sons ticket from UKPC

[Quasar911]

My son back in Feb / March got an "invoice" from UKPC for parking in a gyms car park that he didnt use at the time,
I appealed to UKPC, rejected, requested POPLA code, eventually given

Appealed to POPLA - not heard anything and that it was being investigated,
POPLA resonded via email asking for further info.

nothing for weeks

Letter from UKPC saying they can confirm popla declined our appeal ruling in favour of UKPC and the next day we got a debt collectors letter for £160,

are they trying it on here, as i do not have any letter or email or any update from POPLA

Thanks in advance

[Amethyst]

Have they sent you the photographs of the vehicle?

ostell

[Quasar911]

UKPC did - but no picture of the signs - when they did it looked "photshopped" I have no reply from POPLA so what makes UKPC think that popla have declined my appeal ?

[Quasar911]

update : got a letter from UKPC saying POPLA refused our appeal blah blah and 2nd letter was from DRP Ltd, trying to recover £160 for UKPC
thats a bit unfair, we have been away for 5 weeks, and being penalised to not seeing mail,

Not only that, i had NO email NO letter from POPLA saying the appeal was refused, What are DRP LTd like, do i still have to cough up.

[ostell]

You can ignore DRP, and the letters from Zenith at the next desk in the DRP office. The are purely debt collectors and can do nothing.

Has the driver been identified, as simple yes or no. What was the appeal to POPLA? Can you post up the NTK, sutably redacted.but leave the dates.

[Quasar911]

this is from POPLA : we did not name driver, the only name involved ( letters sent to ) was son who is owner.

POPLA assessment and decision
24/05/2018

Verification Code
86610xxxxx

DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor NameAmy Butler
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to display a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that they did not see any signage. The appellant states they have parked there for a few years. The appellant states after 3pm anyone can use the car parking spaces. The appellant states the parking charge does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant states the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The appellant states the operator does not have the authority from the landowner to issue parking charges.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions, as displayed at the site, which states “Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 Parking Charge being issued to the vehicle’s driver; A valid parking permit must be clearly displayed at all times”. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant failed to display a valid permit. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle FL09 NYU at the site, on 17 February 2018. The appellant’s case is that they did not see any signage. The appellant states they have parked there for a few years. The appellant states after 3pm anyone can use the car parking spaces. The appellant states the parking charge does not comply with PoFA 2012. The appellant states the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The appellant states the operator does not have the authority from the landowner to issue parking charges. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, however when looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. Firstly, PoFA 2012 is used to transfer liability of the parking charge from the driver to the registered keeper when the driver of the vehicle is unknown. In this instance the driver of the vehicle is known, therefore PoFA 2012 does not apply. The operator has provided a witness statement, from this I am satisfied that the operator has demonstrated that they have the authority to issue PCN’s on the site in question. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Within section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. From the operator’s photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle I cannot see a permit displayed in the vehicle. In order for the warden to assess that the vehicle was authorised to park at the site, a permit would need to be clearly visible in the vehicle. As it was not, the warden has issued the PCN, as they would have been unaware whether the vehicle was authorised to park at the site. Further to this, from these images I can see that the appellant had parked their vehicle directly in front of a sign. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant failed to display a valid permit, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.