UKPL - Failed IAS appeal...

[armadillo71]

After asking for info on a new IPC member here;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?435832-New-member-of-the-IPC.

 

They've only gone and sent me a letter via their UCS front.

 

They have obviously used the Poxburghe/PCN Parking services database, and are carrying on where Poxburghe left off.

 

I suspect we shall see a few more cases resurrected...

 

I shall post up the letter later, but they are claiming keeper liability where none exists ,and of course I have the paper trail to prove it.

 

Now I could ignore them, but I think I shall be asking them for their proof that the POFA was

followed correctly to enable keeper liability...

[armadillo71]

NTK received 65 days after the NTD.

No mention of the POFA or keeper liability.

 

 

Denial of keeper liability sent day later.

 

 

No response.

 

 

70 odd days later, UCS letter claiming keeper liability.

[dx100uk]

I love the way they slip in penalty and fine

 

 

quite cleaver really

[Cardiff Devil]

Laughable really. It's a fine and a penalty regardless of how they try and dress it up. It's hilarious how they try and claim that because they've called it something different, that it somehow makes it legitimate.

 

Admin fees, seriously? Surely the cost of processing these invoices is part of the running costs of the business, save perhaps for the £2.50 DVLA fee to obtain keeper details. The rest of the work presumably is done in-house by people on the payroll as part of their daily duties. Also, VAT on an admin fee? I thought this was only applicable to tangible goods or services, not on an unenforcable fee tacked on to a poorly disguised penalty charge.

[ericsbrother]

was the admin fee part of the contract on the sign you ignored?

[armadillo71]

was the admin fee part of the contract on the sign you ignored?

 

 

The driver tells me the signage is woefully inadequate...

 

 

The initial NTK from PCN Parking services/Poxburghe knew they were out of time for keeper liability, and does only chase the driver.

 

 

But the UCS letter now lies, by claiming keeper liability under the POFA 2012.

[armadillo71]

I returned from holiday to a failed IAS appeal....

 

My appeal;

 

A Notice To Registered Keeper was received by myself on xx/xx/2015.

The requirements to allow keeper liability under schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have not been met by this NTRK.

This was made clear to PCN Parking Solutions, who subsequently 'rejected my appeal' , due to this being ' mitigation'. That is NOT mitigation but fact. There is no evidence on their website to show me, the Registered Keeper, that this event actually happened.*

After visiting the site to view the signage, it is clear that it does not comply with the IPC CoP. either.

To confirm, as Registered Keeper I am not liable for this charge.

 

Operators reply;

 

THE LAND IN QUESTION IS PRIVATE AND IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PARKING.

 

BY WAY OF CONTRACTUAL WARNING SIGNAGE, WHICH IS DISPLAYED AT THE SITE, MOTORISTS ARE MADE AWARE THAT SHOULD THEY DECIDE TO PARK AT THE SITE, THEN A VALID PAY AND DISPLAY TICKET MUST BE CLEARLY DISPLAYED AT ALL TIMES.

 

IN THE EVENT THAT A VALID PAY AND DISPLAY TICKET IS NOT CLEARLY DISPLAYED, THEN THE MOTORIST BY WAY OF AFFIRMATION, HAS AGREED TO PAY THE OPERATOR A FIXED AGREED UPON SUM OF MONEY. IN ESSENCE THIS SUM IS A CORE CONTRACTUAL PRICE TERM.

 

SHOULD THE MOTORIST NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PARKING, THEN THEY ARE FREE TO REMOVE THEIR VEHICLE FROM THE SITE AND TO PARK AT AN ALTERNATE LOCATION.

 

AS PER THE OPERATORS PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT DISPLAYING A VALID PAY AND DISPLAY TICKET AT THE TIME OF THE UNAUTHORISED PARKING EVENT.

 

THE OPERATOR WOULD ALSO DRAW THE IAS ASSESSOR TO THE FACT THAT AT NO POINT HAS THE APPELLANT APPEALED AGAINST THE ISSUING OF THIS PCN BUT HAS MERELY STATED THAT THE "NTK IS NOT POFA COMPLIANT" FOR UNSPECIFIED REASONS.

 

AS A RESULT OF THIS WE SAY THAT THE APPELLANT IS LIABLE FOR THIS PARKING CHARGE NOTICE.

 

 

Adjudicators decision;

 

It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and the Appellant is free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish.

 

I am satisfied that as the Operator is pursuing the Appellant as the Driver of the vehicle that PoFA does not apply in this situation. In the case of Elliot v Loake (1982) the legal principle is established, that, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the Driver. I am not satisfied that the Appellant has not proved that they are not the Driver as claimed.

It is clear from the photographs provided by the Operator that no valid ticket or permit was on display in the vehicle at the time of the parking event, therefore I must conclude that a Parking Charge Notice has been legally issued.

As no further grounds are raised by the Appellant I must dismiss this appeal.

[ericsbrother]

Typical IAS half truths dress up as being the final word in law. The core contractual price term is decided by the tariff on the meter, the rest is a brach of contract and so you can be chased for their loss, namely the amount you didnt pay. If this wasnt true the parking cost would be for example £60 per day reduced to £1 if paid in advance. They have deliberately confused a contractual charge with a breach of contract tort. As for Elliot v Loake, the case states that where there is contradictory testimony then the asumption can be made. Where is the parking co's testimony that contradicts the claim of not being the driver? That is superceded by the PoFA so not relevant case law and they know it because the PofA actually places a strict liability upon the keeper as long as certain requirements are met. They parking co failed to meet these requirements so no PoFA liability and again Elliot v Loake doesnt apply

However, the rejection letter means little as parking Solutions would have to prove their claim in a court should they want the money and they have a few hoops to jump through before that is on the cards. All of the rejection material actually damages any claim they may have so relying on it to further their claim would be dangerous.

