Jump to content


UKPC white lines issue. madford retail park - ** WON AT POPLA **


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2551 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

ticket on screen on31/12/2016.

 

did not post up "not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space" was the infringement.

 

.everything else looked like all other tickets posted up on the forum.

 

waited for ntk on 02/02/2017.

 

as per normal action.

 

posted copy of ntk.

 

today 22/02/2017 received final notice which was dated 17/02/2017.

 

away at the mo so cannot do much else aprt from submit my defence to ukpc and when they refuse it a popla code.

 

just need help setting out the defence ,

 

would it include seeing copy of the contract to take action in their own name from the land owner etc.cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep go for that and state that no breach of contract as vehicle was not parked OUTSIDE of marking for the bay.

 

Look up relevant PATAS important decision and state that this is the legal definition of what is in and out and that way they wont be wanting to explain why they are better informed than an higher level tribunal judge

Link to post
Share on other sites

one point mag..

you are not writing a defence

 

 

its an appeal.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the word correctly, so it is down to their attendants to award style points for people's parking now.

 

do they give you a score for the technical aspect as well?

 

Has the car with russian plates been caught doping?

 

UKPC are members of the BPA, not IOC

 

In short, the breach they claim isnt worded on their contract so they have no claim.

 

However, they dont make money by honestly or managing the parking facilities in a fair and proper manner so they expect you to pay them for a nonsense reason or they dont earn any money that day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well well,ukpc rejected my appeal ,

 

 

"they investigated it and the charge was correctly issued because there are sufficient signs at madford retail park warning drivers that there is no parking outside designated bays.

 

 

parking bay line markings are in place to enable drivers to park their vehicles safely,

and are not extensions of the bay itself ".

POPLA ref included.

Link to post
Share on other sites

bowlarks,

the paint is part of the bay and their interpretation of the safety reasoning is just not true,

there is nothing in any legislation that refers to it in this manner and private parking can only use that as a best practice guide as there is no law to say any different.

 

 

Outside the paint isnt the bay If it was otherwise

how do you measure the bay without the paint to guide you?

 

 

Again the wording is the critical thing,

there is no mention of this in the contract so it isnt a contractual matter.

 

 

Consider this.

If you parked on some of their yellow paint would you argue that the entire universe is parking prohibited or just the bit where the paint job is.

 

 

Clearly parking on the few inches inside the yellow line is OK in their world so are all yellow lines motorcycle parking bays?

 

They are just rooking and chiselling motorists and they know it so have invented an excuse to try and get you to pay

Link to post
Share on other sites

depends on how much you want to say,

POPLA are going to ignore most of it because the BPA have told them to when they gave them the contract.

 

1. No keeper liability created by the NTK, the wording of the NTK does not meet the requirement laid out in para 9 of the POFA to create one

 

2 the signage is prohibitive as it says no unauthorised parking.

This is forbidding and not an offer of a contract so there is no contract to consider and thus one cannot be formed between UKPC and the driver

 

3 In any case Signage is not a contract but at best an "invitation to treat" because it refers to conditons that are not on the sign or even avertised elsewhere.

 

4 There was no breach of any of the conditions as the vehicle was wholly inside the bay

- the photos show that no part of the vehicle is outside any of the markings,

which are part of the bay according to the Road Traffic Act

and unless UKPC can offer a better CoP and say where this is advertised for motorists to consider regarding line painting this will be taken as the standard.

 

5 the wording on the sign, as laid out in the above points is confusing, contradictory and misleading so cannot be binding as it is not clear to the motorist what is being offered.

 

 

This is also contrary to the Consumer Contract Regulations and having terms that are not written into the sign is likewise a breach for distance contracts so there can be no contract formed.

 

6 the claim is for a breach of contract and the specific breach as expressed in the notice to keeper is not an obligation via a clause or condition offered to the driver.

 

 

You cannot be in breach of a condition that does not exist and UKPC appear to be claiming that an intention was there but that is not good enough to create a "meeting of minds" and an acceptance.

 

Add anything else you want to add and dont forget,

this isn't the end if POPLA decide to put their fingers in their ears and go la la la.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

well, they do have a habit of not having the correct contracts so perhaps they decided to avoid having their paperwork scrutinised. On the other hand they also sue people when they have no chance of winning for the same reason. Glad it was easy for you, I wish it was true in all cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

good result CAG.

 

 

dx

 

 

 

 

The Consumer Action Group needs help to cover its expenses.

You could help by making a money contribution to http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/paypal.php?go=donate

or by downloading our toolbar and using it to search the web instead of your normal search engine:- http://consumeractiongroup.co.uk/cag_plugin.php

Please help.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...