DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 23085--------------------------------------------------
UKPC NTK - No Permit - Hook Rise, Chessington
DIR By: Keeper
Date: May 19, 2024, 1:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
After returning from overseas to find a stash of letters and
feeling rather cheesed off so thought I'd turn to the gurus on
here after I was so wonderfully helped by the lovely people from
Pepipoo, to get my mother's vehicle out of a Heathrow parking
charge.
Explanation / Context
NOTE: I've tried to keep it brief but I'm also unsure what may
or may not be relevant, so thought it best to stick all the
facts in!
I am the keeper. The driver went to this location on 26th March,
somewhere they had been to before and parked where they have
always parked in the past (it's next to a climbing centre). N.B.
The restrictions are clearly new as the climbing centre had a
sign stating when it was safe to park and I can see the sign has
been modified with some tape to reflect the changes.
The driver parked there and then left later that evening.
I went overseas on the morning of the 29th of March (provable)
and did not return until the 2nd of May. Not sure if relevant
but I was going to return on the 18th of April but had to stay
longer as my father suddenly became unwell while overseas and
needed cardiac procedures to be carried out.
I returned to the following notices somewhere in a mountain of
mail (attached in a pdf)
28th March: UKPC NTK Parked in a permit area
11th April: UKPC NTK Final Reminder
24th April: Debt Collection Agency Letter
10 May: Debt Collection Agency letter
Car Park Signage
I have attached photos of the car park signage. I'm not sure
exactly which bay the driver parked in but you can see from the
signs that they may not be within visibility or regulatory
regulations (you will know better than me!). There's one more
sign I can try and add a photo of for location, it was on a gate
that was open so that it wasn't really visible (it's the actual
notice in the last photo).
At this point I, the keeper, have made no contact with either
UKPC or the Debt Collection Agency - I thought this was best
until I heard from you guys. What should I do next?
Cheers!
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 23106--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK - No Permit - Hook Rise, Chessington
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 19, 2024, 4:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
First things first, I'm very sorry to hear about your father, I
hope all is well.
Before we move onto the facts of the parking incident itself,
some process. The fact you were abroad for the times stated is
unlikely to have much bearing on the case, other than the fact
you are now beyond UKPC's arbitrary appeal window - this means
they won't consider any appeals, nor provide a POPLA code, but
this is not the end of the world. Ignore the debt collectors,
you should not engage with them at all. File but ignore their
letters. You need to keep an eye out for anything that is marked
as a 'Letter Before Claim' or similar, which will come from
UKPC's solicitors/legal firm. UKPC do tend to issue a lot of
claims - another thing they (or more accurately their chosen law
firm DCB Legal) tend to do, if the matter is defended, is
discontinue the claims before they ever reach a courtroom. This
thread from the MSE Forum makes for interesting reading: DCB
LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS
HTML https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations.<br
/>Usual caveat that past performance is not always a reliable
indicator of future conduct, but you'll see there's been a
definite pattern.
Now, onto the incident. You mention that it is your mother's
vehicle, but that you are the registered keeper?
--- Quote from: Keeper link ---
>
> Car Park Signage
>
> I have attached photos of the car park signage. I'm not sure
exactly which bay the driver parked in but you can see from the
signs that they may not be within visibility or regulatory
regulations (you will know better than me!). There's one more
sign I can try and add a photo of for location, it was on a gate
that was open so that it wasn't really visible (it's the actual
notice in the last photo).
>
--- End Quote ---
That signage looks shoddy for a number of reasons - is there a
sign at the entrance? The £100 charge isn't particularly
prominent for a start, such a charge should be clearly brought
to the motorists attention. The placement also looks poor, the
signage should be 'there to be seen' - this is compounded if
there is no sign at the entrance. There's also a potential
argument that the signage is forbidding, as it doesn't make an
offer to those without a permit to park on certain terms.
#Post#: 23126--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK - No Permit - Hook Rise, Chessington
DIR By: Keeper
Date: May 19, 2024, 6:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> First things first, I'm very sorry to hear about your father,
I hope all is well.
