DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 66713--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS sent penalty charge for parking in my own space
DIR By: rjcbooth666
Date: April 12, 2025, 4:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If it helps, this is the complaints procedure for RMG, which
appears to be part of Placed for People:
-----
STATEMENT OF INTENT
All RMG customers on developments RMG manages for Places for
People will
have their complaints dealt with under Places for People’s
complaints process
which the Housing Ombudsman oversees.
Complaints may include:
Delays or failure to provide a service
Dissatisfaction with our policies and procedures
Perceived unhelpful behaviour or treatment by staff or
contractors
Failure to achieve our published standards
However, our complaints process is not suitable for determining
disputes that
relate to legal obligations between you and our clients or legal
obligations
between us and our clients.
HOW DO I MAKE A FORMAL COMPLAINT?
If your complaint is not resolved informally, and you feel that
you need to take the
matter further and raise a formal complaint, please write to the
address below
setting out your concerns together with copies of any
documentation that will
help us to investigate.
Correspondence Address:
RMG House
Essex Road
Hoddesdon
Hertfordshire
EN11 0DR
Email Address: Customerservice@rmguk.com
PUT IT RIGHT
When you let us know that you have had a problem with our
service, our priority
is to ‘Put It Right’ for you. If the person taking the complaint
can ‘Put It Right’ for
you within 24 hours, we will consider your complaint as
resolved.
STAGE 1
Places for People’s objective to resolve your complaint to your
satisfaction within
this first stage of the formal complaints procedure. The
appropriate management
team will work to address all of your concerns, provide detailed
explanation to the
matters raised and, where necessary, offer appropriate
resolution. At Stage 1,
complaint correspondence will be acknowledged within 5 working
days of
receipt. To allow time for detailed investigation, we will aim
to provide a response
within 10 working days.
PLACES FOR PEOPLE (PFP)
COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
STAGE 2
In the event that you feel the matter needs to be taken further,
then upon your
request the complaint will proceed to Stage 2. Places for People
will review your
complaint and provide the final viewpoint and any offer made.
Places for People
will acknowledge your complaint within 5 working days of receipt
and will aim to
provide a response within 20 working days.
Places for People is a member of the Housing Ombudsman. As a
Places for
People customer if you are still not satisfied following Stage 2
you can refer your
complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
The Housing Ombudsman Service is an independent organisation
that
investigates complaints. They are not an advocacy or support
service (but there
are other organisations who can help you with advocacy or
support)
You can ask the Housing Ombudsman Service to look at your
complaint if:
You have gone all the way through Places for People’s complaints
handling
procedure
It is less than 12 months after you became aware of the matter
you want to
complain about; and
The matter has not been (and is not being) considered in court
The Housing Ombudsman Service will ask you to complete a
complaint form
and provide a copy of our final response to your complaint.
You can do this online at:
www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/residents/make-a-complaint
Or call them on: Free phone 0300 111 3000
You may wish to get independent support or advocacy to help you
progress your
complaint.
The Housing Ombudsman Service contact details are:
Housing Ombudsman Service
PO Box 152
Liverpool
L33 7WQ
#Post#: 66730--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS sent penalty charge for parking in my own space
DIR By: b789
Date: April 12, 2025, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
RMG’s Stage 1 response fails to engage with the central legal
point of your complaint: that you have a leasehold right to park
in your space which cannot be overridden by UKCPS or RMG’s
instructions to them.
Their response rests on:
[indent]• The age of the PCN, not the validity of the PCN.
• An assumption that failure to appeal at the time equals
forfeiture of rights.
• A suggestion that you should now negotiate with a debt
collector rather than RMG addressing its own agent's
actions.[/indent]
These are inadequate and misrepresent their responsibility as
principal to UKCPS's agency.
Below is a Stage 2 escalation letter, reinforcing your position
and requesting a proper legal response. It also sets out that if
not resolved, you will escalate to the Housing Ombudsman.
--- Quote ---
> Complaints Department
> Residential Management Group
> RMG House
> Essex Road
> Hoddesdon
> EN11 0DR
>
> [Date]
>
> By email: customerservice@rmguk.com
>
> Subject: Escalation to Stage 2 – Formal Complaint Ref:
04108974
>
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> I am writing to request escalation of my formal complaint
(Ref: 04108974) to Stage 2 of the Places for People complaints
procedure.
