Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Private Parking Tickets & Clamping _ Residents Only Parking Charge

Posted by: Anthonyf Thu, 6 Sep 2018 - 22:59
Post #1414488

Hi Folks,
I found a windscreen ticket from a UKPC on my car a couple of months ago. I originally contested with the template appeal letter from the MSE Newbies thread.
UKPC have sent a letter rejecting my appeal, and giving a POPLA number, which I intend to use now.

I intend to send an appeal to POPLA with something along the lines of the following, and would be greatful of any opinions on my approach:.
(I’m the registered keeper, and have not identified the driver.)


I dispute the validity of the charge for parking in “Brocklesby Road” as stated on your ticket for the a number of reasons including:

1/ The signage at the entrance to the car park is entirely inadequate to convey any contract, and makes no mention of requirements for permits or any charge for parking, as shown in the images below.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bx4k01znh701jeHvS95mghJOLCzpEs_O

2/ As residents of Brocklesby Road for the past 18 years, we understood the signage, which advises clearly “Residents Parking Only”, to allow the driver to park, as we have done occasionally for the past 18 years.

3/ We were not aware of any charge implied to park the car at the time of parking, and had not seen the two, newly erected, much smaller, unlit, and partially obscured, signs further within the carpark (shown below), or the extremely small notes on them about parking charges, or requirements for permits to be displayed, which are not visible at all from the entrance to the car park.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1s6Q-VPX2bzVOqtOO2Ay30UeslE6FQ95D


4/ Our parking has been Authorised by past and present residents of the surrounding flats and houses, who also have not been advised by UKPC of any change of parking conditions in their car park or any requirements for permits.

For these reasons we do agree any contract has been entered or breached and will not be paying the charge.

Yours sincerely
RK


If it help to understand our situation further:

My car was parked in a small car park less than 10m from my house.
It's nominally for the residents of the flats and houses that directly surround it, but those residents generally park in the street where parking is unrestricted, so that they don't have to manoeuvre in and out of the car park, leaving the car park generally empty and unused.

Occasionally parking spaces in the street fill up, so residents of the flats have advised us that if we need to we can always park in the visitor spaces marked with a "V" in their car park.

We've done this occasionally for the past 18 years that we've have lived here without problem, so was very surprised the car got a ticket on the windscreen.

On another tack - I’m pretty sure the car park itself is has multiple owners, as some of the spaces are included on the deeds of the surrounding houses, and I do not believe they have all been contacted by or contracted with UKPC, and from my reading of the forum, I felt this may have bearing on the contract they have alleged I have breached,

Grateful for any tips, recommendations of anything else you think I should add.
Many thanks for your time and consideration
Ant

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 01:30
Post #1414490

That's not a POPLA appeal, it is weak and will lose, IMHO.

It also ignores the slam dunk winning point that (hopefully) UKPC forgot to send you a NTK in the post. why do you think there was a tactic to 'appeal as registered keeper on day 26'? the reason is explained in the NEWBIES thread but you have overlooked the whole point!

If you used the MSE template appeal from the NEWBIES thread there, you only had to go back and read post #3 of it for POPLA templates.

Posted by: Anthonyf Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 07:17
Post #1414503

Thanks for the feedback SchoolRunMum, unfortunately they did send an NTK letter, just before the appeal rejection letter.
I felt my case was pretty clear and obviously unjust, so didn't think I would need to put in lots of extra detail, but I'll have another look through the forums and template letters, and redraft it.
Any other advice welcome obviously
Thanks

Posted by: ostell Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 07:25
Post #1414504

OK so they sent a NTK. WHere is it? Have you contacted the DVLA to see if they got your address for the NTK from them? SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 08:36
Post #1414521

POPLA cares not one jot about "unjust". You have to explain why it was not issued correctly, or why the keeper has no liability. They care about nothign else.

Posted by: Anthonyf Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 15:41
Post #1414650

My https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Xe0_QcPrhICR-sH0_dZdfQvlrsdF-q2y https://drive.google.com/open?id=1_kQq3yurAxvSlGy2zYztDwJzdwEvortb , andhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1A6LYVE8GwCztG5y908CAjaZM0ZwIPI9Z letter linked here for reference.