[armadillo71]

I agree ericsbrother.

 

I believe that appeals to the IAS should be encouraged as bizarrely, if the appeal is dismissed, it means that any court action is even less likely!

 

The driver of my vehicle acquired a NTD apparently. So when I as RK, received the NTK, I looked for the photographic evidence on the website they instructed had the evidence. There were no photos uploaded.

 

I appealed on the grounds of i was not the driver and there was no keeper liability , due to the non compliant NTK and signage.

 

This was rejected with a response that had nothing to do with the appeal.

 

Now the 8pp PDF that was the operator's evidence for the IAS is comical!

You only see this evidence after the appeal is determined.

 

In part it states keeper liability, then that the driver is liable.

It includes a picture of the signage which is staggeringly unclear. ( which I will have fun with in the future...* )

Then it includes photos of my car, which is the first time that I have seen these.

One photo is of the back of my car, the other is of the side window with yellow charge notice stuck on.

You can see about a third of the dashboard in this photo, so it makes a mockery of clearly showing no pay and display ticket....

 

 

*I will post up signage at a later stage.

[ericsbrother]

Normal for these bandits, taking photos that show no ticket placed upon the exhaust etc. The disappearing ticket is a favourite amongst some of the parking co's, it negates the discount period.

I can also find case law regarding a lack of vicarious liability for the keeper of a vehicle that is as relevant as their case law shows it but they are both now superceded by the RTA and not part of contract law, which is why the PoFA was enacted. This is the only legislation that creates a keeper liability for a contract rather than a civil tort or criminal law hence the limits to the liability being within the protocols of the Act. The IAS know this but it appears as though they are just a bunch of nipcheeses looking for a reason to reject and have failed to find a proper one. No POFA, no keeper liability, either now or before. If there was a liability then the parking co's wouldnt have lobbied for this inclusion in the PoFA.

[armadillo71]

First begging letter...

 

 

And apparently I made an appeal to UK parking Ltd??

 

 

Where that comes from, who knows.....

[caro]

What riles me about IAS/IPC is that solicitors and barristers are cashing in. Ok, it costs the parking co, but IMO they're all in cahoots and cashing in.

 

I've ignored PCM and their debt collectors begging letters and the only way I will engage with them will be if they try and take me to court..

[armadillo71]

What riles me about IAS/IPC is that solicitors and barristers are cashing in. Ok, it costs the parking co, but IMO they're all in cahoots and cashing in.

 

.

 

Cashing in but also ' stitching up '....

 

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/gladstones-score-double-payday-from.html

[caro]

Doesn't surprise me. Many in the legal profession will do anything for the money. There are some good guys but generally I'm afraid my opinion of the legal profession is pretty low.

[ericsbrother]

Gladstones, who are the IPC and IAS as well as the debt collecting co egg on the parking companies to pay them to take you to court. As the IAS rejection reasons are generally so rubbish they then lose at court and cost the parking co even more money when they claim the same tosh in front of a real judge. All of this then upsets the parking co who then decides that it is not worth their while making legal claims. The only ones to profit are Gladstones, who get paid at every stage and that is why they make these noises. It would be interesting to see the letters between the 2.

[caro]

I'm no happier seeing Gladstones profit than PPCs which is one reason I haven't engaged with them. Agree it would be interesting to know the PPCs take on Gladstones willingness to take cases against their own clients!

 

Conflict of interests springs to mind.

[ericsbrother]

What has worked so far is when Gladstones send out a LBA one responds pointing out that their interpretation is wrong and that any claim is denied, along with reiteration of original appeal points copied to parking co. I suspect that cc'ing the latter is enough to put the brakes on things

[armadillo71]

Freedom of Information Request

 

Please supply a list of private parking companies who have been banned by

the DVLA from accessing the DVLA database for any period of time in 2015.

 

DVLA can confirm that the following private parking companies have been

suspended from making vehicle registered keeper enquiries during 2015:

 

Adaptis Solutions Ltd – Suspended from 05/01/15 to 12/01/2015

LPP (Local Permit Parking) – Suspended from 06/02/15 to 08/04/2015

Britannia Parking Ltd - Suspended from 04/03/15 (not reinstated to date).

ANPR Ltd – Suspended from 01/04/15 (not reinstated to date).

Approved Parking Solutions Ltd – Suspended from 02/04/15 (not reinstated to date).

UK Parking Control - Suspended from 18/09/2015 to 5/11/2015.

The information which follows concerns the procedures for making any complaint

you might have about the reply. Please quote the reference number of this letter in

any future communications about it.

 

Yours sincerely

 

ppRobert Toft

Head of Data Sharing Policy & Freedom of Information Team

 

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/300308/response/738289/attach/html/2/FOIR4995%20Rob%20Channon.pdf.html

 

 

So they've served their time then have they.... ?

[JoeyJoeC]

That was lucky, I parked in a UKPC car park recently and felt bullet proof, even explained the whole thing to an employee that told me UKPC will 'fine' me for parking there. With a smug look on my face I explained that they can't chase up owner details so they can do what they like... This was a couple of weeks back.

[armadillo71]

It seems I have to work out for myself what the creditor, who is a 'he', will accept according to UCS....

UCS70%.pdf

[silverfox1961]

Topher Ltd seems to be a one man band. Christoper Haywood is the sole director.

 

The BMPA suggests that he has taken no court action in the past two years so the odds are in your favour.

 

UCS ( Solution labs Ltd ) are basically the DCA for hire and their accounts show they are not making a vast amount.

 

IMO you will be waiting a long time before they go anywhere near a court.

[ericsbrother]

wrong creditor ( no assignment of debt under the 1925 Act) and they have added an unlawful £54 anyway. Ignore this garbage, they are just getting desparate.