>
> Before we move onto the facts of the parking incident itself,
some process. The fact you were abroad for the times stated is
unlikely to have much bearing on the case, other than the fact
you are now beyond UKPC's arbitrary appeal window - this means
they won't consider any appeals, nor provide a POPLA code, but
this is not the end of the world. Ignore the debt collectors,
you should not engage with them at all. File but ignore their
letters. You need to keep an eye out for anything that is marked
as a 'Letter Before Claim' or similar, which will come from
UKPC's solicitors/legal firm. UKPC do tend to issue a lot of
claims - another thing they (or more accurately their chosen law
firm DCB Legal) tend to do, if the matter is defended, is
discontinue the claims before they ever reach a courtroom. This
thread from the MSE Forum makes for interesting reading: DCB
LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS
HTML https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations.<br
/>Usual caveat that past performance is not always a reliable
indicator of future conduct, but you'll see there's been a
definite pattern.
>
> Now, onto the incident. You mention that it is your mother's
vehicle, but that you are the registered keeper?
>
> [quote author=Keeper link=topic=1947.msg23085#msg23085
date=1716144866]
> Car Park Signage
>
> I have attached photos of the car park signage. I'm not sure
exactly which bay the driver parked in but you can see from the
signs that they may not be within visibility or regulatory
regulations (you will know better than me!). There's one more
sign I can try and add a photo of for location, it was on a gate
that was open so that it wasn't really visible (it's the actual
notice in the last photo).
>
--- End Quote ---
That signage looks shoddy for a number of reasons - is there a
sign at the entrance? The £100 charge isn't particularly
prominent for a start, such a charge should be clearly brought
to the motorists attention. The placement also looks poor, the
signage should be 'there to be seen' - this is compounded if
there is no sign at the entrance. There's also a potential
argument that the signage is forbidding, as it doesn't make an
offer to those without a permit to park on certain terms.
[/quote]
Many thanks, my father is now well and returned to the UK
yesterday - he got very lucky with early treatment. Appreciate
it!
In response:
1. Apologies, my poor punctuation. Previous incident, resolved
years ago by helpful members of another forum, was my mother's
car. I didn't know about this place at the time! This case
relates to my vehicle.
2. Here
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/z8QLN3VTDdWSunPZ8
is a street view of
the space. You'll see the sign by White Spider on the left,
since the driver was last there and since the street view car
went around, the days and times have been taped over, so indeed
one without a permit is simply forbidden to park in those spaces
immediately past the grey gate at any time, under any terms. The
sign you can read in my photos is the one (presumably updated
since street view) on the left hand gate.
3. Really interesting info, thanks. Typically would a claim be
for the amount on the charge plus some sort of admin fee? Seeing
as if I were to want to pay now, it would be £170, bearing in
mind that it's not possible to claim costs in the small claims
court, it would seem I have nothing to lose, as long as I don't
miss the initial pre-claim correspondence.
4. Understood on not corresponding with debt collection agency.
Is there any sense in writing to UKPC explaining that I was out
of the country and that I wish to contest the charge? Whilst I
understand the answer is probably no, my question is more if
this may help me in the future if I have taken this step.
Many thanks again
#Post#: 23129--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK - No Permit - Hook Rise, Chessington
DIR By: b789
Date: May 19, 2024, 7:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
One point that may come in useful if/when this progresses to a
claim, which is highly likely but will not result in anything
other than a discontinuation before a hearing if you follow all
the advice. You say the driver visited the location on 26th
March and it was a location they had visited previously but had
no or different restrictions back then. Was the previous visit
more or less than 4 months previously?
If the last previous visit was less than 4 months previously,
were there any prominent signs indicating that the terms of
parking had been changed? If so, they have breached their own
ATA, the BPA, Code of Practice rule 19.10 which states:
--- Quote ---
> Material change - notices
>
> Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms
and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a
motorist entering controlled land that is or has been open for
public parking, you must place additional (temporary) notices at
the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from
the date of the change making it clear that new terms and
conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who might
be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur
parking charges.