They say they contacted DVLA for my details in the NTK.

Will redraft the POPLA appeal on the weekend
Thanks for the help

Posted by: ostell Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 16:22
Post #1414663

QUOTE (Anthonyf @ Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 16:41) *
They say they contacted DVLA for my details in the NTK.


They also lie. Ask the DVLA yourself. It's just an email away.

Posted by: Eljayjay Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 16:35
Post #1414669

Do you know any of the residents well enough to believe that they would help you?

Posted by: Anthonyf Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 17:50
Post #1414695

Ok - have sent DVLA a request.
Am friendly with the neighbours, but would be reluctant to ask too much of them or put them out in anyway, would prefer to sort it myself if i can.
Thanks
Anthony

Posted by: Anthonyf Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 19:40
Post #1414714

Looking back on this, I sent the MSE Newbies template form around the 26th day after windscreen ticket, at which point I had not received a NTK in the post.

Then the NTK arrived a few days later, and few days after that their rejection of my original appeal arrived.

I had considered sending them the https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Parking-Cowboys-Template-NTK-Challenge-131029.docx, before they rejected my appeal, as this appeared to give me more information to take to POPLA appeal, including about who actually owns the land.
Is there any value in me sending that letter to UKPC now, or does it have to go to POPLA now do you think?

I'm pretty sure the freehold of space we were parked in was owned by some different to the rest of the carpark, and doubt they have a contract with them, is this relevant?

Posted by: Eljayjay Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 19:46
Post #1414715

It is extremely relevant if you are right.

Posted by: Anthonyf Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 22:27
Post #1414732

I believe that space is included within the freehold of an house owned by the council (the council bought it from my neighbour a few years ago), as opposed to the rest of the car park which I believe is owned and leased by a management company.

Whats the best way to make UKPC prove they have the right to issue tickets for that space?

Posted by: Eljayjay Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 23:53
Post #1414736

See what the Land Registry has to offer, but use only the gov.uk site.

Posted by: Anthonyf Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 08:25
Post #1414750

Land registry will confirm that the council own that space (I'm pretty certain of this already as my neighbour sold it to them), but won't tell if any contract exists between council and UKPC though, will it?

Posted by: Slapdash Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 08:31
Post #1414753

There is a difference between pretty certain and certain. Whilst the council may have bought it previously off your neighbour you have no real idea what they may have done with it since.

It may he useful to try and find out.

Posted by: Eljayjay Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 09:09
Post #1414757

What Slapdash has to say is, of course, true.

In addition, if you find out who owns the land now, you can ask them whether they have entered into a contract with the parking contractor.

You may be surprised how often parking contractors' contracts are not made with the right persons.

All of this is academic unless and until you do some research.

Posted by: Anthonyf Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 10:53
Post #1414781

This is the freehold for most of the carpark, and leases for parking spaces:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-IRSEBjJJbdZ0pJTUtNU1NrdHM/view?usp=sharing - note the areas top right on the plan marked SGL491530

This is the freehold for the space I was parked in. Its owned by Croydon council
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-IRSEBjJJbdSXNRekNDNzRUa1RSb2Y4alkya0tlWjloZmdR/view?usp=sharing


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-IRSEBjJJbdRlZWdjF0eVN3dkdBWTFCMkJpajV2TUZoYVJN/view?usp=sharing

I need to appeal next week, and knowing the council, doubt I will get answers to enquiries any time soon, so whats the next best way of finding out about their contract would you say?

Posted by: Eljayjay Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 11:31
Post #1414792

Depending on how long you have to make your appeal to POPLA, I would be inclined to write to the parking operator to ask for a copy of its contract with the owner or occupier of the land and its site plan (giving sufficient time for the parking operator to reply and for you to submit your appeal).

