PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

UKPC PCN in Work Car Park
GooseOnTheLoose
post Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 10:58
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 9 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,418



The driver parked the car in the car park at their place of employment. They put their permit on the dashboard as usual.

When they returned to their car, they had a ticket for non-display of a valid permit, and the permit had slid down the dashboard and so was below the black frame on the windshield glass and so not visible.


The same situation had occurred previously to other employees, including the MD, who said he complained to the parking management company that his business had a lease on the building that costs his company a considerable sum, and the lease includes parking spaces and does not mention any need for displaying permits. He said to use this as an appeal and he will be able to provide the lease if needed.

A redacted copy of the ticket is attached.


Any comments on the above approach?
Additionally, the permit is just effectively a business card and has no way of being affixed, which caused it to slip on the dashboard. Does this inadequacy of the permit (provided by UKPC) have any value in being added to the appeal, or just concentrate on the lease?

Any other thoughts or advice appreciated.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 10:58
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 11:24
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,691
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Yes use the lease an an appeal, the fact that the lease does not require that permits etc are displayed, nor a penalty for not displaying.

A picture of the signs would help,

Plan for this is that you appeal AS THE KEEPER so that the appeal is received on day 26 after the parking event. UKPC may be happy to save £2.50 and not contact the DVLA for the keeper's details. Use a slightly modified version of the name and address that is on the V5 so that you will know, when they respond, if they have contacted the DVLA. They may fail to send a Notice to keeper before the time limit of day 56 or send a Notice to Keeper without contacting the DVLA. Both are a fail and they then cannot hold the keeper liable and as hey do not know the driver at the time then they are up that proverbial creek.

The appeal of course is that there is no requirement for a permit in the lease and they do not have a contract with the leaseholder. Perhaps the signs aren't obvious as well. Can you get the relevant bits of the boss's lease.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GooseOnTheLoose
post Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 08:44
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 9 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,418



Photos of signs to come.

The proposed wording of my appeal below. Appreciate any comments or advice on how it looks. Redacted data will be included in appeal, just don't want to publish the x'd out parts online.



I am the registered keeper of vehicle mark XX00 XXX. I am appealing against your PCN reference xxxxxxxxxx.
The vehicle was parked whilst the driver was conducting the business of XYZ Ltd. XYZ have a lease from the landowner providing parking under the following terms:

Car Parking:
"The Tenant will be entitled to use 15 allocated spaces. 
The Landlord reserves the right to alter the position of the parking spaces from time to time in the interest of estate management. 
In addition to the 15 spaces provided under the lease the tenant will be granted a licence to use 6 additional spaces in the XXXXXXXXXX car park at £xxx per month for all spaces. The licence to be determinable by the Landlord on one months notice. "

"The exclusive right to park fifteen (15) private motor cars within the area shown coloured green on Plan 2 or such other parking spaces at the Estate designated by the Landlord (acting reasonably and which are not materially less commodious as determined by the Landlord acting reasonably and who must consider reasonable representations of the Tenant) and notified to the Tenant in writing from time to time;"


There is no requirement in the lease terms for a permit to be displayed by any vehicle using the parking spaces. The leaseholder has informed me that they do not have a contract with yourselves for the purposes of enforcing any parking restrictions, therefore there is no basis for this charge.

Please either:
1. Cancel the charge.
2. Provide a copy of the contract that you have with the above mentioned leaseholder providing authority to issue the charge.
3. Provide a POPLA code.

Regards

Me

This post has been edited by GooseOnTheLoose: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 08:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 10:12
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,435
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



2 allows them not to send you a POPLA code, and reject anyway

POint ut that the "exclusive use" part means that noone else - such as athe PPC - may use the space
They are in fact, serial trespassers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 10:35
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,950
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Don't forget that slight change, eg Grene instead of Green or Smiht instead of Smith, etc.


--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GooseOnTheLoose
post Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 11:15
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 9 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,418



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 11:12) *
2 allows them not to send you a POPLA code, and reject anyway

POint ut that the "exclusive use" part means that noone else - such as athe PPC - may use the space
They are in fact, serial trespassers.


Removed point 2, so now only 2 choices, cancel or POPLA.

Added below paragraph after no basis and before final options.