--- End Quote ---
Whilst some may advocate trying to appeal to the better nature
of the customer service ethos of UKPC and try and mitigate the
circumstance so that they reset the clock and let you appeal, it
is just going to be a waste of time and effort. There are some
rules in the CoP that could be argued that they should re-issue
the PCN and start the clock but, to be honest, they won’t.
Whilst we haven’t yet seen both sides of the NtK (suitably
redacted but with all dates showing) there is likely to be
another flaw or two in it that will force them to make the claim
under PoFA against the keeper. However, there is now an updated
item to add to any robust defence to request that the claim is
dismissed at the allocation stage as they will be in breach of
several CPRs and PoFA. We will cross that bridge if and when we
need to. For now, the keeper must not reveal the identity of the
driver.
#Post#: 23479--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK - No Permit - Hook Rise, Chessington
DIR By: Keeper
Date: May 22, 2024, 2:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> One point that may come in useful if/when this progresses to a
claim, which is highly likely but will not result in anything
other than a discontinuation before a hearing if you follow all
the advice. You say the driver visited the location on 26th
March and it was a location they had visited previously but had
no or different restrictions back then. Was the previous visit
more or less than 4 months previously?
>
> If the last previous visit was less than 4 months previously,
were there any prominent signs indicating that the terms of
parking had been changed? If so, they have breached their own
ATA, the BPA, Code of Practice rule 19.10 which states:
>
> [quote]Material change - notices
>
> Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms
and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a
motorist entering controlled land that is or has been open for
public parking, you must place additional (temporary) notices at
the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from
the date of the change making it clear that new terms and
conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who might
be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur
parking charges.
--- End Quote ---
Whilst some may advocate trying to appeal to the better nature
of the customer service ethos of UKPC and try and mitigate the
circumstance so that they reset the clock and let you appeal, it
is just going to be a waste of time and effort. There are some
rules in the CoP that could be argued that they should re-issue
the PCN and start the clock but, to be honest, they won’t.
Whilst we haven’t yet seen both sides of the NtK (suitably
redacted but with all dates showing) there is likely to be
another flaw or two in it that will force them to make the claim
under PoFA against the keeper. However, there is now an updated
item to add to any robust defence to request that the claim is
dismissed at the allocation stage as they will be in breach of
several CPRs and PoFA. We will cross that bridge if and when we
need to. For now, the keeper must not reveal the identity of the
driver.
[/quote]
1. Honestly not sure when signage changed - driver's last visit
was probably in the last 4 months but the driver may have used
their small private car park owned by the climbing centre - the
area where the notice has been served for is outside the
climbing centre but formerly okay to park there during certain
hours. I will call the climbing centre to find out when rules
changed...
2. Full NTK with both sides attached to original post
3. I hear you on an appeal - thanks for this info!
#Post#: 23481--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK - No Permit - Hook Rise, Chessington
DIR By: b789
Date: May 22, 2024, 2:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A Quick Look at the NtK shows PoFA failure to specify any
“period of parking” in breach of 9(2)(a) and (c ). Also, the
time stamp in the photo on the NtK appears to have been cropped
which is a failure of BPA CoP 21.5a.
#Post#: 23639--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK - No Permit - Hook Rise, Chessington
DIR By: Keeper
Date: May 23, 2024, 2:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> A Quick Look at the NtK shows PoFA failure to specify any
“period of parking” in breach of 9(2)(a) and (c ). Also, the
time stamp in the photo on the NtK appears to have been cropped
which is a failure of BPA CoP 21.5a.
>
--- End Quote ---
Many thanks for checking. Does this mean that your voice echoes
the advice above to do nothing? Or should I send something to
UKPC saying highlighting non-compliance with PoFA?