If the parking operator provides the documents and the contract is with someone other than the Council, that would seem to be the basis of your appeal. If the parking operator fails to respond, I would make the basis of your appeal "I do not believe the parking operator has a contract with the owner or occupier of the land and, despite asking the parking operator for evidence of the contract and its site plan, the parking operator has failed to respond to that request".

If you have not revealed the driver's identity, something else that could play a part in this is Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 under which the keeper of a vehicle can be pursued for unpaid parking charges provided that the vehicle was parked on "relevant land". You will find the Act on legislation.gov.uk. Paragragraph 3 of Schedule 4 states "In this Schedule 'relevant land' means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than... a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority" and goes on to state "'traffic authority' means each of the following... the council of a county, county borough, London borough or district".

Come on you Eagles!

Posted by: Eljayjay Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 12:47
Post #1414812

In case you do not already know, if you send letters about parking issues, use first-class post, hand them in at a Post Office counter and request a free certificate of posting.

Posted by: Anthonyf Sun, 9 Sep 2018 - 18:52
Post #1415147

Thanks Eljayjay, I've only got till Thursday to appeal to Popla - (they say 28 days from 16th August on my rejection letter).
I could email them on Monday, but maybe thats not a reasonable amount of time to respond?

I have not revealed the drivers identity, but I imagine this issue with your second point would be if the council would actually be considered to "provided or controlled" that parking space in this case.

You know its true - we're red and blue smile.gif

Posted by: Anthonyf Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 16:28
Post #1415366

Hi I didn't get a chance to mail UKPC today unfortunately.

If i were to send them https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v9rrFNGKbNHuey6HCaZ_6iXHfQXi_RXw0qJ5Hu-m72o/edit?usp=sharing now, asking for more information, do you think there would be any way I could get deadline for my POPLA appeal extended, to allow them time to respond?

Posted by: Redivi Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 17:19
Post #1415374

Not that dreadful letter again ?

POPLA codes are valid for up to six days after the official expiry date

Posted by: cabbyman Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 17:39
Post #1415377

And there is so much identifying detail on there, the PPC could use the POPLA code on your behalf!!!

Posted by: Anthonyf Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 18:12
Post #1415395

QUOTE (Redivi @ Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 18:19) *
POPLA codes are valid for up to six days after the official expiry date


So even with an extra 6 days I doubt I could get a letter away, one back from them, and then make my claim, however I'm certain enough that they will not have a contract with the council for that space, as the other neighbour who owns the other single space has heard nothing from the parking company either.

So how do we think it will play if I send my appeal to POPLA saying:

"It is my understanding that no contract to extract charges exists between the Parking operator and the the "London borough of Croydon", who own the space in which I was parked, as confirmed by the land registry https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-IRSEBjJJbdRlZWdjF0eVN3dkdBWTFCMkJpajV2TUZoYVJN/view?usp=sharing:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-IRSEBjJJbdSXNRekNDNzRUa1RSb2Y4alkya0tlWjloZmdR/view

There for I will not be paying this invoice, thanks"



Posted by: kommando Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 18:43
Post #1415403

If you make a statement they have to rebut it for the ticket to stand, its part of the standard POPLA appeal to dispute that the PPC has standing to issue tickets on the land and to insist the PPC show POPLA the contract. It would also be useful to add that as its is council owned land then it is not relevant land for POFA 2012 and so there is not keeper liability, so even if they have a contract they can only go after the driver.

Posted by: Anthonyf Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 22:59
Post #1416441

QUOTE (Redivi @ Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 18:19) *
POPLA codes are valid for up to six days after the official expiry date


Rats - I'm still writing up my my appeal, and it appears I'm goingt to miss the deadline as (I was away for work) - Are we sure about the 6 day extra validty?




Posted by: Anthonyf Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 00:00
Post #1416450

In the hope that I'll still be able to send it in, and drafted this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LAKdkRK_7FUEwgvjxgotog5u5G5qIl4V/view?usp=sharing

Let us know what you think
Thanks

Posted by: Anthonyf Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 08:36
Post #1416481

I've update the letter including an apology for submitting it late, linked here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ouvtNbatKOxh8MCYcMApXsZoY2lwl428/view?usp=sharing

I intend to send it in this morning so its not too late, unless anyone has any thing to add.
Thanks

Firstly, please accept my apologies for submitting my appeal the day after the deadline.
I have been away a lot over the summer, and was called away unexpectedly for work in the last couple of days, so have missed the deadline by a few hours, I hope this will not prejudice my appeal.



