DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 46150--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC, not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or
space, Metrocentre Gateshead
DIR By: Fowler1981
Date: November 19, 2024, 4:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A reply from UKPC has now been received. What would be the next
step please?
HTML https://i.imgur.com/x6dpFr8.jpeg
#Post#: 46167--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC, not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or
space, Metrocentre Gateshead
DIR By: b789
Date: November 19, 2024, 6:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's laughable how they are fishing for information they now
need because of their own incompetence. You can simply ignore
that letter and wait for their appeal rejection and a POPLA code
or you could have a bit of fun with them and respond with the
following, which actually gives them the chance to save their
POPLA fee:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Appeals Department,
>
> Thank you for your letter dated 14 November 2024 regarding
Parking Charge Reference [Reference]. Unless there is a
competent adult there that can assist you, I will explain why I
will not be acceding to your request for the "full name and
address of the driver." Asking for information that I am under
no legal obligation to provide is, to put it kindly, ambitious.
>
> As I already pointed out in my original appeal, I am appealing
as the Hirer of the vehicle, and Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 does not require me to identify the driver.
Attempting to hold me liable without UKPC fully complying with
all the requirements of Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 says a lot
about what appears to be gross incompetence by your company. You
might want to review the legislation to avoid similar errors in
future.
>
> Your failure to meet the statutory requirements, including the
omission of key information and documents specified under
Paragraphs 13(2) and 14(5), means that liability for this charge
cannot be transferred to me as the Hirer. It seems you are now
fishing for information in an attempt to correct these
oversights. Sadly, for you, this isn't how the law works.
>
> Additionally, should you choose to reject this appeal, you
will be doing nothing more than confirming your own
incompetence. I will immediately appeal to POPLA, where you have
absolutely no chance of success due to your repeated failures to
comply with the law. All you will achieve is wasting your money
on the POPLA fee in the process.
>
> I suggest that you consider passing this response to an adult
who can actually deal with it properly and perhaps even
comprehend why you have no hope at POPLA. Spouting Schedule 4 of
the Protection of Freedoms Act is all very well, but it means
absolutely nothing if you have not complied with all the
statutory requirements. I recommend researching Paragraphs 13
and 14, doing your homework, and understanding why your Notice
to Hirer is not compliant. Until then, your continued insistence
on pursuing this matter borders on comedic and says a lot about
the levels of intellect within UKPC.
>
> Since the outcome here is obvious, I suggest saving us both
time and effort by cancelling this parking charge immediately.
Should the intellectual malnourishment prevail and you refuse, I
look forward to receiving a POPLA code so an independent appeals
assessor can confirm what you clearly cannot grasp.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 46236--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC, not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or
space, Metrocentre Gateshead
DIR By: Fowler1981
Date: November 19, 2024, 11:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Haha, I’ll have that sent them as the reply then 🤣
#Post#: 50952--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC, not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or
space, Metrocentre Gateshead
DIR By: Fowler1981
Date: December 24, 2024, 6:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They have taken some time but finally responded with:
Thank you for your recent correspondence in relation to parking
charge reference *************.
To assist us in making a decision regarding your appeal, please
confirm the full name and address of the driver to our Appeals
Department within seven days of the date of this letter.
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 discusses the
recovery of unpaid parking charges. It allows parking operators
to hold the registered keeper liable to pay unpaid parking
charges if the operator has not been provided the name and a
serviceable address of the driver.
This information may be confirmed by submitting another appeal
on our website at www.ukpcappeals.co.uk, or by post to the
address overleaf. Please ensure that if writing to us by post
that you include the parking charge reference number and vehicle
registration.
Failure to provide this information will give us no alternative
other than to make our final decision based on the previous
information received. At this stage a POPLA verification code
will be provided.
The parking charge has been placed on hold whilst under appeal
and may be settled in full at the current PCN rate of £60.00.
#Post#: 50955--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC, not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or
space, Metrocentre Gateshead
DIR By: Fowler1981
Date: December 24, 2024, 6:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In fact, I've just noticed it's exactly the same as their
previous response
#Post#: 50977--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC, not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or
space, Metrocentre Gateshead
DIR By: b789
Date: December 24, 2024, 11:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a suitable response you can email back to them:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Appeals Department,
>
> Thank you for your latest correspondence regarding Parking
Charge Reference [Reference]. I see that you have once again
chosen to ignore the clear points raised in my previous response
and, instead, sent yet another request for the “full name and
address of the driver.” This is beginning to feel like an
exercise in futility.
>
> In my original response, I advised you to pass the matter to a
competent adult for proper handling. If this most recent letter
is indeed the result of having done so, then I must express my
deep concern. It would appear that what UKPC considers
"competent" falls well below even the most generous definition
of sub-standard.
>
> Allow me to reiterate what I stated previously, as it seems to
have escaped your comprehension: as the Hirer of the vehicle, I
am under no legal obligation to provide the information you are
requesting. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, upon which you
seem to rely without fully understanding it, does not compel me
to identify the driver. Instead, it requires you to meet strict
statutory requirements to transfer liability to the Hirer. You
have failed to do so.
>
> For your benefit—and in the hope that someone at UKPC might
eventually grasp this—I will again highlight your key failures
under Schedule 4 of the Act:
>
> [indent]• You have not issued a compliant Notice to Keeper, as
required by Paragraph 13(2).
>
> • Your Notice to Hirer omits essential information and
documentation, as mandated by Paragraph 14(5).[/indent]
>
> These are not minor oversights; they are fundamental
requirements. Without fulfilling these obligations, you cannot
lawfully transfer liability to me as the Hirer. Your repeated
attempts to demand information that I am not required to provide
only highlight the glaring inadequacies in your case and,
frankly, in your understanding of the law.