#Post#: 23649--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK - No Permit - Hook Rise, Chessington
DIR By: b789
Date: May 23, 2024, 5:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There are a couple of things you should be doing for now. Plan A
is always the easiest to get these cancelled is to get the
landowner to tell their agent to cancel it. You can continue
with Plan A right up until the commencement of Plan D.
What did the business you were visiting at the time have to say
about their patrons being invoiced for £100 for the privilege?
What was the date the original NtK was issued? Was it 27th March
or earlier?
Can you evidence that you were out of the country between the
dates of the first NtK (plus 2 working days) and the 28th day
after that? If so, you can complain (not appeal) to UKPC and
request that they reissue the original NtK and restart the
clock, thus allowing you to appeal. There is clause in the
latest edition of the BPA CoP 23.8 that states they must reissue
and restart the process if you can evidence that you (the
addressee) could not have appealed within the original 28 day
window. If you can and they don’t, a complaint to the BPA is in
order.
Apart from the above, all you can do for now is continue with
Plan A and wait or the ridiculous but useless debt collector
letters. If, or more likely when, you receive a real Letter of
Claim, either directly from UKPC themselves or DCB Legal (not
anything from DCB Ltd), then come back for advice on how to
proceed.
A claim is the start of Plan D and is easily dealt with and will
end up with an eventual discontinuation.
#Post#: 23815--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK - No Permit - Hook Rise, Chessington
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 24, 2024, 4:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member], why do you think the term 'period of
parking' cannot be construed as a moment in time when the nature
of the contravention does not require proof of the breach to be
anything other than the vehicle was in situ. From the PPC's
perspective 1 second is the same as 30 minutes, but from the
keeper's perspective a consideration period would apply.
And for the OP, what was the driver up to on the site? Your
account does not state that the driver was actually a patron of
any business on the site...'the area where the notice has been
served for is outside the climbing centre but formerly okay to
park there during certain hours.'
Before we possibly go off in the wrong direction, let's clarify
key issues pl.
#Post#: 23831--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC NTK - No Permit - Hook Rise, Chessington
DIR By: b789
Date: May 24, 2024, 6:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> [member=26]b789[/member], why do you think the term 'period of
parking' cannot be construed as a moment in time when the nature
of the contravention does not require proof of the breach to be
anything other than the vehicle was in situ. From the PPC's
perspective 1 second is the same as 30 minutes, but from the
keeper's perspective a consideration period would apply.
>
--- End Quote ---
The “period of parking” argument has been won at POPLA and at
court several times. Unfortunately, I don’t have those POPLA
appeals to hand at the moment.
Whilst not yet enacted, the incoming statutory Code of Practice
defines "2.24 parking period" as:
"the length of time that a vehicle has been parked, i.e. left
stationary otherwise than in the course of driving, after any
relevant consideration period has expired (excluding instances
where the driver has stopped to enable passengers to leave or
enter the vehicle). This is not the period between a vehicle
being recorded as entering and departing controlled land."
The following has been used successfully in the past:
“POFA paragraph 9(2)(a) says that a NTK must specify 'the period
of parking to which the notice relates' The operator's purported
NTK does not specify the period of parking to which the NTK
relates as a period has a start and an end and the operator's
purported NTK specifies only a single point in time. This
failure alone renders the charge unenforceable against the
keeper.”
The above, believe it or not, was for an IAS appeal and the
following definition is what won it:
“Paragraph 16.1 of the IPC's Code of Practice says 'Where a
Parking Charge is issued Notices must comply with the applicable
requirements as set out in Schedule 3'. Schedule 3 echoes the
POFA requirement for a period of parking to be specified in the
NTK and refers to an example NTK in Appendix 5 where the
following form of words is prescribed:
Period of Parking:
From: (Date and Time of entry)
To: (Date and Time of Exit)”
When I have time, I will try and find more cases. However,
“period of parking” is a valid argument if presented properly as
it is one more point to use in any appeal or defence to show
non-compliance with the requirements of PoFA. Hence, the OP
should not throw away the no keeper liability option as an
appeal or defence argument by revealing the identity of the
driver.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page