I was issued with a parking ticket on 12/07/18 but I believe it was unlawfully issued. I declined the company’s invitation to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. I will not be paying the demand for payment for the following reasons.


The alleged contravention did not occur
Quite simply, the parking attendant got it wrong and the vehicle was not parked inappropriately at the time the ticket was issued. This is due to the fact that UKPC do not own the or control the space the car was parked in. Please see attached evidence, as proof of my claim.
Figure A, and Figure A.1 below shows the space the car was parked in, indicated with red arrows, and in Appendix 1, 2 and 3 the deeds showing that land to be owned by THE MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON of Taberner House, Park Lane, Croydon CR9 3JS on whose behalf UKPC have no legally enforceable right to issue invoices.



Figure A : Showing the space the car was parked in marked with a red arrow.

Figure A.1 : Land Title SGL491530, and the space the car was parked in marked with a red arrow.


Noting also that:

There was insufficient signage
The car park in question has no clear signage at the entrance to the carpark to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally. Please see attached evidence, and images below, that I have gathered as proof.


Figure B: The only signs at entrance to Car park

Figure C: Enlargement of “Residents Parking Only” signage - showing it makes no mention of the any requirements for permits or any charge for parking, also noting it is unlit and not made of a reflective material


Mitigating circumstances
There are mitigating circumstances to explain why the vehicle was parked where it was and the charge should be waived for this reason.

1/ As residents of Brocklesby Road for the past 18 years, we would understand the signage, which advises very clearly “Residents Parking Only”, to allow a resident of Brocklesby Road, to park, as we have done occasionally for the past 18 years.

2/ We were not aware of any charge implied to park the car at the time of parking, and would not have seen the two, apparently recently erected, much smaller, unlit, and partially obscured, signs further within the carpark (shown below), or the extremely small notes on them about parking charges, or requirements for permits to be displayed.
These notices are not visible at all from the entrance to the car park, and would certainly not have been seen when parking in the dark, that night.

Figure D - smaller, unlit, obscured, sign in car park, with notification of charge amount in very small type

3/ Our parking has been Authorised by past and present residents of the surrounding flats and houses. Neither we or they have been advised by UKPC of any recent change of parking conditions in the car park or any requirements for permits.

To help you understand our situation in more detail:

My car was parked in the small car park at the end of Brocklesby Road, less than 10m from my house, 19 Brocklesby Road, as shown in the images above, and Appendix 1, 2 and 3 below from Land registry.

The car park is nominally for the residents of the flats and houses that directly surround it, who each have the numbers of their house painted in a space, plus several visitors spaces, marked with a painted “V” .
Until very recently, the car park simply had one “Residents Only” sign at the entrance, and no permits or charges have ever been required.

However the residents with numbered spaces regularly park in the street, so that they don't have to manoeuvre in and out of the car park, leaving the car park generally empty and unused.

Occasionally parking spaces in the street fill up, so residents of the flats have advised us that if we need to we can always park in any of the visitor spaces marked with a "V" in their car park.

We've done this occasionally for the past 18 years that we've have lived here without problem, so was very surprised the car got a ticket on the windscreen when parked overnight when the street was full, and the car park empty.


The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The amount charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner.

In my case, the £100 charge being asked for far exceeds the cost to the landowner (Croydon Council) as this is a visitors space in a residential car park, in an area of otherwise free and unrestricted parking, provided by Croydon Council, who also own the space the car was parked in. I therefore feel the amount you have asked for is excessive.