Further the lease provides XYZ with exclusive rights to use the spaces in question, therefore any usage by agents of UKPC is an act of trespass, and any claim by UKPC of rights to apply conditions for using the bay is fraudulent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 11:24
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,435
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



is a fraudulent misrepresentation of authority that they are lacking, and tortious interference with the superior lease held by XYZ and the rights to peaceful enjoyment and exclusive use contained within
You must cease and desist from trespassing against land and goods, effective immediately, and must cancel all outstanding "parking charges". Failure to comply with this demand means we reserve the right to take all required legal action, including an injunction against further trespass, damages for interference with teh olease, and a charge for trespass and operating a business from our demised land. The issuing of further notices will be prima facie evidnece of the breaking of this demand.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GooseOnTheLoose
post Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 11:31
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 9 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,418



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 12:24) *
is a fraudulent misrepresentation of authority that they are lacking, and tortious interference with the superior lease held by XYZ and the rights to peaceful enjoyment and exclusive use contained within
You must cease and desist from trespassing against land and goods, effective immediately, and must cancel all outstanding "parking charges". Failure to comply with this demand means we reserve the right to take all required legal action, including an injunction against further trespass, damages for interference with teh olease, and a charge for trespass and operating a business from our demised land. The issuing of further notices will be prima facie evidnece of the breaking of this demand.


Can I really use the bolded bits, given I am not the leaseholder myself?

I do have the possibility of asking the leaseholder to send the above message to UKPC, but that would be a separate endeavour from this specific charge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 12:52
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,435
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



NO, you cannot say that, as you cant speak on behalf of them
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GooseOnTheLoose
post Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 09:48
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 9 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,418



As expected, I have received a template rejection of my appeal talking about adequate signage, and not addressing the actual point raised in any way.
So now I have my POPLA code, I am ready for the next step, where they may actually read my appeal! Before proceeding with this, I have a couple of questions:

1. For POPLA do I throw every possible reason the charge is not applicable at them, or just focus on the primacy of contract of the lease from the landowner?
2. I assume given I have a 30 day limit, that I would want to submit this on day 28, would that be correct?

If there is anything else I should be aware of, please let me know.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 12:42
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,435
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



1) Every single possible appeal point. Long is good for POPLA
2) You have a 28 day time period to submit your appeal to POPLA.
If youre looking to take it beyond the period when a NtK can have been served, you apeal at the end of the period if youc an, or as close to as possible.

This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 12:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GooseOnTheLoose
post Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 13:32
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 9 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,418



Thanks for the correction on 28 days, I could have messed up there as I thought I had read it as 30, but it is definitely 28.

Will post my draft appeal here for review nearer the time, but meanwhile happy to accept any suggestions that people have.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GooseOnTheLoose
post Wed, 24 Oct 2018 - 11:52
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 9 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,418



Got a copy of the signage.

Ignoring the fact that authorisation from the PPC is not needed anyway due to the primacy of the lease, am I correct in thinking that this sign does not form a contract anyway?

As per my understanding, there is no offer here, just a sign that is forbidding in nature, therefore no contract could have been entered into by the driver of the vehicle at the time.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 24 Oct 2018 - 11:54
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,435
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Indeed, tey are forbidding anyone NOT authorised from parking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GooseOnTheLoose
post Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 12:02
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 9 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,418



I'm just drafting my POPLA appeal. This is not what I will submit, but my initial thoughts on points to cover. Is there anything else I should add, or any of these I should remove?


No offense - covering the both the facts that driver was (and is) authorised to park and asking the PPC for proof that a permit not displayed - they have some rubbish photos but in my opinion they don't cover the whole dash as they are looking from an angle that is too horizontal so some of the dash is behind the windscreen edging.
Forbidding Signage - No Offer, therefore, no contract formed and no charge can exist.
Primacy of contract - Overrides any contract claimed by PPC.
No authority to Operate - Proof of authority needed from PPC.
No keeper liability - POFA not followed and driver identity not known.


Is there also the possibility of frustration of contract, in that the driver displayed a valid permit as they have many times before and since, but this time some unforeseen environmental issue caused the permit to slide lower on the dash whilst the car was parked. This is a bit tenuous and may need to be removed, as there was no contract and the permit was displayed, so I wouldn't want to be suggesting otherwise, but as I am throwing the whole kitchen sink, I thought it was worth considering.

Any thoughts or comments welcome.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 12:08
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,435
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



There is no offenCe anyway! It is an alleged breach of contract. Purely civil.

Youpoint out that the permit was displayed but the photos were taken to obscure this fact.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GooseOnTheLoose
post Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 12:21
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 9 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,418



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 13:08) *
There is no offenCe anyway! It is an alleged breach of contract. Purely civil.

Youpoint out that the permit was displayed but the photos were taken to obscure this fact.


Apologies, both for the fact I spend too much time working with Americans, and for the poor choice of word. I understand there is no offence here, just a claimed breach of contract, when in fact no contract existed.

I assume the other bolded points in my statement should all remain in my POPLA appeal?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 12:24
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,435
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yes, but id lead with Keeper liabilty.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GooseOnTheLoose
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 09:51
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 9 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,418



Hi,

I have put together my draft POPLA appeal for review. Please see below, note I have redacted identifiable details, but these will be included in the final submission. Any advice or comments appreciated.



QUOTE
I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a parking charge from UKPC with an alleged contravention date of 13th September 2018. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge.

Paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (henceforth referred to as POFA) states:

Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle

4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—

(a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met; and

(b)the vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.

