PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

UKPC Charge, In private bay at my rented flat
boro12856
post Tue, 27 Aug 2013 - 10:43
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 27 Aug 2013
Member No.: 64,741



Hi all, spent a while reading various threads but thought I had best ask for my own personal advice.

Me and my partner rent a flat which has a gated entrance and you have your own space (corresponding to flat number) ours is in the underground section. We had a parking permit which has the number of the space on it to display on a daily basis.

Recently the gates to the carpark have been 'broken' and one side is constantly left open, which now has resulted in three UKPC notices in the space of two weeks.

We currently only have her car at the flat and I very rarely use the car, both occasions I have used it and returned to our parking bay I have once forgotten to put the parking permit on the dashboard, returning to the car next morning to see we had a ticket given to us around 4am for not displaying permit. And the second one for the same reason this time however I am 100% certain the permit was placed on the dashboard, however it wasn't there the next morning and another ticket was given (again around 4am, these idiots love a nightshift)

The third notice we had received was when we had friends staying for a weekend, we have a visitor permit too, which we were not given any advice about how long this could be used for by our landlord. All we were told is that if using a visitor permit please park in the disabled bays. Now this permit was used constantly for around 2 weeks when we first moved in as we had two cars then, and no problems. I have also noticed other cars at the flats always in the disabled spots and not disabled drivers.

But one weekend we gave our permit to friends to park downstairs and my girlfriend parked her car in the visitors bay, on the second night she received another charge notice this time saying that she had over stayed her welcome in the visitors bay.

Now I am just looking for what to do with these pieces of paper I have been given, as there is NO WAY I will be paying them a penny! We need to use an electric fob to gain access to the carpark, and our parking spot corresponds with our flat number. So if they are coming in EVERY NIGHT they must see the car in the same bay using the permit, yet the ONE occasions I genuinely know I forgot to display the permit a ticket is slapped straight on. It is funny however how the influx of tickets corresponds with the gated entrance been broken.

Thanks for any help.

Regards
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Tue, 27 Aug 2013 - 10:43
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 11:09
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 849
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



Sorry, I didn't realise that but...

All you need to do is to adjust the letter slightly, perhaps as shown below.


Dear <salutation>,

Thank you for your letter of claim reference <their ref> of <date> in relation to a parking issue at <location>.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle on which the parking charge notice was placed.

I still dispute the alleged debt because, despite my previous representations, I have not received an adequate explanation as to why your client believes it has a right to any parking charge from me. As a result, I need more documents and information in order to assess the validity or otherwise of your client’s claim. If your client wishes to continue its attempt to recover the alleged parking charge, it will need to establish its right to the money either to my satisfaction or through the County Court.

The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims does, of course, now provide us with an opportunity to narrow the issues between us by allowing me to request information and documents and information and you to provide the information and documents required.

In addition to all of the information which your client should have provided in the letter of claim, therefore, I also require your client to provide me within the next 30 days all of the following:-

<tab> a full explanation of the cause of action;

<tab> a statement as to whether your client is pursuing me as driver or keeper;

<tab> if your client is pursuing me as keeper, a statement detailing how and when your client complied with each of the requirements of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 for each of the parking events;

<tab> a statement giving full details of the claim, e.g. where precisely the vehicle was parked (i.e. the precise parking space), the period of parking, how the amounts claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) arose for each of the parking events;

<tab> the parking agreement between your client and the owner or occupier of the land purporting to grant the right to your client to charge for parking on the land;

<tab> the site plan provided by your client to its accredited trade association;

<tab> a copy of the written contract for the alleged debt;

<tab> the accredited trade association’s code of practice to which your client claims to adhere;

<tab> evidence that signage meeting the requirements of that code of practice and also meeting the standards mentioned in the Parking Eye v Beavis judgement in terms of positioning, size of signs, size of font, height at which displayed, distance from nearest common part was in place at the time of each of the parking events;

<tab> if there is a lease governing parking on the land, a copy of the lease;

<tab> if there is any other agreement governing parking on the land, such as a tenancy agreement, a copy of that document;

<tab> if a lease or other agreement exists and contains express provision to allow your client to operate a parking scheme on the land, a note of the specific clauses in the lease or tenancy agreement applicable to this situation;

<tab> if a lease or other agreement exists and any rules or regulations have been made in accordance with its provisions to allow your client to operate a parking scheme on the land:-

<tab><tab> (a) a copy of those rules or regulations duly signed, etc. by the person(s) who made them; and

<tab><tab> (b) a note of the specific clauses in the lease in accordance with which those rules or regulations were made;

