UKCPS again

[Cardiff Devil]

So on Friday night I picked up another PCN from UKCPS. I parked in a disabled bay as one of my passengers is disabled and holds a valid badge, so you can imagine my confusion when we returned to the car a few hours later to find an NTD on the windscreen. As it transpires, the badge must have slid off the dasboard when I closed the car door as I found it face up on the passenger seat, but still clearly visible if anyone had taken the time to check.

 

I'm aware that since the last time I challenged and beat UKCPS, they've jumped ship from the BPA to the IPC (probably fed up of being thumped six ways from Sunday by POPLA and losing money hand over fist) so I'm curious to see how this one plays out with IPC and IAS (if it gets that far).

 

I know that disabled bays are legally nothing more than nicely painted bits of tarmac but am I right in thinking that the Disability Equality act will blow any claim for damages cleanly out of the water?

 

Cheers

CD

[renegadeimp]

Disabled badge's have no legal relevance on private land. Don't bother about disability act. Just focus on gpeol. Ukcps are the laughing stock of parking companies and ALWAYS mess up big time.

[Cardiff Devil]

That would be my plan of attack normally, however I've heard that IAS don't allow appeals based on GPEOL, since as far as they're concerned, their poorly disguised penalty charges are justified. Hence my desire to have a backup argument prepared.

[renegadeimp]

Doesnt matter. If they are stupid enough to even consider legal action, you have a cast iron defence, and could ask the court for costs too. I see what you mean though. get them on pretty much everything you can.

[Cardiff Devil]

get them on pretty much everything you can.

 

Oh I will, don't worry about that

 

I really only posted this thread for information sharing purposes. There's tons of info on here and other websites regarding BPA and POPLA (template appeals, copies of adjudicator rulings etc) but comparatively little information about how to deal with IPC and the IAS, so it's my plan to try and get some insight into how they operate.

 

Watch this space, I'll update further when the NTK arrives.

[renegadeimp]

IPC and all that jazz are maintained by the PPC's, so they think they are untouchable. Thats why POPLA was started, then once PPC's realised the public were on to their little money making scheme, the worst ones jumped ship.

[armadillo71]

That would be my plan of attack normally, however I've heard that IAS don't allow appeals based on GPEOL, since as far as they're concerned, their poorly disguised penalty charges are justified. Hence my desire to have a backup argument prepared.

 

 

It all depends on the wording of the signage and the NTK that you should be waiting for...

 

PPCs struggle to word anything correctly and IPC members go down the contractual charge route... or think they do.

 

Post up a picture of the signage so we can have a look.

[Cardiff Devil]

The latest piece of waste paper has arrived from UKCPS. See attached.

 

Some interesting points of note;

 

Both BPA and IPC logos present, yet UKCPS are now only members of the latter.

 

Payments received which are not accompanied by the PCN number and vehicle registration number will be cashed but the creditor will be unable to allocate the payment to the correct PCN. The parking charge notice will therefore remain unpaid and enforcement action will be taken.

 

How understanding of them, so if someone sends them a cheque for £100 but forgets to include the PCN number, they cash it anyway and continue to chase you for more money. What lovely lovely people.

 

Appeals

At the time that the charge was incurred, a Notice to Driver was affixed to the vehicle. This offered the driver the ability to apeal within 21 days from its imposition. This opportunity has now lapsed and we regret the ability to appeal against this charge is no longer available.

 

Oh dear, so as the keeper who wasn't driving on the day, this could potentially be the first you'll hear about the issue, yet they won't accept your appeal. However..

 

If you consider there to be exceptional circumstances as to why you should be allowed to appeal outside of this period then you should send your reasons to us, in writing, at the above address.

 

Why I think I might just do that. How nice of them, how philanthropic...

 

-ADVICE NOTE-

This is a parking charge and not a penalty or fine.

 

Yeah, right, whatever you say.

 

The car-park operator has agreed to keep to a code of practice, which states that the parking charge issued cannot be unreasonable or used as a penalty.

 

Well, that sounds just dandy doesn't it? A £100 charge for parking in a free car park can't be unreasonable, just because they said so, or something....

 

I've just drafted up my challenge, for a bit of a giggle I've included the following at the end;

 

By continuing to pursue me you are entering into a contractual agreement whereby you agree to pay me £500 (reduced to £200 if paid within 14 days) when I prevail.

 

Appeal will be sent with proof of postage this afternoon. On my previous run-in with UKCPS (back when they were with the BPA) they folded like a deck of cards at my first appeal. Somehow I don't think they'll be quite as willing to back down this time.

 

Game on.

