UKPC want £100

[Ewan Hoosami]

One of UKPC's latest potential victims has been asked if he would like to send them £100. He asked for my help but I am a little unsure what to do.  How do you lot think I should proceed? 

 

[BGB]

Dear UKPC

PoPLA Charge Notification

The driver of vehicle LLNN LLL on dd/mm/yy at hh:mm had reasonable cause to believe that the following breach of the law occurred (details of which are clearly and prominently published)

01 Attempting to extort money by issuing a fake parking “fine”.

A PoPLA charge of £27(+VAT) is now payable to the British Parking Association Ltd.  Payment can be avoided by cancelling PoPLA Charge Notification nnnnnnnnnnnnnn within 28 days.

Yours faithfully

[Ewan Hoosami]

  

Mate that's excellent, we're not worthy.

 

If I hadn't already given them the brush off, I'd have definitely gone with that.

                        

Here's the meagre offering I sent earlier,

------------------------------------------

Neither the driver nor the registered keeper were aware of the restriction described in the notice to keeper at the time of the alleged breach. UKPC is invited to cancel the speculative invoice and any further action associated with it. UKPC may alternatively provide a valid POPLA code so that a more robust case can be submitted containing many points that have been repeatedly successful for appellants.

As a consolation prize you can click the following link where you will find a pair of nice pictures which you can print off and hang on the wall of the appeals department.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/pictures-of-week-ukpc-crisp-break.html

------------------------------------------

I should've waited.

 

[Pat Pending]

Beautiful BGB just beautiful! 

[Ewan Hoosami]

Oh dear! Day 56 has past them by so I fired this off,
Dear appeals department,

A challenge to the issue of above referenced ‘Notice to Keeper'.

I refer to your ‘Notice to Keeper’, ref 419/419/419 dated xx/xx/2015 2015  oops!     and would wish to draw your attention to the following statement contained therein:-
“………..you, the registered keeper, will, subject to the conditions of, and under the terms of, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, be liable to pay the unpaid Parking Charge”

I also refer to your correspondence acknowledgement letter, ref 419/419/419 dated xx/xx/2015, specifically the statement contained therein:-
"………….subject to the applicable conditions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of freedoms Act 2012, UK Parking Control may have the right to recover the unpaid parking charge from you,the Registered Keeper."

These statements makes it clear that UKPC Ltd is dealing with its claim in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA. The requirements of Schedule 4 are quite clear in that there must be strict compliance with allof its requirements in order to take advantage of the rights granted under that Act to pursue the registered keeper in respect of a driver’s alleged debt.

The BPA Ltd Code of Practice supports the need for strict compliance (para 21.5 refers).

UKPC Ltd has however failed to comply in regards to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4, PoFA 2012.

Whilst your ‘Notice to Keeper’ has indicated that you require a payment to be made to UKPC Ltd, there is no specific identification of the “Creditor”, who may, in law, be UKPC Ltd or some other party. PoFA requires a ‘Notice to Keeper’ to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is….”

The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of PoFA does notindicate that the “creditor" must be named, but “identified”. To “identify” a “Creditor” a parking company must do more than name that party. The registered keeper is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom he or she has allegedly contracted with.

This view is supported by the Secretary of State for Transport. He has reserved to himself powers to make regulations to specify not only what must be said in a ‘Notice to Keeper’ but also what evidence should be provided. He says “The purpose of this power is to leave flexibility to mandate the specific evidence which must accompany a notice to keeper if it becomes clear that creditors are attempting to recover parking charges without providing keepers with sufficient evidence to know whether the claim is valid”

So, in addition to UKPC Ltd's failure to specifically identify the “Creditor”, it has failed to provide any evidence that it, or a third party, is entitled to enforce an alleged breach of contractual terms and conditions.

I therefore expect you to immediately cancelthe ‘parking charge’ and inform me, in writing that you have done so.

If however, you reject this challenge, then, in accordance with the BPA Ltd AOS Code of Practice 22.12, please ensure that you enclose all the required information (including the necessary ‘POPLA code’) so that I may immediately refer this matter (and any further issues that I may subsequently raise) for their assessment on all matters raised.

I do not expect to receive a ‘generic’ template response which fails to address the specific issues that I have raised with you. No further correspondence will be entered into.

Yours sincerely

The Registered Keeper


I shamelessly plagiarised that from this excellent post on Pepipoo.

Also from the Notice to Keeper,

"Whilst taking great care ensuring the accuracy of our information, we appreciate that errors can occur."   

At least they've got a sense of humour about it.   

[BGB]

So UKPC dared to give me a sPeCulative iNvoice last month.

My appeal..

"A PoPLA charge of £27(+VAT) is now payable to the British Parking Association Ltd. Payment can be avoided by cancelling PoPLA Charge Notification nnnnnnnnnnnnnn within 35 days.

Any correspondence other than the provision of a PoPLA code or cancellation of the fake "fine" will incur a contractual charge of £90 per item, reduced to £45 if paid within 14 days of issue.  Performance of this contract will demonstrate acceptance.  If you do not wish to be bound by the contract you should not send any correspondence other than that listed above."

They have now cancelled the sPeCulative iNvoice.

 

[Ewan Hoosami]

Wow! Top stuff. Mine's still going on

It was listed for around 24th April but it's as quiet as the grave around here.

[The Bald Eagle]

So UKPC dared to give me a sPeCulative iNvoice last month.

My appeal..

"A PoPLA charge of £27(+VAT) is now payable to the British Parking Association Ltd. Payment can be avoided by cancelling PoPLA Charge Notification nnnnnnnnnnnnnn within 35 days.

Any correspondence other than the provision of a PoPLA code or cancellation of the fake "fine" will incur a contractual charge of £90 per item, reduced to £45 if paid within 14 days of issue.  Performance of this contract will demonstrate acceptance.  If you do not wish to be bound by the contract you should not send any correspondence other than that listed above."

They have now cancelled the sPeCulative iNvoice.

 

He who lives by the contract...

[BGB]

Wow! Top stuff. Mine's still going on

It was listed for around 24th April but it's as quiet as the grave around here.

If you quoted GPEOL, this will not be heard until after the Beavis case is heard in the Supreme Court.  So don't expect anything until the judgement likely late this year.

[Ewan Hoosami]

I did mention GPEOL, but only as an additional end point. There were four main grounds which POPLA could have easily used any one of.

Interesting is the half-arsed rebuttal of the GPEOL element by UKPC Ltd. They sent this in after the CoA case had been heard but before the verdict had been handed down. Needless to say, they heavily relied on HHJ Moloney but neglected to mention the CoA. Quelle surprise.

UKPC Ltd along with all the other weasels have tried numerous imaginative ways of pretending that their charges are a GPEOL, but to no avail. The latest effort is a stroke of pure genius. They sent in a list of redacted costs stating that "…………...a full breakdown would highly prejudice the commercial interests of UK Parking Control Ltd." You really couldn't make this shit up, could you? They also said, "………...POPLA is understandably ill-equipped to cast judgement on each specific cost involved…………" I think that's a polite way of letting the assessor know that they are too thick to comprehend a list of figures.

He who lives by the contract…

If what I read on the internet has any substance to it, Mrs. Williams lives by the sword…………..the pork sword.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=63597&pid=668863&mode=threaded&start=#entry668863