals are taking just over a month at the moment.

[silverfox1961]

I quite like that.

 

Couple of points. the OFT no longer exists so you will need to adapt that bit to say 'the OFT originally said' and don't forget to head the letter with the appeal number.

 

Even if they already have the documents, it would be wise to send copies, especially the copy of the ticket showing that no grace period was given.

 

I don't even think they will get as far as your last point as you should win on GPEoL although it would be nice if the mentioned your supremacy of contract.

 

one minor thing. I feel it is a little long. If you cannot shorten it by much then send as is.

 

I would do it by post and get a receipt or send it signed fro delivery

[DragonFly1967]

I don't think UKPC are going to know what's hit them. That's excellent

 

Use their web form and back it up with an email (repeating your appeal, and) attaching your further evidence

[DJXFM]

Thanks for your feedback folks! Really appreciate it. I've altered the text to include the (former OFT) advice and will send via e-mail and post accordingly. The contributions from the site and others around the web have been very useful and I'll update as and when I hear anything. I'll post it tomorrow morning so if there is anything else that crops up overnight I'd be delighted to hear it.

[DJXFM]

Good news from POPLA today!

 

"The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge. The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

 

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

 

It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued incorrectly.

 

The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor any evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.

 

Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.

 

Shehla Pirwany

 

Assessor"

 

So UKPC didn't even bother trying tor reply to my case. Great news. Another success for everyone on the forum. Thanks for your help!

[silverfox1961]

Excellent news. A win for you (and another for CAG)

 

I will amend the thread title to show your success.

[honeybee13]

Well done with this, great news.

 

HB

[ericsbrother]

well done, UKPC bottled it again when caught out.

[DJXFM]

well done, UKPC bottled it again when caught out.

 

Brilliant isn't it! Thanks to you and all our friends here for the excellent and bullet-proof advice!!