[Cardiff Devil]

One other thing I just noticed upon re-reading the form.

 

No mention of POFA 2012 at all. The only thing which hints at it is;

 

Please be warned: that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the Notice is given (i) the amount of the unpaid PArking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full, and (ii) we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, we have the right to recover from you, so much of that Parking Charge as remains unpaid.

[ericsbrother]

they are trying to imply that the keepr was the driver and any acknowledgement or appeal is in their minds an admission of that. The IPC doesnt ask its members to follow the protocols and appears to discourage it so you dont have to take any notice of them other than to have a paper trail that shows that you have done your bit and they havent.

[Cardiff Devil]

Quick update. UKCPS have rejected my appeal (surprise surprise). They appear to have grown a pair of balls since jumping ship from the BPA for the IPC.

 

I'll be appealing to the IAS but I'm not holding out much hope, since it's fairly doubtful just how "independent" they really are. The NTK is non-compliant with PoFA anyway since it does not contain any photographic evidence of the alleged infraction, or any links to allow you to view any such evidence. Therefore if they did decide to take it to court they would need to identify the driver first. That said, they've stated that they're working on the assumption that the RK was the driver. I'd love to see that assumption stand up in court.

[renegadeimp]

They grew a pair, because they think they are untouchable since the IPC doesnt really care. Only the really REALLY inept and shady PPC's go with them. The ones who want to try and maintain somewhat of a decent outlook go with the BPA

[ericsbrother]

The IAS of the IPC will tell them they are right and that you should pay up because they said so. As you say, not compliant with PoFA but go through the motions anyway to get the paper trail and see if they want to take the matter further.

I will say one thing though, not one of these companies has started legal action when they have been vindicated by the IAS when their determination is at odds with the law or protocols of PoFA. The parking co's are happy to let Gladstones solicitors (IAS in their evening wear) send out a threatogram or two but it has never gone further than that when they have received a rebuttal so it appears that they do know the law but hope you dont.

[Cardiff Devil]

IAS appeal rejected, surprise surprise.

 

My appeal was based on GPEOL, Non compliance with POFA, plus the fact that one of the passengers on the night in question is registered disabled. They've basically responded to each point saying "we don't really care". Apparently I was supposed to upload a copy of my NTK to prove that it was non-compliant with POFA (rather than for UKCPS to prove that it was), and to provide a copy of my passenger's disabled badge. Of course they don't tell you that until after they've dismissed your appeal.

 

In UKCPS's evidence pack, they did include the contract between themselves and the landowner, which may be of some interest to some people. However I had to tick a box on their website promising not to share it with anyone else, which is a bit of a shame.

 

I'll wait for UKCPS to write to me again and I'll send them a brief letter telling them in no uncertain terms to F-off, and to take me to court if they want their money.

[renegadeimp]

they did include the contract between themselves and the landowner, which may be of some interest to some people. However I had to tick a box on their website promising not to share it with anyone else

 

More proof they are nothing more than con artists.

[DragonFly1967]

I'd share it anyway. What are they going to do to you if you ignore their tickbox? It's not like you owe them a duty that would stop you sharing it.

[Cardiff Devil]

Ask and ye shall receive. Contract attached.

 

It looks like UKCPS's contract is with some kind of managing agent, rather than the landowner itself, does that muddy the waters somewhat?

[DragonFly1967]

Interesting. Interesting indeed.

 

I especially liked this part "Authorisation is given subject to UKCPS Ltd acting at all times within the guidelines as set out by the DVLA"

 

As the DVLA and AoS guidelines state that they must act within the confines of POFA 2012.....

[Cardiff Devil]

Update!

 

Nearly 8 full weeks after my IAS appeal was rejected, UKCPS have gotten back in touch. I was beginning to think they'd forgotten.

 

It looks like they're skipping the nasty DCA letters altogether and have gone straight in with a 10 day notice before legal action letter. They have also added on £25 to the amount owing (now £125) without stating what this additional fee is for. I have a feeling that'd go against them if it ever went to court.

 

I highly doubt it'll ever go near a court but I'll start getting my evidence together just in case.

[ericsbrother]

Oh, it will certainly go against them but if the lba is properly written it is always worth creating a paper trail so i would be responding in the way already hinted at earlier.

That you demand "strict proof" of a contract between yourselves and the landowner that assigns the right to make leagal claims in your own name as your contract appears to be witha party that does not have any authority to make such an assignment.

That the demand is not complaine with the protocols of the PoFA and so you as the registered keeper of the vehicle are not liable for any charge.

That the amount claimed is an unlawful penalty.