I also draw your attention to Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 under which the keeper of a vehicle can be pursued for unpaid parking charges provided that the vehicle was parked on "relevant land". You will find the Act on legislation.gov.uk. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 states "In this Schedule 'relevant land' means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than... a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority" and goes on to state "'traffic authority' means each of the following... the council of a county, county borough, London borough or district".


In closing I would also like noted that parking in the visitors spaces for residents of Brocklesby Road is fair and reasonable use of parking spaces in our street.

As we have the permission of the tenants and as a residents of the street, and, as UKPC have no standing to issue invoices to vehicles on this space, we intend to continue to use it in times of need (when no other street parking is available)

Should UKPC affix any further invoices to my car in this space, we intend to ignore them and or pursue them legally for causing nuisance to us, unless and until such time as their legal right to issue invoices on that space changes.
Should there legal standing change for any reason, I will expect fair notice of such change to be provided to me by letter in advance.

Posted by: ostell Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 10:11
Post #1416521

Don't mention the lateness! They may feel piqued and refuse to read it.

Remove the indication that you were the driver as you seem to be relying on POFA

Insert your pictures in line so that they can't miss them. Pre-estimate of loss is not good, Beavis killed that.

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 10:19
Post #1416527

QUOTE (kommando @ Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 19:43) *
It would also be useful to add that as its is council owned land then it is not relevant land for POFA 2012

As that's BS, then no, it may or may not be relevant land so I'd ask them to prove it.

Posted by: Anthonyf Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 10:34
Post #1416532

QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 11:11) *
Don't mention the lateness! They may feel piqued and refuse to read it.

Remove the indication that you were the driver as you seem to be relying on POFA

Insert your pictures in line so that they can't miss them. Pre-estimate of loss is not good, Beavis killed that.


The POPLA website says this about lateness:
Can I submit an appeal late?
In exceptional circumstances, the assessor may be able to extend the 28 day time limit. If you are submitting your appeal late you must state fully and clearly the reasons for the delay. You must also provide any evidence you have to justify the delay, along with your appeal. The assessor will then decide whether the appeal can still be considered.

So I'll move my apology to the end.

I was not the driver, and thought I'd be careful to avoid that being implied anywhere - I'll have another read, but if theres an obvious place youve seen, please let me know.
Pictures are in line in the pdf that I linked to.

Thanks for your help ostell

Posted by: ostell Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 10:39
Post #1416534

UKPC do not own the or control the space I was parked in.

Helps to have numbered paragraphs

Posted by: Anthonyf Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 10:39
Post #1416535

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 11:19) *
QUOTE (kommando @ Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 19:43) *
It would also be useful to add that as its is council owned land then it is not relevant land for POFA 2012

As that's BS, then no, it may or may not be relevant land so I'd ask them to prove it.


I have added a bit to the end of the paragraph about Relevant land - does this sound ok?

I also draw your attention to Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 under which the keeper of a vehicle can be pursued for unpaid parking charges provided that the vehicle was parked on "relevant land". You will find the Act on legislation.gov.uk. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 states "In this Schedule 'relevant land' means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than... a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority" and goes on to state "'traffic authority' means each of the following... the council of a county, county borough, London borough or district".

I believe it clear that this space is not “Relevant Land” as defined within the Act above, hence POFA does not apply in this case, and the registered keeper cannot be pursued for charges anyway, as I was not the driver.

Posted by: Anthonyf Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 12:00
Post #1416577

OK Thansk for all your help - we've spent far too long on this so I'm sending it in - final draft saved here for reference:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ouvtNbatKOxh8MCYcMApXsZoY2lwl428/view?usp=sharing

Posted by: nigelbb Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 13:08
Post #1416603

QUOTE (Anthonyf @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 11:34) *
The POPLA website says this about lateness:
Can I submit an appeal late?
In exceptional circumstances, the assessor may be able to extend the 28 day time limit. If you are submitting your appeal late you must state fully and clearly the reasons for the delay. You must also provide any evidence you have to justify the delay, along with your appeal. The assessor will then decide whether the appeal can still be considered.

So I'll move my apology to the end.

FFS Don't put any apology for lateness in otherwise it will just give the POPLA assessor something to latch onto & immediately reject the appeal.

