Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
It is our position that the Letter of Claim (“LOC”) is compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (“the Protocol”). The LOC provides adequate information for you to identify the debt that our Client is seeking to recover. We respectfully draw your attention to paragraph 2.1(c) of the Protocol and remind you that both parties are expected to act reasonably and proportionately.
Schedule 4 (4)(1) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the Act”) states “The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. For the purpose of the Act; “keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper. The DVLA confirmed that you were the Registered Keeper at the time the parking charge was issued and as no transfer of liability has been received by our Client, they have the right to recover the parking charge from you as the Keeper of the vehicle.
In accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, where the Parking Charge (PC) becomes overdue and before Court proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum may be added for the debt recovery fees. The correct recovery fees have been added and will not be removed. As such, the outstanding balance of £170.00 remains payable to prevent further action.
To clarify, this parking charge was issued on 21/06/2024 at the location of Bell Green Retail Park for the reasoning that the vehicle was not parked correctly within the markings of the bay. The Terms and Conditions are clearly stated on the signage, by parking at this location, you are entering into a contract with the Claimant to comply with the terms of the signage and that breaching these terms could result in a Parking Charge.
In accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, where the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) becomes overdue and before Court proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum may be added for the debt recovery fees. The correct recovery fees have been added and will not be removed. As such, the outstanding balance of £170.00 remains payable to prevent further action. The HMRC ‘VAT Supply and Consideration manual’ (VATSC06140), which was last updated on 02 September 2020, confirmed that parking charge notices falls out of the scope of VAT.
In relation to the comments concerning damages, the sum added is a contribution to the actual costs incurred by our Client as a result of your non-payment. Our Client’s employees have spent time and material attempting to recover the debt. This is not our Client’s usual business and the resources could have been better spent in other areas of the business. Had you of paid as per the Contract, there would have been no need for recovery action so the amount due would not have increased.
Unless the alleged contravention took place before October last year, the referencers to the BPA CoP are irrelevant because the PPSCoP supersedes it and any references should be to that document.
As the registered keeper (RK) of the vehicle in question, I have reviewed the evidence submitted by UKPC in its entirety and wish to make the following comments:
In their case summary, UKPC have contended that “the period of parking is the time in which the vehicle was parked”. However, given that the photos that they have provided as evidence only show the vehicle at this location for 2 minutes and 27 seconds, and they have not provided any evidence to demonstrate the vehicle was in this location for any longer than that, this is insufficient to describe a “period of parking”. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) section 13.1 states that drivers must be provided with a reasonable amount of time to consider the terms & conditions and decide whether they wish to be bound by them by remaining on the site. Section 13.1 also specifies that the consideration period afforded must be a minimum of 5 minutes:
"The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes."
At this stage, I would like to point out that one of these photos, which was used in the original Notice to Keeper (NtK), - a copy of which may be found on page 29 of the case summary - appears to have been ‘squashed’ or cropped in order to fit the grey box, which itself is in breach of the BPA CoP, Section 21.5a which requires that “all photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.”
Given the aforementioned inadequate signage in respect of the paved area adjacent to the car park, it is conceivable that the driver used this consideration period to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions of the car park before deciding to move their vehicle. As is demonstrated by UKPC’s image entitled ‘Additional evidence.png’, this would not have been possible to do from the vehicle’s location, as what UKPC have somewhat ironically indicated as “clear, UKPC signage” is in fact not legible owing to said signage being obscured by a tree. Pursuant to the BPA CoP Section 13.1, closer inspection of this sign, or others like it, would be necessary in order for a contract to be formed while also explaining why the vehicle appears to be unattended by the driver.
UKPC have also alleged that the vehicle in this location - referred to previously as a ‘pedestrian’ area for the sole purpose of distinguishing it from the (tarmac) car park proper and not withstanding the earlier stated fact of the vehicle not being “parked” owing to the timeframe falling within the BPA CoP’s minimum consideration period - caused an obstruction to any would-be users of the disabled bay. This is patently untrue as evidenced by UKPC’s own photos, which show the vehicle well clear of the crosshatch markings which denote the additional space which must be left clear to provide adequate access.
On the matter of insufficient/inadequate signage at the entrance to the car park, UKPC have also contested the authenticity and/or relevance of the photos I have supplied to demonstrate this point. Regretfully, my consumer-grade smartphone camera does not overlay timestamps on top of images, but you will note from the screenshots here: https://imgur.com/a/AMPu2Tw that the sign was facing the wrong way at the beginning of September. Furthermore, despite UKPC’s statement that they have “notified the relevant department in order to get the entrance signage turned back the correct way”, as of yesterday (20th September), the sign continues to face the wrong way.
Given UKPC’s inability to correct a crucial element of their signage not less than two weeks after it was brought to their attention (by me; one would assume one of their operators would have notified them much sooner), it is probable that this insufficient signage was also in place on June 21st (when the PCN was issued); as evidenced by the image on page 25 of UKPC’s case summary, the most recently they are able to prove that the entrance signage was facing the right way was 21 February 2024 - a full 4 months before the PCN was issued - whereas my photos proving the opposite were taken significantly more recently.
Such inadequate signage is in breach of the BPA CoP section 19.2, stating that an entrance sign must “take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park”, which would be difficult enough to do even if facing the correct way owing to its position next to a short & steep ramp but virtually impossible when it is facing traffic *leaving* the car park, as opposed to approaching.
Since UKPC has not fully complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in that they have failed to specify the “period of parking” to which the charge relates, they may not invoke any right to hold the registered keeper liable in respect of any such charge. UKPC’s failure to meet these strict legal requirements in their entirety must mean that responsibility for settling the charge cannot be transferred to the registered keeper: they may only pursue the driver, who has not been identified by either myself nor any evidence presented by UKPC.
This fact alone is grounds for cancellation for the charge, however I would once again point out procedural errors committed by UKPC in the processing of this charge amounting to breaches of the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice at Sections 13.1, 19.2 and 21.5a. I would like to draw the assessor’s attention to a recent appeal (reference 2413353469; assessor: Gayle Stanton) in which the appellant’s appeal was upheld on the grounds that the images in the NtK had been altered contrary to the rules set out by BPA CoP 21.5a. As the images used in this charge have been similarly altered, this precedent should be considered in this case also.
For these reasons, I would respectfully request that the assessor rightfully upholds this appeal and cancels the PCN.
