DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 22988--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Fine for car not being in bay
DIR By: b789
Date: May 18, 2024, 10:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
--- Quote ---
> "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."
--- End Quote ---
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.
#Post#: 23003--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Fine for car not being in bay
DIR By: The Rookie
Date: May 18, 2024, 1:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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).
#Post#: 23026--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Fine for car not being in bay
DIR By: Jag84
Date: May 18, 2024, 7:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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]
#Post#: 23028--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Fine for car not being in bay
DIR By: b789
Date: May 18, 2024, 8:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The only NtK that has any validity is the original. Any
reminders are irrelevant and can be ignored.
#Post#: 23053--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Fine for car not being in bay
DIR By: Jag84
Date: May 19, 2024, 7:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Attached is the first NtK sent
#Post#: 23055--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Fine for car not being in bay
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 19, 2024, 7:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You've left your reg and PCN number visible at the bottom again!
I've removed the attachment.
#Post#: 23057--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Fine for car not being in bay
DIR By: Jag84
Date: May 19, 2024, 7:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Oh Dam !!! I didn't notice the bottom part, thx
I've re-attached it without the bottom slip
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 23059--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Fine for car not being in bay
DIR By: b789
Date: May 19, 2024, 7:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Any chance of a version that is in focus please?
#Post#: 23111--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Fine for car not being in bay
DIR By: Jag84
Date: May 19, 2024, 4:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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
#Post#: 23159--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC Fine for car not being in bay
DIR By: Jag84
Date: May 20, 2024, 6:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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."
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page