Source: https://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/legal-forums/motoring-parking/ppc-s-parking-charge-notices/parking-settled-successful-cases/76692-won-parking-charge-from-ukpc-post-beavis
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 07:18:55+00:00

Document:
We were given a parking charge by UKPC when the car was parked at Millennium Retail Park, Greenwich, London at 15:19 on 25 November 2015. The charge was because the car was not parked within the markings of the bay or space.
The charge was given to the driver on the windscreen and is £100 with a reduced charge of £60 if paid within 14 days.
We took no action and on 29 December, a notice to keeper was sent through the post demanding the payment of £100.
I appealed to UKPC on 9th January as the registered keeper and raised the usual challenge of signs not well displayed, charge is unreasonably high, the POFA (liability to keeper), who is the creditor, demanded the contract between UKPC and the landowner and the POPLA reference if the appeal is turned down.
UKPC responded on 18th January with the attached letter claiming the Parking Charge was correctly issued and demanded a payment of £60 within 35 days and will raise the charge to £100 thereafter.
The other challenge is to request to provide contractual details to substantiate their right to enter into contracts with the drivers. And this will only be successful if UKPC for whatever reason is not able to produce this evidence.
So do I read it that the chance for POPLA to allow this appeal is slim.
I know POPLA decision is not binding as far as the keeper is concerned.
Any advice would be much appreciated ...!!!
That's what they like folk to believe. Just because GPEOL is out the window in some cases doesn't mean you'll lose. Keeper liability is huge too and lack of contract is also a decent weapon.
According to popla, GPEOL cases are on hold until they consider the verdict. I think they're more concerned with the time needing to be specified and using Beavis as an excuse.
so what should I do if want to appeal to POPLA ?
Give me the info so i can pick the useful screw ups apart.
Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space.
A parking charge of £100 is outstanding & payable within 28 days of the date of this parking ticket. A reduced charge of £60.00 is payable if payment is received within 14 days of the date of this parking ticket. If payment is received within 14 days the reduced charge will be accepted in full settlement. Details of how to make payment are overleaf.
Notice to keeper is attached.
also a photo of the UKPC display at the car park.
Looking at your notice to keeper there would seem to be a few items missing that are required by POFA to hold the keeper liable. Items like period of parking. Look at pragraph 8 and see if everything that should be there is there.
would that comply with the period of parking ... as in my case, it was not an overstay - rather it was not parking within the marked bay ... so is period of parking relevant and can I use this omission as a challenge ... you said a few things are missing - what else ?
I'll have a look tomorrow later on after work.
UKPC often fail at POPLA due to failing show evidence of authority to manage the land, so throw that in.
Also, unlike the parkingeye signs in the Beavis case, which had the £85 charge in a huge font, I can't see where the £100 charge is at all on your sign. I would therefore put POPLA on the spot and use the Beavis case to your advantage.
ParkingEye v Beavis established that the penalty law is in play for parking charges and that a charge of £85 was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. It would not be a penalty or unfair consumer contract however if the charge was clearly brought to the attention of the motorist. In the Beavis case this was achieved by the £85 charge being in the largest font on the sign and in contrasting colours. I submit a copy as evidence.
In contrast the £100 charge here is buried in the small print. As ParkingEye v Beavis is binding case law I submit the charge must be found to be either a penalty or an unfair consumer charge. I refer to the following paragraphs of the judgment to support this.
probably the third size down with "5 hours maximum stay" being the largest, "Terms of parking apply at all times" second size down followed by the £100 parking charge.
More importantly, the conditions that need to be complied are of the smallest font size ...in this case "All vehicles must be parked only within marked bay"
what about GEPOL - is it worth including ?
All times are GMT. This page was generated at 07:18:AM.

References: UKPC 
 UKPC 
 UKPC 

UKPC 
 UKPC 
 UKPC 

UKPC