<tab> if a lease or other agreement exists and it granted individual rights to park on the land to a particular person, e.g. the lessee or tenant, a note of the name and address of that person and a copy of the instrument which either transferred those individual rights from that person to your client or transferred a share of those individual rights from that person to your client – if there is more than one such person, please provide the same information and documentation for each of them;

<tab> if a lease exists or other agreement exists and its terms do not permit third parties, e.g. your client, to enforce the lease’s terms, a note explaining how your client has concluded that it has acquired such a right;

<tab> if a lease or other agreement exists and your client’s parking scheme has not been introduced in accordance with its provisions, a note explaining how your client has concluded that its alleged parking contract with the driver has acquired primacy of contract over the lease;

<tab> notes giving details of the due diligence process undertaken by your client to ensure that not only the contract between your client and its principal but also the purported contract between your client and the driver met the “Implied term about care and skill” requirement contained in the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982; and

<tab> any other information and documents on which your client would rely in court.

Of course, I am sure that, like me, your client has great respect for the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and, particularly, its aims as expressed in its paragraph 2. In these circumstances, I am sure that your client would like to narrow and, if at all possible, resolve the issues between us carrying out its obligation under the Protocol to provide the information and documents within the next 30 days.

In that event, I shall gladly reconsider my position on receipt of them.

As I am sure you will realise, in the event that your client does not provide the information and documents prior to court action being taken against me, I shall apply to the court for your client’s claim to be struck out for its failure to comply with The Protocol.

Furthermore, in the event of court action being taken against me, I shall launch a counterclaim against your client.

I look forward to receiving your reply.

Yours sincerely,

This post has been edited by Eljayjay: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 12:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
boro12856
post Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 11:13
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 27 Aug 2013
Member No.: 64,741



Thanks again, I will get that typed up and posted off. So I do not need to mention anything regarding why I reject the claim as of yet.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 13:01
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 849
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



I have edited the third and fourth paragraphs so that you state that you still dispute the alleged debt and to fix a couple of typos.

I imagine that the letter of claim simply asks you for money as opposed to documents and information. In that event, you do not have to provide anything at this stage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
boro12856
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 09:27
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 27 Aug 2013
Member No.: 64,741



Eljayjay, also with the LBC they sent was a reply form (a dodgy printed out tick sheet) do I need to fill this out and send back with my letter of reply too?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 10:08
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,084
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Youre not required to use ANY form.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
boro12856
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 11:18
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 27 Aug 2013
Member No.: 64,741



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 11:08) *
Youre not required to use ANY form.


Thanks, I have just emailed off the reply in assistance with Eljayjay above.

Just for any further information with what I have dug out, I had previously tried to contact the management agent of the site to cancel the tickets and rebuff the tactics of UKPC and the scrutiny they are under in both media and parliament. Which previously has fallen on deaf ears, but I have sent another email today. However the MA are not the leasehold of the property (which I have just paid to get the leasehold from land registry today). This is held by two separate companies (for which bar companies house, no other info is available). They were still liable to the MA for bills such as gas which were sent in a bill form from MA to leasehold and then passed to myself (does this make sense).

The lease I have gotten hold of also doesn't reference anywhere parking, but I did only get the online copy of such. The claim from SCS is regarding a visitors bay however, if this does go further, where do I stand on this matter? The visitors bay were still within the gated entrance, a valid permit had to be displayed (which was) and the permits were only given to residents (which we were at the time). We no longer rent the property and moved out three years ago. Sorry I am not very savvy with my words, I am more just persistent in the fact I do not want to give my money to UKPC when I do not believe they have suffered any loss by a vehicle being parked in a visitors bay with a valid permit. Another problem I have is that when we first started fighting these claims, because nothing was heard for years now, we believed it had all been dropped (although nothing in writing). So never needed to get photos of signage etc for our own use, and now as moved out can no longer gain access to the car park.

Is there anything I can be doing in the meantime to assist myself for when this goes further. I have now spent three days solid reading both here, MSE and parking pranksters site and my brain is absolutely fried.

TIA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 11:25
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,084
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



The online copy is NOT the lease. You need to fill out form OC2 to get the real lease.
You need the lease, because common areas such as visitors bays must be considered in the actual lease.


FORGET LOSS. SERIOULSY, FORGET LOSS. This is NOT teh reason they get paid - it really isnt. They NEVER have a loss as they DONT own the land!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 11:39
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,118
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



'Disengaging Beavis' is a tough ask - but it can happen, here.