If you can submit your appeal through the web portal then it's been accepted & there is no question of it being late. If it's too late then you won't be able to submit it.

Posted by: Anthonyf Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 09:06
Post #1420390

Hi Folks

Couple of updates on this one:

I received an email from POPLA a couple of days ago saying: "...due to a technical error your appeal did not fully load onto the appeal system and has just been located in our failed upload folder.
The appeal has now been fully set up on our system and will progress through the appeal process as normal. As a result of the system error the appeal has had to be set up as a postal appeal manually and you may receive correspondence through the post from time to time from POPLA and the operator..."

And on the same day I got a letter in the post from a debt collection agency DRP, asking for £160 by 09/10/18 , or they will recommend their client begin court proceedings.

The letter includes a line saying "if we don't hear from you, we'll take it to mean that you agree you're liable for it"


Am I safe to ignore this rubbish?

Posted by: The Slithy Tove Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 09:23
Post #1420408

QUOTE (Anthonyf @ Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 10:06) *
The letter includes a line saying "if we don't hear from you, we'll take it to mean that you agree you're liable for it"

They can say what they like. Legally, however, they can make no such assumption.

Meanwhile complain to the BPA that the parking company are pursuing the disputed/alleged debt even while the appeal process is ongoing, which is contrary to their code of practice.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 10:38
Post #1420452

Ignore DRP. ALways. Useless wastes of space.

Posted by: Anthonyf Sat, 20 Oct 2018 - 08:32
Post #1426819

Hi Peeps
UKPC have responded to my appeal. This is their letter to Popla:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_VbrzA5GWO_dvXrVmdizj0ihOCKqRZNq/view?usp=sharing
it states
"Please see attached plan which shows that the appellant was parked within UKPC boundaries... Please be advised that the appellant has not provided anything to show his ownership of the land"

However, I did show that they do not own the land in my appeal letter, shown here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ouvtNbatKOxh8MCYcMApXsZoY2lwl428/view?usp=sharing%5b/url%5d%20Also%20none%20of%20their%20documents%20show%20who%20does%20own%20the%20land,%20or%20under%20whose%20authority%20they%20are%20issuing%20tickets.Here%20is%20the%20plan%20they%20mention:%20%5burl="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vf8xqQKc4dQJoU54Gt-G99Qyd8Enuvsd/view?usp=sharing


And a "witness statement", simply signed by a "Property manager"

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xwlSA07lxCGlIG9_PQplCmE4SxBw3iM2/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16epSEe4lN3B2hNh7sVSo3QQ_rZcf03U5/view?usp=sharing

I don't feel like they answered my appeal at all, so feel fairly confidant my appeal should be upheld.

Is there anything else I should do at this stage?

Many thanks

Posted by: ostell Sat, 20 Oct 2018 - 09:28
Post #1426825

Apart from the fact that the landowner is not actually identified the witness statement states that the are allowed to issue parking charges but that's it. No further action is permitted.

So who is that company that signed that boundary map? It looks like a residents association, and who says they have the right to create a contract? Can they show the chain back to the landowner.

They have that witness statement from "the landowner" and then present part of the alleged contract, "the map", signed by the same person on behalf of "brocksler residents co ltd".

So it looks as though they have a contract with the residents association, who are probably not the landowner and cannot show a chain of contracts to the landowner, and are trying to hide the fact that they do not have, as required by the BPA, a contract with the landowner or their agent.

State that a witness statement from a signatory of the residents association is insufficient to show a contract with the landowner or agent.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Sat, 20 Oct 2018 - 21:57
Post #1427033

QUOTE
Is there anything else I should do at this stage?
Yes this is your chance to send comments about the evidence to POPLA, and you only have a few days.

Who is Thandie Mumba who signed the WS and the boundary map? I can't find any such person in this Country who comes up on any search, except an employee of Wandsworth Council.

I think it's that person and they are not a property manager at all; I think this is just where they live and they have signed for the Residents Association and seemingly just made up a job title. Certainly nothing shows that the person who signed that is connected or authorised by the landowner.

