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: 69
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 (20 - 34)
Advertisement
post Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 10:58
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 22:31
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,672
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



That's fine. Your post must have been missed as we are so busy!

Have you had a NOTICE TO KEEPER? If not, and if this is true, then you will win on that basis as long as nothing in your appeal implies the appellant was driving (check it word by word!):

QUOTE
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.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GooseOnTheLoose
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 07:00
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 69
Joined: 9 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,418



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 23:31) *
That's fine. Your post must have been missed as we are so busy!

Have you had a NOTICE TO KEEPER? If not, and if this is true, then you will win on that basis as long as nothing in your appeal implies the appellant was driving (check it word by word!):

QUOTE
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.



As of yet no NTK, and we are well passed 56 days since the event.

I will double check my wording, but pretty sure nothing will suggest who was driving.

Other than the above, are all the other points in the appeal fine? Anything that should be removed or expanded upon?

Many thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GooseOnTheLoose
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 09:28
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 69
Joined: 9 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,418



Apologies for replying to myself again. I have re-read my appeal, I cannot see anything clearly identifying the driver. In addition, the appellant was not actually the driver, so it would be very unnatural to write in a way that might suggest this, although with my poor spelling and grammar anything is possible!


Additionally, is it an issue to say the driver was conducting business on behalf of the leaseholder?
Would it be better to say the driver was there with permission from the leaseholder?

All I am really trying to convey with that statement is that the leaseholder permitted the driver to park, and the lease has primacy over any terms UKPC try to infer.


If I am missing anything, please let me know.

This post has been edited by GooseOnTheLoose: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 09:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 21:11
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,672
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
the appellant was not actually the driver

Say that, at the start where you say the appellant is the registered keeper.


QUOTE
Additionally, is it an issue to say the driver was conducting business on behalf of the leaseholder?
Would it be better to say the driver was there with permission from the leaseholder?


I'd say your words below are better:

QUOTE
the leaseholder permitted the driver to park, and the lease has primacy over any terms UKPC try to infer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GooseOnTheLoose
post Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 06:51
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 69
Joined: 9 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,418



Thank you!

I have modified the opening paragraph to read:

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. There have been no admissions as to who was driving the vehicle at the time of the event, and no assumptions can be drawn. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge.



I have also replaced the below:

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


with:

QUOTE
In this instance the vehicle was parked with the permission of XXX (henceforth referred to as XXX). XXX have a lease from the landowner providing parking under the following terms:


If these changes look good, then I will submit my appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 11:47
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,672
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



You still have not said (if true) that you were not the driver.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GooseOnTheLoose
post Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 12:10
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 69
Joined: 9 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,418



I was not the driver.

I assumed it was better to not say anything about the driver's identity, but if it is better to be explicit that I was not the driver, I will modify to:

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 was not the driver at the time of the event, there have been no admissions as to who was driving the vehicle, and no assumptions can be drawn. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 18:06
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,904
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Add in that there is no legal requirement to name the driver.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GooseOnTheLoose
post Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 18:32
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 69
Joined: 9 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,418



Done.

Unless I hear otherwise, I will be submitting tonight.

Thanks to everyone who has helped so far.

If no more advice before I submit, I will provide an update on how the POPLA appeal went when I get an outcome.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 08:57
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,105
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Nope, ytou have a stage before that - commenting on their bundle

LOADS of threads where people have to do that, so get reading them
You pick apart their response.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GooseOnTheLoose
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 11:25
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 69
Joined: 9 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,418



Hi again,

Probably the last update, unless anyone has any queries or questions.

I got a mail from POPLA today, UKPC have decided not to contest the appeal, so it is decided in my favour.

I was preparing myself for their response and wasn't expecting them to roll over just yet, but I am happy about the result.

Thank you to everyone who helped and provided advice, and I hope this thread is useful for others in a similar situation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 11:40
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,105
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Nice one there smile.gif

Please create a new thread in completed cases, linked back to this one
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GooseOnTheLoose
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 12:43
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 69
Joined: 9 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,418



Thread created. Hope it helps others.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 13:09
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,839
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



And pass the text of the POPLA appeal around your works for others to use

UKPC has had to pay POPLA about £30 because the code was used

Most people pay up when the first appeal is rejected
If everyone starts using the codes, the location could become unprofitable

UKPC would have to start treating appeals seriously instead of automatically rejecting them in the knowledge that the parking notices will be paid
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GooseOnTheLoose
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 15:28
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 69
Joined: 9 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,418



QUOTE (Redivi @ Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 14:09) *
And pass the text of the POPLA appeal around your works for others to use

UKPC has had to pay POPLA about £30 because the code was used

Most people pay up when the first appeal is rejected
If everyone starts using the codes, the location could become unprofitable

UKPC would have to start treating appeals seriously instead of automatically rejecting them in the knowledge that the parking notices will be paid


I have already shared the wording and explanation with relevant people in that location. Hopefully, it puts an end to this nonsense.

I understand sometimes charges are needed to protect landowners, but unfortunately, too many PPCs have turned it into a moneymaking exercise with no consideration of actually providing a useful service, such as in this case when the driver was clearly authorised to park. I don't expect anything to change overnight, but at least I can play my small part to make it less profitable.
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: Wednesday, 20th March 2019 - 10:06
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.