But it's not the main show in town.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
boro12856
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 11:48
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 27 Aug 2013
Member No.: 64,741



QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 12:39) *
'Disengaging Beavis' is a tough ask - but it can happen, here.

But it's not the main show in town.


Disengaging Beavis?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 11:52
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,118
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (boro12856 @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 12:48) *
Disengaging Beavis?

The Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis. Decided that £100 (or £85 as it was) did not have to be a (genuine pre-estimate of) loss and was enforceable.

Most Judges will apply it fairly uniformly when arguing the amount is a penalty - disengaging the ruling does happen as per my link...


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 11:52
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,084
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



In order for you to argue "loss", you need to point out how this case differs from Parking EYe vs Beavis. A supreme COurt case decided in favour of PE in 2015.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 11:56
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324



QUOTE
Disengaging Beavis?


The whole PPC industry is about enforcement of controls of some form. If there is a purpose to it (in the Beavis case it was overstaying) then the £100 is "acceptable" whereas if there is no purpose to it then "loss" is the maximum that can be claimed.

The test is "legitimate interest" - a test that applies in many areas of law.

What the Jopson case / Aziz case were about was the lack of purpose that allows them to justify £100 which is greater than their loss.

Clearly someone parking in their own space is not a nuisance and issuing tickets has no purpose. You have to get UKPC to explain in clear terms what their purpose was in a) ticketing and b) leaving it this late to issue a claim.


--------------------
Where there is a claim - there is a counterclaim.
Are Parking companies misusing your personal data or interfering with your lease? Counterclaims are only £25. Makes them sit up and take notice. For leaseholds, join in the Managing agents too. Since the purpose of these claims is to frighten you, give them something to be frightened of.
Subject Access Requests to the DVLA?Find out who accessed your data and when. Try SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk. [Apologies if it does not work]
Double Dip / ANPR FaultsThe BPA Report on ANPR Double Dips is here. Ideal case for a counterclaim (see above).
Daily Court List. See who is doing what and where here
Printing and posting Witness Statements. Easy and cheap way DoxDirect
What is court like. A District Judge's view
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
boro12856
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 13:55
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 27 Aug 2013
Member No.: 64,741



Thanks for all the replies, they did refer to Parking Eye v Beavis in the LBC I was sent, however as this is residential I just disregarded that comment. As I have stated the car park for the flats was a gated entrance which only residents are given a fob for, as well as residents are given a permit for allocated space and a visitors pass only to be used in a visitors bay (which is where my case lies). Which is where I struggle to see any 'loss' as we (residents) were not charged to park, so how can they say a loss was made by parking in a visitors bay using a visitors pass (for longer than stated) although unless they are sitting by the vehicle for 24 hours how can they confirm if the car was parked for such times. From what I recall there was no notice to say "no return within..."

This post has been edited by boro12856: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 13:57
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 13:59
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,084
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yes, and we know that

So do you know PE vs Beavis well enough to arue how it does NOT apply here?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 14:12
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,118
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Read emanresu's post #52 carefully. There's no loss, we all know that but there doesn't have to be a loss...

The first test will not be whether there was a loss, i.e. you can't work backwards from that. Going forwards, if the PPC can successfully argue there's a legitimate reason to have a £100 charge to provide deterrence then the actual loss argument will be covered by Beavis. Even for a gated car park (broken gate aside) it still may be argued that the charge is required to dissuade 'abuse' by residents.

I've been back through the thread and I can't see pictures of the signs?

This post has been edited by Jlc: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 14:19


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
boro12856
post Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 19:34
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 27 Aug 2013
Member No.: 64,741



Hi everyone, so I wrote a letter to SCS Law pretty much what Eljayjay given in this thread and got a response today:

We write further to your email below.



Please find enclosed the following documentation, as per your request:-



· The Parking Charge Notices issued and follow up letters;

· A contract authorising our client to control parking at the site (redacted for reasons of commercial sensitivity);

· Photographs of the signage at the site;

· An annotated site map showing signage locations; and

· Photographs of your vehicle in situ.



Please note, we have adopted the same numbering to the points raised in your letter and have provided our response below:-



1. Our client’s claim is for breach of contract;



2. Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, our client has the right to pursue you as the registered keeper of the vehicle for the parking contraventions;



3. Please see point 2 and the attached documentation demonstrating compliance;



4. On multiple occasions, your vehicle was parked at .......... An offer was made by the signage present at the site in question and upon entering the site the driver agreed to abide by the terms and conditions for parking (as per the signage). Therefore, by parking at the site in question the driver entered into a contract by conduct. As the driver failed to abide by the terms and conditions by parking for longer than the allowed time, your vehicle was issued with the parking charge notices in question.