>
> I remain dissatisfied with the Stage 1 response from Jane
Gillings, which wholly fails to address the substance of my
complaint—namely, that UKCPS, acting under a contract with RMG,
issued a Parking Charge Notice to me despite the fact that I was
parked in my own allocated bay, exercising a leasehold right.
>
> As explained previously:
>
> [indent]• I am the leaseholder of Flat [flat No.] with an
associated right to park in bay [bay No.], which forms part of
the demised or common areas.
> • This leasehold right to park is not conditional upon the
display of a permit or compliance with any third-party terms
imposed by UKCPS.
> • The introduction of a permit scheme or third-party
enforcement regime cannot override my legal rights without
either my written consent or an application to the First-tier
Tribunal under s.37(5) of the Landlord and Tenant Act
1987.[/indent]
>
> Instead of engaging with these legal issues, the Stage 1
response merely repeats UKCPS's internal rules and suggests I
take the matter up with Moorgate Legal. This is both
inappropriate and unsatisfactory. UKCPS are your appointed
contractor, and RMG remains responsible for their actions on
your behalf.
>
> I also note and object to your Property Manager’s earlier
comment that UKCPS issues charges “irrespective of entitlement
to park.” This statement demonstrates either a clear
misunderstanding of leaseholder rights or a deliberate disregard
for them. If RMG does not recognise or protect leaseholder
rights granted under a lease, this represents a fundamental
failure in property management standards.
>
> I must again insist on the following:
>
> [indent]1. That RMG confirm, in writing, that my allocated
parking space is not and was never subject to enforcement by
UKCPS;
> 2. That RMG issue a clear instruction to UKCPS (and any
subsequent parties, including Moorgate Legal) that this PCN is
invalid and must be withdrawn;
> 3. That RMG provide an explanation as to why no such
instruction was issued earlier despite being made aware of my
leasehold rights;
> 4. That RMG acknowledge that my rights under the lease cannot
be varied without due process under the Landlord and Tenant Act
1987 and confirm no such variation has occurred.[/indent]
>
> If RMG/Places for People cannot or will not resolve this
matter at Stage 2, I will have no choice but to refer the matter
to the Housing Ombudsman Service, on the basis that your agents’
actions have interfered with my quiet enjoyment of the property
and subjected me to avoidable and unlawful enforcement action.
>
> I look forward to your detailed response within 20 working
days as per your published complaints procedure.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 67039--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS sent penalty charge for parking in my own space
DIR By: rjcbooth666
Date: April 14, 2025, 9:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you again. I have sent the stage 2 escalation email.
#Post#: 67067--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS sent penalty charge for parking in my own space
DIR By: Charitynjw
Date: April 14, 2025, 10:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Derogation from grant is another useful phrase. ;)
#Post#: 69205--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS sent penalty charge for parking in my own space
DIR By: rjcbooth666
Date: April 29, 2025, 8:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for all your help so far. Here's an update. I sent the
'escalation to stage 2' email on April 14. I received an
acknowledgement of receipt email on April 17. This offered to
provide me with a response within 20 working days.
Meanwhile I received another letter from Moorside Legal dated
April 8. It is a Letter of Claim giving me 30 days to return the
reply form. One of the options on the form is to Dispute the
debt.
I've attached a scan. Please could you offer me more advice on
my next steps.
Thanks as always.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 69266--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS sent penalty charge for parking in my own space
DIR By: b789
Date: April 29, 2025, 1:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You only need to keep the LoC. You can dispose of all the forms
that came with it. You don't give these bottom-dwelling
incompetents any personal information.
Respond as follows by email to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC
yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Re: Letter of Claim dated 8th April 2025
>
> I refer to your Letter of Claim, your ref: 10263288
>
> I confirm that my address for service at this time is as
follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from
your records to ensure compliance with data protection
obligations:
>
> [YOUR ADDRESS]
>
> Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court
proceedings will be robustly defended.
>
> I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive
and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the
principles established by the Government, who described such
practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain
from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding
this issue.
>
> Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require
specific answers to the following questions:
>
> [indent]1. Does the additional £70 represent what you describe
as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or
inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I,
as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT
liability.
>
> 2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge
Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of
contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported
parking contract?[/indent]
>
> I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions
with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the
implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while
simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client
– with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations
due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions
about the legality and ethics of your practices.
