Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Jag84 on May 04, 2024, 08:29:25 pm
-
Yes, it's the horrible wording (I think it's inept) POPLA use for 'The operator has decided not to contest your appeal' and it means you have 'won'.
-
Think the below response means they've given up ? Now will probably be searching for easier prey
"The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.
If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.
If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.
Kind regards
POPLA Team"
-
A PCN is not a “fine”. It is an invoice. The keeper/driver has not committed any offence. This is a civil matter in contract law. Please don’t call it a “fine”.
You should be sending the POPLA appeal as a PDF file. You can embed images into a PDF file.
List your main points at the beginning and then go through each point individually.
-
Apologies for delay in response unfortunately got laid off and have been going through some personal challenges but now more determined not to have to pay this fine
Below is what I plan to send to POPLA. Is that OK ? I assume POPLA will allow me to upload photos and they have access to the photos the parking company has taken ?
Appeal for Parking Fine to POPLA
Dear POPLA Adjudicator,
I am writing to appeal a parking fine issued to me for allegedly parking outside of a designated bay. I believe the fine should be overturned for the following reasons:
1. Inadequate Signage
1.1. Poor Visibility and Accessibility of Signs
The relevant signage was positioned too high and was surrounded by bags of compost from a nearby store, making it difficult to access or read. Notably, the parking company did not provide a photograph of this particular sign, which was the nearest and only one in this section of the car park. Instead, they provided photographs from a different section. This is a violation of the BPA Code of Practice, specifically:
Section 19.3: "Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read, and understand."
1.2. Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012 Section 9(2)(c)
The blocked access to the signage fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Section 9(2)(c), which requires that the terms of the parking charge be adequately brought to the attention of the driver. This constitutes a breach of the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) 19.1. I have attached a photograph showing the sign with blocked access.
1.3. Non-Compliance with BPA CoP 19.9 - Specific Parking-Terms Signage
According to BPA CoP 19.9, there must be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. I did not see any such sign meeting this requirement.
2. Poor Condition and Inadequate Width of Parking Bays
2.1. Worn and Faded Bay Lines
The bay lines in the car park are worn and faded, breaching the condition stated in BPA CoP 19.11 regarding "Surface markings – delineated parking bays." The lack of clear demarcation significantly contributes to the difficulty a driver would have in parking precisely within the bay.
2.2. Insufficient Bay Width
The bays provided are not sufficiently wide for safe parking. According to the BPA Code of Practice, Section 28.3, parking areas should be clearly marked and adequately spaced:
28.3: "You should lay out the parking area so that drivers can at all times have a fair opportunity to park their vehicles and meet the terms and conditions of parking."
The inadequate width of the bays, as illustrated in the attached photographs, makes it challenging for any driver to park without encroaching on the lines. This condition made it necessary for me to park as far to the right as possible to maintain a safe distance from the neighboring vehicle, which was also parked on or near the line.
3. Vehicle Position
3.1. Accurate Positioning
The vehicle was not parked outside of the bay; it was positioned on the line, not beyond it. The photographs demonstrate that the neighboring car was parked in a similar manner, necessitating that I park as far to the right as possible to maintain a safe distance between the vehicles.
Based on the above points, I respectfully request that the parking fine be overturned due to the inadequate signage, poor condition of the bay lines, and the insufficient width of the bays. These factors made it unreasonably difficult for me to comply with the parking terms and conditions.
Thank you for considering my appeal.
-
Ok but the image is uploaded in this thread on the 7th May. One how the sign is surrounded by bags of compost and the other shows the wording on the signage. I think I had to stand on the bags to get close photo of the sign
In regard to the other suggested conditions
Non-compliance with BPA CoP 19.2 and Appendix B - Entrance signs
----- will need to check if there we entrance signs
Non-compliance with BPA CoP 19.3 & 19.9 - Specific parking-terms signage
----- think there might be some mileage on 19.9 i.e. "there must be at least one sign containing the
terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without
needing to leave the vehicle". Can't recall seeing one does it have to be in the same section of the car park ?