Of which paragraph 5 states:

5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—

(a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but

(b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

In this instance the vehicle was parked whilst the driver was conducting the business of XXX Ltd (henceforth referred to as XXX). XXX have a lease from the landowner providing parking under the following terms:

Car Parking:
"The Tenant will be entitled to use 15 allocated spaces. 
The Landlord reserves the right to alter the position of the parking spaces from time to time in the interest of estate management. 
In addition to the 15 spaces provided under the lease the tenant will be granted a licence to use 6 additional spaces in the River Court car park at £XXX per month for all spaces. The licence to be determinable by the Landlord on one months notice. "

"The exclusive right to park fifteen (15) private motor cars within the area shown coloured green on Plan 2 or such other parking spaces at the Estate designated by the Landlord (acting reasonably and which are not materially less commodious as determined by the Landlord acting reasonably and who must consider reasonable representations of the Tenant) and notified to the Tenant in writing from time to time;"

There is no requirement in the lease terms for a permit to be displayed by any vehicle using the parking spaces. The leaseholder has informed me that they do not have a contract with UKPC for the purposes of enforcing any parking restrictions. Therefore UKPC have no right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle, and therefore the keeper cannot be liable either.

The above point notwithstanding, paragraph 6 of POFA states:

6(1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—

(a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or

(b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.

Paragraph 8 section 5 adds the following condition:

(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.

As of today, it is more than 56 days since the alleged contravention no notice to keeper has been given. Therefore as UKPC have failed to comply with POFA, they have no lawful authority to pursue the keeper for the charge, and no discretion should be provided in this matter.


Further to the above points, UKPC have not even established that the alleged parking contravention occurred. In this instance the agent of UKPC has deliberately taken a photograph of the vehicle from such an angle that the lower part of the vehicles dashboard is not visible. Unless UKPC can provide further evidence showing the whole of the vehicles dashboard, it is impossible to be sure a permit is not displayed and it cannot be considered that the alleged parking contravention even occurred.


In addition to the points already made, I have attached a copy of the signage from the location where the alleged charge was incurred, and make reference to Case B6QZ4H3R, before Deputy District Judge Ellington, UKPC v Mr M [2016] (transcript attached as evidence), another case concerning where “Permit Only” parking was breached.
In the judgement for the above case, the judge stated “the signage displayed clearly only made an offer of parking to permit holders, and therefore only permit holders could be bound by the contractual terms conveyed. The circumstances of this were different from Beavis, and therefore that ruling did not assist the claimant in this case.
Any remedy for parking without a permit could only lie with the freeholder, under a tort of trespass. But that wasn’t being claimed here, and the present claimant had no cause of action, so the claim was dismissed.

In the case under appeal here, if the permit-displaying vehicle really was unauthorised to park as claimed by UKPC, then the driver would in fact be a trespasser whom only the landowner has the right to pursue for damages, not the Parking Operator. Such damages would be exactly that – the amount of damage created in the act of trespass, which was indisputably, zero.

Additionally, as mentioned at the beginning of this appeal, the driver was acting on behalf of XXX, who have a lease from the landowner proving them rights to use 21 spaces in the car park, one of which was the space in question during the alleged incident. The lease between XXX and the landowner has primacy over any terms that UKPC may try to impose upon the parking space. I refer to the decision in case C6GF14F0, before District Judge Coonan, Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N [2016] (transcript attached as evidence).

District Judge Coonan dismissed the claim and refused leave to appeal, stating: ''I have to deal with this on the evidence that is before me now. I have before me a tenancy agreement which gives Mr [N. redacted] the right to park on the estate and it does not say “on condition that you display a permit”. It does not say that, so he has that right. What Pace Recovery is seeking to do is, unilaterally outside the contract, restrict that right to only when a permit is displayed. Pace Recovery cannot do that. It has got to be the other contracting party, Affinity Sutton, which amends the terms of the tenancy agreement to restrict the right to park on a place in circumstances in which a permit is displayed but that is not in this tenancy agreement and you as a third party cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the tenancy agreement.''

Finally, as UKPC does not have proprietary interest in the land, I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement



Apologies for the formatting, in transferring it from Word to here, I have lost some of the neatness, but I think it is still readable. As always, thanks for any input.

This post has been edited by GooseOnTheLoose: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 10:35
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GooseOnTheLoose
post Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 10:01
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 9 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,418



Hope I am not breaking any rules by responding when I was the last poster, just wanted to add, I plan to submit this by Tuesday, so if there is any feedback, appreciate if it can be in the next day or two.

I realise everyone offers their time and advice here for free, so I appreciate people have other things to do with their lives, and understand if people don't have a chance to respond.

Thanks for all the help so far.

This post has been edited by GooseOnTheLoose: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 10:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Monday, 19th November 2018 - 12:34
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.