>
> I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this
matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues
will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust
defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> 
[YOUR NAME]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 69349--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS sent penalty charge for parking in my own space
DIR By: rjcbooth666
Date: April 30, 2025, 6:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. I've sent that email.
Just to confirm, I should keep the LoC but at this stage I do
not return the reply form outlining the reasons that I dispute
the claim ie my car being legally parked in my own parking
space. Is that correct?
Thanks
#Post#: 69352--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS sent penalty charge for parking in my own space
DIR By: b789
Date: April 30, 2025, 6:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
All the forms that came with the LoC can be chucked in the bin.
#Post#: 72909--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS sent penalty charge for parking in my own space
DIR By: rjcbooth666
Date: May 23, 2025, 5:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi again
So I sent the email exactly as directed and I have just received
the reply below. I don't know where they get the idea that I am
seeking debt advice! They don't give up these parasites, do
they? Please could you advise me on my next move. Your help is
so appreciated.
Dear ...
Our reference: 10263288
Our client: UKCPS Ltd
We write further to your recent email.
Our answers to your questions are as follows:
The additional charge which has been levied on your Parking
Charge of £70 is the amount set out in both the British Parking
Association and International Parking Community Codes of
Practice as the amount which may be added to a Parking Charge
when a Parking Charge remains unpaid and when further recovery
is required. Our Client adheres to the ATA’s Code of Practice.
The £70 does not represent the cost of recovery but is a
reasonable amount in relation to the Parking Charge amount, in
order to encourage early payment of the Parking Charge without
the need for debt recovery. It is a fair amount set by our
Client’s government-approved Accredited Trade Association Code
of Practice. There are however also costs incurred by our client
in relation to debt recovery services.
By entering and parking the vehicle on our client's private
land, you agreed to enter into a contract with our client and to
be bound by the terms and conditions of that contract. The terms
and conditions were clearly displayed at the entrance and in
prominent places within the car park. Due to your failure to
comply with the terms and conditions, our client has issued the
PCN therefore if we are instructed to issue a claim the reason
would be for Unpaid parking charges/ breach of contract.
We have noted on your account you are seeking debt advice and
have placed the matter on hold for 30-days. If you fail to make
payment after the 30-day period has lapsed, we may be instructed
to issue a County Court Claim against you. 
You may wish to seek independent legal advice.
Yours sincerely
Moorside Legal
#Post#: 72941--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS sent penalty charge for parking in my own space
DIR By: b789
Date: May 23, 2025, 9:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They are a firm of utter incompetent wannabe supposed legals. I
suggest you respond with the following and CC in info@ukcps.net
and yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Re: Your Reference 10263288 – UKCPS Ltd
> Letter of Claim dated 8 April 2025
>
> I write in response to your email reply following my initial
letter regarding the above matter. I now address the contents of
your reply in full and set out further concerns with the conduct
of this matter.
>
> 1. Procedural Background
>
> Your Letter of Claim dated 8 April 2025 made a vague demand in
relation to an alleged parking charge, citing a total sum of
£170. In response, I wrote to you confirming:
>
> [indent]• That the debt is denied;
> • That my address for service should be updated;
> • That the £70 surcharge appeared to be unjustified and
potentially unlawful;
> • That I required clarification on whether the PCN sum was
being claimed as damages or as consideration for a contract;
> • That boilerplate responses would not be accepted.[/indent]
>
> In your reply, you attempted to justify the additional £70 by
reference to BPA and IPC Codes of Practice, asserting it was not
a cost of recovery but a “reasonable amount” intended to
encourage early payment. You claimed your client was pursuing a
claim for unpaid parking charges due to a breach of contract.
You also confirmed that you had placed the matter on hold for 30
days on the assumption that I was seeking debt advice.
>
> Let me now make it absolutely clear that your Letter Before
Claim was non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt
Claims (PAPDC), and that your response has failed to correct or
address these breaches.
>
> 2. Pre-Action Protocol Breaches
>
> Your Letter of Claim contained insufficient detail of the
claim and failed to include copies of evidence your client
relies upon. This is a breach of:
>
> [indent]• PAPDC paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1, 5.2
> • Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct, paragraphs 6(a) and
6(c)[/indent]
>
> I remind you that the Protocol is binding on all parties,
including your client, a serial issuer of consumer claims. Your
failure to comply with these pre-action duties is unacceptable.