Non-compliance with BPA CoP 20.3 - Charges, and terms and conditions
---- if you look at the sign it does specify the fine amount not sure I can use this one
Non-compliance with BPA CoP 22.4 - Use of photographic evidence technology
---- ANPR wasn't used just normal photos. Not sure on what point I would argue a case on 22.4? It says must comply by Data Protection, be registered with the Information Commissioner and follow DVLA requirements for data. I don't have any evidence to suggest that none of those are true
Non-compliance with BPA CoP 7 - Written authorisation of the landowner
No Registered Keeper liability
Pre-conviction penalties are unlawful in English law
Lack of standing
----- Not sure if there is anything from the above I could make a case I assume they must be authorised
-
You'll need to use a third party site like Imgur to upload any more images. Upload space on here is very limited.
-
I can't seem to upload the photo as it says the folder is full but if you look at the image I uploaded on the 7th May in this thread it shows the sign surrounded by bags of compost
-
Do you have or can you get some photos of the signs that were obscured?
What about considering some of these POPLA appeal points you could use?
Non-compliance with BPA CoP 19.2 and Appendix B - Entrance signs
Non-compliance with BPA CoP 19.3 & 19.9 - Specific parking-terms signage
Non-compliance with BPA CoP 20.3 - Charges, and terms and conditions
Non-compliance with BPA CoP 22.4 - Use of photographic evidence technology
Non-compliance with BPA CoP 7 - Written authorisation of the landowner
No Registered Keeper liability
The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate
No planning permission from the Council for Pole-mounted ANPR cameras and no advertising consent for signage
Pre-conviction penalties are unlawful in English law
Lack of standing
-
Below is my initial draft. For the last paragraph is there any rule I can quote that parking bays should be sufficiently wide for safe parking ?
The relevant sign was positioned quite far up and surrounded by bags of compost from local store therefore not easy to access or read. Strangely the parking company did not provide photograph of this particular sign ,the nearest and only one in this car park section, but instead from different section of the car park. Blocked access to the signage failed to comply with terms of "BPA Approved Operator Code of Practice". Notably on the two points below
- "Signs must be conspicuous and legible"
- "they are easy to see, read and understand."
Access to signage was inadequate and therefore failed to comply with the strict requirements as required under PoFA 2012 9(2)(c) to adequately bring to the attention of the driver the charge and the other facts that made them payable. This is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) 19.4. I have attached a photograph of the sign where access was blocked
Bay lines are worn and faded breaching the "Surface markings – delineated parking bays" condition 19.11. Lack of clear demarcation contributes significantly to the difficulty the driver would have parking in a precise manner.
The driver did not park outside of the bay. The vehicle was positioned on the line, not beyond it. Additionally, as demonstrated in the photos, the neighbouring car was parked in a similar manner which obviously necessitated that the driver park as far to the right as possible to maintain a safe distance between vehicles.
It is clear in this case the bays provided are not sufficiently wide for safe parking, as illustrated in the photos. The inadequate width of the bays makes it challenging for any driver to park without encroaching on the lines.
-
It is not surprising that UKPC would reject your appeal. You should appeal to POPLA and you have 32 days, not the 28 days stated to respond. There is no advantage to delaying the POPLA appeal but do make sure that you set it out properly.
POPLA will not consider any mitigation. They will only consider breaches of the BPA CoP and other law. You have already explained those breaches in your first appeal so they should form the basis of your POPLA appeal.
Mention each breach and then expand on why and how they have breached each point. Lead the POPLA assessor by the nose to each point. Use simple language as though you are writing a Janet and John book for early learners.
For example, you stated in your original appeal:"The signage in the car park is inadequate and fails to comply with the strict requirements as required under PoFA 2012 9(2)(c ) to adequately bring to the attention of the driver the charge and the other facts that made them payable. This is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) 19.4." Expand on why failure to "...adequately bring to the attention of the driver the charge..." as required under PoFA 9(2)(c ) is also a breach of the BPA CoP section 19.4.
You need to look at the BPA CoP and can do so here:
BPA Approved Operator Code of Practice v9 (https://www.britishparking.co.uk/code-of-practice-and-compliance-monitoring) and PoFA here:
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted)
Once you have something please post it here so we can critique it and adjust if necessary.
-
I've got a response back from UKPC and they have rejected my appeal
Attached is image of the first page of the letter and also pdf document of the whole letter
Should I now appeal to POPLA ?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Doesn’t it let you upload a pdf with your full appeal? If so, just put “see uploaded PDF” in the text box.
Otherwise, what you have is ok. I wouldn’t put too much effort into a Plan B appeal with this lot of scammers.