More to the point, you said this, which is great:

QUOTE
I have not revealed the drivers identity


So...have you been sent any Notice to Keeper (not the windscreen PCN, not the rejection letter)? If no NTK, then the keeper appellant wins. Point it out to POPLA as your 1st comment.

Posted by: Anthonyf Sat, 20 Oct 2018 - 22:15
Post #1427037

Thanks ostell - so I should add a comment on the POPLA site to say:

Further to full details of my appeal, The witness statement provided from a signatory of the residents association is insufficient to show a contract with the landowner or agent. As I have shown the owner of the land is THE MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON , on whose authority UKPC have no authority to issue tickets.

Anything else worth adding?


Thanks for looking into it too SchoolRunMum , I did receive an NTK.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 00:14
Post #1427053

I would add that Thandie Mumba who signed the WS and the boundary map appears from online searches, to be an employee of Wandsworth Council and is not a 'property manager' or anything to do with the landowner. This is seemingly just made up a job title and it is noticeable that in the WS, although it states: 'property manager' it stops short of saying who Thandie Mumba works for - thus the signatory is unidentified and unreliable as a witness. The so called boundary map appears to be a work of fiction created by the same person, who this time is not claiming to be a property manager, but is merely connected to a 'Residents Association'. Certainly nothing shows that the person who signed that is connected or authorised by the landowner because a Residents Association does not have any title in land.

Posted by: Anthonyf Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 06:36
Post #1427059

Thanks all. So I intend to go with the following unless any more to add:

Thandie Mumba, the signatory on their site plan and witness statement appears to be an unreliable, and irrelevant witness for the following reasons..

(1) The site plan she has signed is completely inaccurate and entirely unreliable.
Note. For example (1a) the markings for E entrance on the left hand side, is shown on a wall , rather than the true position some 10m to the right of where currently shown.
(1b) Also that the boundary shown does not reflect the true ownership or control of the land, as I have shown in my appeal (please see my Letterofappeal.pdf, and Appendix 1 2& 3.pdf previously submitted) .

(2) Online searches suggest she may be fictitious , or perhaps a employee of Wandsworth council.
In either case there is no evidence that she, or UKPC Ltd has any authority in this matter.

Posted by: ostell Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 08:51
Post #1427072

As you have discovered the land owned by the council could this perhaps make it not relevant land? POFA 3 (1) (b) & 3 (2) (e)

Posted by: Anthonyf Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 09:33
Post #1427078

Thanks Ostell - I did make that point in my appeal.

When I submit, will the operator get another chance to respond to my response?

Essentially they have not proven any authority to issue tickets at this stage at all, so seems watertight on my side for now as far as I can see?

Posted by: ostell Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 10:18
Post #1427085

Sorry, didn't go to the previous page. Went to look and it would help if you were specific about which POFA section you are referencing. Point POFA to the correct bit as they probably can't be ar***d to look for themselves.

Yes, they get a chance to respond and you get copied on it and get a chance to respond. This is where you refute all their statements that you do not agree with. If you do not refute POPLA take it that you agree.

Posted by: Anthonyf Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 11:09
Post #1427095

A couple of slight tweaks, and am submitting this:

Thandie Mumba, the signatory on their site plan and witness statement appears to be an unreliable, and irrelevant witness for the following reasons.

(1) The site plan she has signed is largely inaccurate and entirely unreliable.
Note. For example (1a) the markings for E entrance on the left hand side, is shown on a wall , rather than the true position some 10m to the right of where currently shown.
(1b) Also that the boundary shown does not reflect the true ownership or control of the land, as I have clearly shown in my appeal (please see my Letterofappeal.pdf, and Appendix 1 2& 3.pdf, previously submitted to POPLA, also with reference to POFA 3 (1) (b) & 3 (2) (e)) .

(2) Online searches suggest she may be fictitious , or perhaps a employee of Wandsworth council.
In either case there is no evidence that she, or UKPC Ltd has any authority in this matter.