>
> 3. Request for Disclosure and Clarification
>
> Until your client complies with their obligations under the
PAPDC, I cannot consider my position or respond substantively to
the alleged claim. I therefore require the following information
and documents under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice
Direction:
>
> [indent]1. An explanation of the cause of action.
> 2. Whether your client is pursuing me as driver or registered
keeper.
> 3. Whether your client relies on Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012.
> 4. Details of the alleged contravention: date, time, duration,
and the calculation of the total sum claimed.
> 5. If the claim is for breach of contract: the date of the
contract, parties, and a copy of the alleged contract.
> 6. Photographic evidence showing the vehicle allegedly in
breach.
> 7. If alleging trespass: full particulars and supporting
authority.
> 8. A copy of the contract with the landowner granting
authority to litigate (as required by the Private Parking Single
Code of Practice).
> 9. A site plan showing sign placement.
> 10. Photographs of signage (including font size and mounting
height) at the time of the alleged contravention.
> 11. A breakdown of the £170: original PCN sum, interest, admin
or other charges.
> 12. Clarification: is the £70 surcharge inclusive or exclusive
of VAT? If inclusive, why am I as an alleged debtor being asked
to pay your client’s VAT liability?
> 13. Clarification: is the principal PCN sum alleged to be
damages or consideration for a parking contract?[/indent]
>
> I remind you again that failure to provide this information
may lead to an application to stay proceedings, in line with
authorities such as:
>
> [indent]• Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012]
EWHC 3529 (Ch)
> • Daejan Investments Ltd v Park West Club Ltd [2003] EWHC 2872
> • Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd &
Peter Dann Ltd [2007] EWHC 855 (TCC)[/indent]
>
> 4. Registered Keeper Position – VCS v Edward (2023)
>
> I confirm that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I
decline to name the driver. As you are fully aware, there is no
legal presumption in English law that the keeper of a vehicle
was its driver.
>
> I refer you to the persuasive appellate reasoning in Vehicle
Control Services Ltd v Ian Mark Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C]
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yvxek3kfwtb3qent3lj6y/VCS-Limited-v-Ian-Mark-Edward-H0KF6C9C.pdf?rlkey=niecohfdtj1n1ysh5prbsp52p&e=1&dl=0,<br
/>in which the judge confirmed this principle.
>
> Your client cannot pursue me as the driver without evidence,
and any reliance on a presumption of driver identity is
misplaced and contrary to settled authority.
>
> 5. £70 Surcharge – VAT and Consumer Protection Concerns
>
> Your explanation of the £70 surcharge as an “incentive” to pay
early is disingenuous. This sum is clearly:
>
> [indent]• Not a core term of any contract;
> • Not proportionate as a pre-estimate of loss;
> • Likely to be unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act
2015.[/indent]
>
> You have not answered my legitimate question about whether the
£70 is VAT inclusive. I repeat: if the principal PCN is claimed
as VAT-exempt but the £70 includes VAT, then your client’s
approach raises serious concerns of potential VAT evasion, which
I reserve the right to report to HMRC.
>
> 6. Next Steps
>
> As supposed solicitors, you should be well aware that these
protocols and practice directions bind all potential litigants,
regardless of the size or type of claim. Their stated purpose is
to assist parties in understanding the claim, taking stock of
their positions, and potentially resolving the dispute without
recourse to litigation. It is frankly embarrassing that a
regulated firm of solicitors would issue such a vague,
unevidenced and non-compliant Letter of Claim.
>
> I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter of Claim
which fully complies with paragraph 3.1(a) of the PAPDC, I will
consider my position and respond formally within 30 days as
required by the Protocol.
>
> Please confirm that your client will not issue a claim until
they have fully complied with their obligations under the
Pre-Action Protocol. If a claim is issued prematurely, I will
seek:
>
> [indent]• An immediate stay of proceedings under Practice
Direction paragraph 15(b);
> • Sanctions and costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g);
> • Further disclosure in line with the above.[/indent]
>
> Should your client proceed to issue proceedings in defiance of
these requests and without proper disclosure, I will assert a
robust defence and may also consider a counterclaim for
unreasonable behaviour.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Full Name]
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page