-
I've had to shorten the suggested appeal as it only accepts 2000 characters. Strangely it includes spaces between words also as characters in its count
Below is what I am planning to submit. Is that OK ?
"
After reviewing provided photos , I disagree with your operative’s assessment that the driver parked outside of the bay. The vehicle was positioned on the line, not beyond it. Additionally, as demonstrated in the photos, the neighbouring car was parked in a similar manner which obviously necessitated that the driver park as far to the right as possible to maintain a safe distance between vehicles.
It is clear the bays provided are not sufficiently wide for safe parking, as illustrated in the photos. The inadequate width of the bays makes it challenging for any driver to park without encroaching on the lines. Bay lines are worn and faded lack of clear demarcation contributes significantly to the difficulty the driver would have parking in a precise manner.
The signage in the car park is inadequate and fails to comply with the strict requirements as required under PoFA 2012 9(2)(c) to adequately bring to the attention of the driver the charge and the other facts that made them payable. This is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) 19.4.
You have provided a photo of a sign, strangely it doesn’t show the nearest and only sign in that section of the car park. I have photo evidence showing the nearest sign was surrounded by goods which restricted access and visibility.
Signs breach the BPA CoP 19.3. Specific parking-terms signs are supposed to inform drivers what terms and conditions are, including parking charges.. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. None of the signs comply with those requirements.
In conclusion, based on the inadequate space for safe parking, poor maintenance, inadequate signage and, as the registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver because your NtK does not fully comply with the strict requirements of PoFA 2012. I suggest you cancel the PCN or issue me with a POPLA code where we both know will be cancelled."
-
Sorry trying to find the original invoice so i can rescan and send it. Either me or my wife have misplaced it bit of a domestic dispute going on who has. I'll try to find it
-
Any chance of a version that is in focus please?
-
Oh Dam !!! I didn't notice the bottom part, thx
I've re-attached it without the bottom slip
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
You've left your reg and PCN number visible at the bottom again! I've removed the attachment.
-
Attached is the first NtK sent
-
The only NtK that has any validity is the original. Any reminders are irrelevant and can be ignored.
-
Oh OK sorry I will try to find out who the landowner is from B&M. If they re-direct me to UKPC as they have been so far should I bother ?
Attached is the second invoice they have sent me requested in the previous post
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Why are you asking B&M to cancel? You were told to go to the landowner. Maybe asking the store who that is.
The store won’t ever cancel is they aren’t the landowner/occupier (of the car park).
-
As the NtK has been removed, you need to repost it so I can recheck it. Just make sure you redact the PCN number as well as your personal details.
I already noted that it failed to fully comply with the strict requirements of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) so I would not reveal the drivers identity. Also, it is not, as you have written a "penalty charge". Only the police or an authority can issue a "penalty" or a "fine". What was received was simply an invoice from an unregulated private parking company.
Do not select any option that admits to being the driver. You are appealing as the "Registered keeper" only. If nothing fits, select "other".
Based on what you already showed us, I would suggest you change a few things and add a bit about how you cannot be liable as the keeper.
"I appeal as keeper. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so.
After reviewing the photos provided, I disagree with your operatives assessment that the driver parked outside of the bay. The photos clearly show that the vehicle was positioned on the line, not beyond it. Additionally, as demonstrated in the photos, the neighbouring car was parked in a similar manner which obviously necessitated that the driver park as far to the right as possible to maintain a safe distance between the vehicles.
Furthermore, it is clear that the bays provided are not sufficiently wide for safe parking, as illustrated in the photos. The inadequate width of the bays makes it challenging for any driver to park without encroaching on the lines. Additionally, the bay lines are worn and faded due to poor maintenance. The lack of clear demarcation contributes significantly to the difficulty the driver would have had parking in a precise manner.
The signage in the car park is inadequate and fails to comply with the strict requirements as required under PoFA 2012 9(2)(c) to adequately bring to the attention of the driver the charge and the other facts that made them payable. This is also a breach of the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) 19.4.
The signs also breach the BPA CoP 19.3. Specific parking-terms signs are supposed to inform drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. Signs containing the specific parking terms are supposed to be positioned throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. None of the signs comply with those requirements.