No right to claim any charges for parking has been shown by UKPC, so this entire action appears to be vexatious and huge waste of my time.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 19:09
Post #1427189

No they don't get a chance to respond to, or see your final comments.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 11:29
Post #1427318

You didnt add that "A residents association has not title in land, and cannot be the landowner. The WS is therefore clearly not from teh landowner, and has no relevace to this appeal in showing the operator has sufficient interest"

Use ALL the poitns given you, not jsut some!

Posted by: Anthonyf Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 12:31
Post #1427339

Thanks nosferatu1001, but I thought i had covered that, with the statement "In either case a there is no evidence that she, or UKPC Ltd has any authority in this matter."

Slightly tweaked here:

Thandie Mumba, the signatory on their site plan and witness statement appears to be an unreliable, and irrelevant witness for the following reasons.

(1) The site plan she has signed is largely inaccurate and entirely unreliable.
Note. For example (1a) the markings for E entrance on the left hand side, is shown on a wall , rather than the true position some 10m to the right of where currently shown.
(1b) Also that the boundary shown does not reflect the true ownership or control of the land, as I have clearly shown in my appeal (please see my Letterofappeal.pdf, and Appendix 1 2& 3.pdf, previously submitted to POPLA, also with reference to POFA 3 (1) (b) & 3 (2) (e)) .

(2) Online searches suggest she may be fictitious, or perhaps an employee of Wandsworth council.
In either case there is no evidence that she, Brocklesby Residents Association, or UKPC Ltd has any authority in this matter.

No right to claim any charges for parking has been shown by UKPC, so this entire action appears to be vexatious and huge waste of my time.



I'll submit it tonight




Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 13:53
Post #1427373

No
Again
A residents association has no title to the land. It cannot do so, as it is merely an Association.

Posted by: Anthonyf Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 14:45
Post #1427397

But I think the residents association may own the freehold for the rest of the carpark?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 14:55
Post #1427402

Gah...
So dont think! Find out! Land registry form OC2.

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 15:32
Post #1427413

It would be the first residents association with such a possession, the very title suggests it’s unlikely.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 15:35
Post #1427415

Indeed, I would be shocked and surpirsed as well, but I hate the idea the OP is just guessing - and as a result isnt going to put across the very strict point that

THE RA DOES NOT OWN THIS LANDRAs have never owned freeholds to my knowledge. It would be a compelte nightmare if they did.

Posted by: Anthonyf Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 19:13
Post #1427477

Sorry, I have made that point, and i am not guessing,as I have shown who does own the land in my appeal - Croydon Council - and definitely not Brocklesby RA
Thanks for all you help - will submit later.

Posted by: Anthonyf Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 20:05
Post #1427486

Done. Will let you know how I get on.
Thanks all

Posted by: Anthonyf Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 20:01
Post #1434132

Hello Folks. POPLA have rejected my appeal. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oG0RpEsEi97kCBwBrzzPT8vmyDh868W5

I showed a documents that says Croydon council own the land https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-IRSEBjJJbdSXNRekNDNzRUa1RSb2Y4alkya0tlWjloZmdR/view and https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-IRSEBjJJbdRlZWdjF0eVN3dkdBWTFCMkJpajV2TUZoYVJN/view
but it seems I made a mistake sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-IRSEBjJJbdZ0pJTUtNU1NrdHM/view that showed they owned the land as well!

I didn't realize that was possible.Feeling pretty stupid for sharing that, as I don't think they had a case with out it.
Any point fighting on with this do you think?

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 21:23
Post #1434178

Ooops, you provided their evidence?!

Ignore them until they sue, then fight it as we see some 99% of people win here and on MSE forum where some of us also post.

There is NO RISK of a CCJ as long as you do not ignore any court forms/deadlines, and make sure you keep them updated if you change address. UKPC are not worthy of your money, unless a Judge says you must pay (about £175, typically, instead of £100, in the odd case lost on these forums). Sit tight & come back at court stage - yes, it is likely, but yes, we see wins almost every time.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)