>
> Should you wish to continue this charade, I expect you to
issue a POPLA verification code immediately. I am confident that
an independent adjudicator will confirm what should already be
obvious: your claim is invalid due to your failure to comply
with the statutory requirements. However, if you wish to avoid
further embarrassment (and unnecessary costs), I suggest
cancelling this charge without further delay.
>
> Your persistence in sending these nonsensical letters is
becoming tedious. Repeating the same request in the hope of a
different outcome is not a demonstration of competence or
strategy—it is simply a sign of intellectual malnourishment.
>
> In summary, I will not be providing the information you seek,
nor am I obliged to do so. Please cancel this charge or issue a
POPLA code so we can put an end to this farce. I suggest that,
moving forward, you consider investing in staff training to
avoid such glaring incompetence in future.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Full Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 51161--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC, not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or
space, Metrocentre Gateshead
DIR By: Fowler1981
Date: December 28, 2024, 4:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for that. That has now been sent to UKPC
#Post#: 54568--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC, not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or
space, Metrocentre Gateshead
DIR By: Fowler1981
Date: January 22, 2025, 11:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
UKPC have finally responded. This time it wasn't a copy and
paste from the last one. They also seem to have given up on
asking for the driver details.
Now, I'm not sure what's going on but Imgur keeps saying the
file format is not supported and my Mac won't open it when I
change the extension to .jpeg, but only this particular one,
which is strange, so I have to just copy and paste their
response.
Thank you for your recent communication concerning parking
charge reference *************.
We have carefully considered your appeal based on the
information provided and the evidence supporting the parking
charge. In this instance having completed our assessment, we
consider the parking charge to have been correctly issued, as
the vehicle was not parked correctly in the bay markings.
We appreciate that on occasion long wheel-base vehicles will
park within car parks that we manage. As such a parking charge
will not be issued, provided that the vehicle is parked
reasonably within the confines of the length of a parking bay,
or bays. However, it is our position that parking over the width
of the bay is in breach of the terms and condition set out by
the signage within the car park.
UK Parking Control signage complies fully with section 18 of the
British Parking Association Code of Practice. Entrance signage
advises motorists that terms of parking apply, and that notices
within the car park should be checked to identify the full terms
and conditions. These notices are numerous and placed
appropriately throughout the car park. It is ultimately the
responsibility of the motorist to ensure they identify the terms
of parking, and then decide whether to park their vehicle, or
leave the site if they are unable to meet those terms.
We would also contend that when a motorist enters a car park
they should be at the same level of observance as when driving
on a public road; When driving on the road, motorists are
expected to be aware of signs when travelling at up to 70mph. In
a car park, the typical driving speed is on average, much lower.
We therefore contend that it is not unreasonable to expect a
motorist to note the signs and to subsequently familiarize
themselves with these.
It is UKPC’s position that the signage installed on site is more
than sufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the
attention of any motorist, both in the clarity of information
contained within it, as well as the number of appropriately
placed signs on site, that a legally binding contract is formed
between the
motorist and the party offering that contract.
Our appeals process is now concluded, you may now choose one of
the following options:
1) Pay the parking charge detailed above at the reduced rate of
£60.00 to UK Parking Control Ltd. PLEASE REFER OVERLEAF FOR
PAYMENT OPTIONS AND ADDRESS DETAILS.
2) Make an appeal to the independent adjudicator POPLA (Parking
on Private Land Appeals) using the verification code provided
above. Please note that if you wish to appeal to POPLA, you will
lose the right to pay the discounted rate of £60.00, and should
POPLA reject your appeal you will be required to pay
the full amount of £100.00. If you opt to pay the parking charge
you will be unable to appeal with POPLA. Appeals to POPLA must
be made within twenty-eight days from the date of this letter.
To appeal with POPLA, please visit www.popla.co.uk. If you are
unable to access the internet, you may appeal by post – this
must be done using a POPLA postal form which may be obtained by
contacting POPLA by phone (0330 159 6126) or post (PO Box 1270,
Warrington, WA4 9RL).
By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman
Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative
dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with
your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their
alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish
to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.
3) If you choose to do nothing the parking charge will
automatically increase after thirty-five days from the date of
this letter to £100.00 and the matter will be passed to our debt
recovery agent, at which point you will be liable to pay an
additional charge of £70, in accordance with the terms and
conditions of parking, and further charges will be claimed if
court action is taken against you. Any unpaid court judgement
may adversely affect your credit rating.
Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department
UK Parking Control Limited
#Post#: 54578--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC, not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or
space, Metrocentre Gateshead
DIR By: b789
Date: January 22, 2025, 11:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Fowler1981 link ---
>
> I'm not sure what's going on but Imgur keeps saying the file
format is not supported and my Mac won't open it when I change
the extension to .jpeg, but only this particular one, which is
strange, so I have to just copy and paste their response.
--- End Quote ---
That's because you can't just convert a .pdf file to a .jpg and
Imgur doesn't accept PDF files either. If you're on a Mac, you'd
have to open the PDF in Preview and export each page separately
as a JPG image.
Never mind, you have show us the pathetic response from UKPC
which has completely failed to respond to the main point of the
appeal which is that you, the Hirer of the vehicle cannot be
liable for the PCN because UKPC failed to comply with the
requirements of PoFA Paragraph 14. As they have no idea of the
drivers identity, there is nothing else they can do.
You have 33 days from the date of the rejection letter, so no
rush. Remind us in a few days to help you put together a
suitable POPLA appeal.
#Post#: 54584--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC, not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or
space, Metrocentre Gateshead
DIR By: Fowler1981
Date: January 22, 2025, 12:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Will do, thank you very much.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page