While you have provided a photo of a sign, it is not of one anywhere near the location the vehicle was parked. It does not show the nearest sign in the section where the vehicle was parked. I have evidence, including a photo, showing that the nearest sign was surrounded by goods from the B&M store, which restricted access and visibility.
So, in conclusion, based on the inadequate space for safe parking, the poor maintenance of the car park, the inadequate signage and, as the registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver because your NtK does not fully comply with the strict requirements of PoFA 2012, I suggest you cancel the PCN or issue me with a POPLA code where we both know it be cancelled."
You are not dealing with a firm that has any customer service ethos so don't think that being polite with them is going to garner any favour. UKPC are a firm of ex-clamper thugs operating at the edge of legality in an unregulated environment where they know that they can scare most of their gullible victims into paying into their extremely lucrative scam.
I can say with complete confidence that win or lose the initial appeal or at POPLA, you will not pay a penny to UKPC if you follow all the advice.
-
I've gone around the houses with B&M and they say its out of their control they can't cancel the ticket have to contact UKPC
So as advised I'm going to put in an appeal and was planning to submit the below. Is that OK ?
"After reviewing the photos provided, I respectfully disagree with the assessment that my vehicle was parked outside of the bay. The photos show that my vehicle was positioned on the line, not beyond it. Additionally, as demonstrated in the photos, the neighboring car was parked in a similar manner. This situation necessitated that my vehicle be parked as far to the right as possible to maintain a safe distance between vehicles.
Furthermore, the parking bays provided are not sufficiently wide for safe parking, as clearly illustrated in the photos. The inadequate width of the bays makes it challenging to park without encroaching on the lines, and the bay lines themselves are fading due to poor maintenance. This lack of clear demarcation contributes significantly to the difficulty in parking properly.
Moreover, the signage in the car park is poor and faded. While you have provided a photo of a sign, it does not show the nearest one in the section where the vehicle was parked. I have included a photo showing that the nearest sign is surrounded by goods from the B&M store, which restricts access and visibility.
Based on the inadequate space for safe parking, the poor maintenance of the car park, and the inadequate signage, I believe the penalty charge should be cancelled."
In the appeal do I need to reveal who the driver was in field "Relationship to Vehicle"?
Gives me 3 options "Driver", "Registered Keeper", "Driver & Registered Keeper"
-
You’re overthinking this. The photos are good for your appeal to POPLA once UKPC reject the initial appeal. UKPC signs are terrible and have been a reason for successful POPLA appeals. The terms are illegible unless you are right up close and the charge of £100 is lost in the mass of wording thereby failing to bring it to the attention of the driver.
Even if the POPLA appeal was unsuccessful, you won’t be paying a penny to UKPC. POPLA decisions are not binding on the appellant and have absolutely no bearing on any court claim.
They will either issue a claim themselves or use DCB Legal to do so. They rely on their victims being low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and capitulating and paying up once the pressure is on. If you follow the advice and hold your nerve, they will, eventually, discontinue and that will be the end of it.
They never continue with a well defended claim, especially for a single PCN. They know that they are likely to lose if a judge becomes involved.
-
I went to the B&M store and the manager said he can't do anything about it he said they always will fine you even on minor thing. So I've emailed B&M customer service and see whether they will be more helpful.
Just a few questions
- it's not advisable then to just stay silent on all the requests banking it's not going to go to court ? Someone said to me if you respond they will really pursue you
- Yesterday when I went i noticed the base of UKPC sign post was surrounded by B&M compost sacks preventing you from getting a close read of it. Can that be raised as an issue. Attached photo of it
- I had to take photo of the sign from different section of car park. However I noticed it said car has to be parked within the bay. From the previous photos you can see my car was on the line and not inside. Can I still in my appeal make the case no contravention has occurred as car is on the line ?
- whilst i was there two other cars had come and gone and parked in same spot and both parked same way. I took photos and mentioned this in my email to B&M showing this appears to be a common problem experienced by other customers as well
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The fact it's an end bay works in your favour here. If there was another bay to the driver's side, there would be a fair argument to be made that they were obstructing the other bay, justifying a charge.
Here though there's no other bay being blocked, nor does the parking obstruct road access etc., seems very much de minimis.