The signage attached confirms that each parking charge was issued for the sum of £90.00 and would have been reduced to £50.00, if paid within 14 days. Given that the parking charges remained unpaid, the matter was passed to our client’s debt recovery agent and an additional charge of £60.00 was applied, as outlined on the signage. Each parking contravention is now outstanding for the sum of £150.00;



5. Please refer to the contract attached. Our client manages parking at the site in question pursuant to the contract with Premier Estates Limited, who are the managing agent of the site on behalf of the landowner;



6. An annotated site map showing signage locations is attached;



7. Please see point 4;



8. Our client follows the BPA Code of Practice under which written authorisation is required from the landowner or their agent to manage parking at the site;



9. The photographs of the signage are attached;



10.-16. Please confirm if you seek to rely on any leasehold agreement in relation to this site if you allege that any such agreement gave the driver of the vehicle a right to park in breach of the terms and conditions, and provide us with a copy of the same.



17. Our client's position is that they have complied with the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, as the service provided to you by our client was the provision of a parking space to be used in compliance with the terms and conditions, as per the signage, which was erected at the site in question. As you failed to comply with these terms and conditions, a breach of contract occurred and therefore our client was at liberty to issue you with the parking charge notices.



18. Our client will be relying on all the documentation that is relevant to this case.





In light of the above, it is our client’s position that the parking charge notices in the sum of £750.00 were validly issued and that they remain due and owing.



We look forward to hearing from you within 30 days, after which time, we anticipate instructions to continue with proceedings accordingly.


Yours sincerely,



Along with this the evidence bundle was attached which included copies of all tickets, photos of the car, the signs, the contract between client and UKPC (which was in date), and map of the areas to be covered (which all bays included).

I am unsure how to proceed, this is in my partners name the claim, and she is at home panicking like mad at the minute and just wants to pay the £750. I have told her we will fight it, but personally I am really unsure on what grounds.

I did email the client and owner of the complex and after they kindly tried to assist (I did try to contact them back in 2014 I think to no avail, when the first ever SCS letter arrived), they got a response from UKPC which said the following:

Thank you for getting back to me and providing the explicit consent.



Unfortunately these charges have escalated to a stage whereby I cannot cancel them. The charges were issued from 6th April 2014 until 20th June 2014. The charges have gone to a stage where our Legal Team have started to take action to retrieve the monies owed for each of the parking charge notices.



If the driver would like to discuss this with our Legal Team, I am able to provide their email and direct dial.



So the client has requested on my behalf that the tickets all be cancelled but UKPC have said no! Surely the client can demand the tickets to be cancelled? This is what I said back to them by email.


I would really appreciate any help with the matter, as I have previously said I am definitely not very au fait with legal terms, so an ELI5 (explain like im 5) reply would be great!

TIA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 00:05
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 849
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



Where is the lease?

The lease is the document of paramount importance. What you obtained online was the title, not the lease.

As explained by nosteratu1001, if you do not already have the lease, you need to obtain a copy from the Land Registry by completing form OC2 and paying a modest fee. Please get this done and, after redacting any personal data, post it here. [Due to its size, you will almost certainly have to upload it to another website and post a link here.]

Get moving on the lease NOW.

In addition, post your letter here (i.e. the letter which was based on my draft) so that we can see, where they refer to your paragraph numbers, to what they are actually referring.

This post has been edited by Eljayjay: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 00:05
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 05:19
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,717
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 12:25) *
The online copy is NOT the lease. You need to fill out form OC2 to get the real lease.
You need the lease, because common areas such as visitors bays must be considered in the actual lease.

Well you've had a month so far, and......


QUOTE (boro12856 @ Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 20:34) *
1. Our client’s claim is for breach of contract;

No its not, that would then be for loss, its for a contractually agreed sum, but of course that's hard to justify on someones own land.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
boro12856
post Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 08:57
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 27 Aug 2013
Member No.: 64,741



I am inwork until this afternoon, I will look to get the lease filled out today. Tbh apart from sending the two emails one to scs and one to the owner of the complex, I hadn’t done anything else. Purely based on the fact the owner said they weren’t going to look into getting them cancelled.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 11:59
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 849
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



You have three choices: the first is to spend some time and effort defending the claim; the second is losing the case and paying out lots of money; the third is losing the case, not paying but having a CCJ (and all that goes with that) hanging over your head for a number of years.

It’s make your mind up time.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
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: Saturday, 20th October 2018 - 22:37
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.