-
It may depend on whether your wife, the registered keeper, was also the deriver. As the NtK is, technically, not PoFA compliant due to the absence of 9(2)(e)(i), although I'm not 100% sure now that it has been removed, only the driver can be liable for the charge. They have no idea who the driver is and if they cannot rely on PoFA, either at POPLA or at court, then by not identifying the driver there is a better chance of a winning point.
Whilst it is highly unlikely that UKPC will accept any argument that the PCN was not issued correctly, the more important appeal will be to POPLA. Mitigation is not considered, only points of law and breaches of the BPA CoP. UKPC signage is always bad and can be a winning point. Their signs are difficult to read which is a breach of the CoP.
If the wheel is not actually outside of the bay, as shown in the photos, it is still on the line, then it cannot be out of the bay. However, there was no way that the vehicle could park fully within the bay due to the restrictive size of it and the proximity of the vehicle next to it. If UKPC were "managing" the car park, rather than trying to extort money from motorists for a de minimis alleged breach, the bays would be properly marked and of a size that permitted actual use.
As mentioned earlier though, whether the appellant is successful or not at POPLA, these single PCNs, if defended robustly, are eventually discontinued before they get to a hearing.
-
Thank you very much I will proceed with plan A. Apologies I thought i had scrubbed out my address, pcn and wifes name but maybe i uploaded the unedited image by mistake.
Should Plan A not work any advice what I should put in the appeal for plan B or should I worry about that later ?
-
I've removed the copy of the PCN. As well as the details b789 mentions you also left your full name showing.
-
You need to be more careful when posting images of documents that contain personalised info such as the PCN number and your car reg. Someone with less scrupulous intentions could easily get in and mess your chance of appeal.
You need to go to https://ukpcappeals.co.uk in order to appeal.
However, have you tried plan A yet? Go to the store or find out who is the landowner or manager and ask them to get the PCN cancelled. It really is a de minimis issue and just goes to prove how much these scammers will try to extort money.
If you've had no luck with Plan A by day 27 of the issue date of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) then you should do the Plan B appeal to UKPC. Just in case you are not aware, you are dealing with cowboys and scammers (Hansard) who really do not care about any mitigating circumstances. If/when they reject your Plan B appeal, you then move on to your Plan C POPLA appeal.
If/when they reject that you go through the "limbo" stage where you just have to weather all the useless debt collector letters which you can safely ignore. If/when either UKPC themselves or through their solicitors, DCB Legal, you are issued with a Letter of Claim you come back for advice. This is the Plan D kicks in and is a guarantee that they will eventually discontinue.
A robustly defended claim from UKPC directly or through their DCB Legal pals, will result in a discontinuation before any hearing. They are hoping that you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will capitulate at the first sign of any threats and pay up. Hold your nerve and they will will be the ones that capitulate in the end.
As it is your wife who is the registered keeper, all correspondence has to be in her name although you can do it all for her. The NtK is basically PoFA compliant (except for a technical failure which they are likely to ignore) so the keeper can be liable for the charge if the driver is not identified. In all cases it is the driver who is liable and transferring liability to the driver if your wife was not the person who parked does not really matter.
Any appeal for Plan B and Plan C must show that it was impossible to park within the bay and have space for a passenger to enter/exit the vehicle due to the poor management of the parking spaces by the operator as is evidenced by their own photos. In fact, the vehicle is not parked outside of the bay as the cars wheels are on the line itself. Therefore no breach of terms has taken place and there was no reasonable cause for the operator to request the keepers details from the DVLA in breach of the KADOE rules and the keepers GDPR.
Additionally, the UKPC signs breach their own ATA, the BPA, Code of Practice in that they are illegible unless you are within 6 inches and your head is at least 7 feet above ground level.
For now, concentrate on Plan A.
Follow the advice you get here and you will not be paying a penny to into the UKPC scam.
-
Do you mean these photos?
(https://i.imgur.com/XKeD0wf.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/zbGtPqO.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/pGuw7iU.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/0YduMy3.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/fyHQcu0.jpeg)
-
Received today from UKPC. The photo on the letter does not really clearly show if it is. It says go to www.paycharge.co.uk for additional images
When i go to that site just seems to give me options to pay the fine and not view additional images. Not sure if anyone else has used site do you have to select pay option to view additional images ?
My wife is the registered owner of the car and i think if it is over the bay line it will be marginal but without seeing the other images can't tell
What should I do ? I have attached image of letter
Thanks for any help or advice