PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

742 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 02:01


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
The documents were served on the 29th Oct so would tomorrow be the 33rd day?

What do you mean they were 'served' then?

What was the Issue date of the claim and when did you do the AOS (exact days)?

QUOTE
Is my defence focusing just on the legal issues (no signature etc) or should I mention the lack of paperwork before the court claim?
You are surely not talking about a 'wet ink signature' (I hope). And either would be daft, seeing as neither of the things you say are any facts of defence at all. You said you've read the NEWBIES thread (on MSE I assume) where there are 17 example defences to pick and adapt some wording from, plus on both MSE and here, there are shedloads of recent CEL defence examples that you could copy/adapt and have done and emailed to the CCBC within an hour.

Get on with it, given that you posted over a weekend and had 3 days to get the defence in before the next working day. DO NOT WASTE TIME ASKING US HERE FIRST.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1534318 · Replies: 2 · Views: 214

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 24 Nov 2019 - 02:42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


PPS Tabernacle Street thread here on MSE forum right now (a March 2016 PCN) has some observations about the sign giving two different parking firm's names and misleading about being in the BPA AOS at the time:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...d.php?t=6073162

So the sign you showed us is like that persons, and it shows PPS and Napier, who BOTH jumped ship from the BPA and joined the IPC on 1.3.16.

So how come they still relied upon a confusing 'is it Napier, or is it PPS?' contractual sign that carried the BPA AOS roundel at the bottom, nearly 18 months later, in July 2017? Did you take that pic in 2017 or was it in their 'evidence' at the time?

That thread is ahead of you and we've been working on a witness statement prior to their hearing. I'd bookmark that thread if I were you, to check the outcome.

I am in two minds about what the recipient of the letter should do, as the normal advice at LBC stage is to send the parking firm a SAR but if the person did that, then they'd be asked to prove they are the right data subject by sending some form of ID that would give their actual address...and by asking for a SAR you'd be getting them to look closer at their data and photos and they might then put right the VRN error in the letters.

On balance, as long as post is being delivered and picked up QUICKLY from that defunct company address, in your case I would do nothing until the claim arrives, which will hopefully still have the partially wrong VRN in the particulars and a ludicrous amount around £300 for a £90 PCN issued with incorrect, ambiguous and non-compliant signs which breach the:

- KADOE
- Trade Body rules
- POFA 2012 Schedule 4
- Consumer Rights Act 2015 Schedule 2



  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1532462 · Replies: 48 · Views: 4,031

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 - 22:47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
He then moved onto the ticket and NTK. He literally went through the PoFA and listed the nine points the hospital had failed to comply. He was really unhappy about a statement from David Jenkins, the Trust transport manager, basically admitting several of the breaches but saying they were inconsequential.

He then said "All these [nine] flaws would seem to be fatal to your case? ".

OUH solicitor said "Well if you think they are of substance than yes. ". The judge said he was only ruling on failure to comply with PoFA as there was no need to consider contract.

So claim struck out


Brilliant! ''if the judge thinks STATUTE LAW is of substance'' in a case where the keeper wasn't driving?! Are Trethowans joking?

A Judge who gets the POFA Schedule 4! It seems the Judges at Oxford are good re PPC scams, as I saw this win reported on MSE this week as well:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...73#post76500473

They said their Judge was DJ Devlin and ''The judge was well prepared, i did not read my statement. case dismissed.''

Was yours Judge Devlin?

By the way you have REALLY hit the nail on the head with this observation about how they are getting around any ATA and proper appeals requirements:

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 22:34) *
They have a highly unsatisfactory situation where the Trust, as the landowner, notionally apply for the keeper details from the DVLA. However, Trethowans handle all contact - if you try to contact the Trust they refuse and direct you towards Trethowans.

Effectively Trethowans are acting as a PPC offering self ticketing, but ducking the trade association requirement the DVLA imposes.


Agreed. Do the local Councillors and MPs know this/ It is pretty shocking that the DVLA release data under these particular circumstances. If we can suss it, so should they.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1530724 · Replies: 63 · Views: 3,400

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 22:41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


We say go and read ANY other WING case, as they have a 3 stage appeal and they CANNOT hold a registered keeper liable. 100% WINNABLE AT POPLA FOR THE KEEPER.

SO NO APPEALING AS THE DRIVER BLABBING ABOUT WHAT YOU DID...!!

And no asking us about the second stage...please read other threads you have to repeat the same template appeal TWICE (the first one SLOWLY on day 26, and the second appeal more quickly as that only allows a few days, before you get a POPLA code to win by relying on the lack of KEEPER LIABILITY.

Even if you are not forum savvy you can Google to find forum posts about who to win a 3 stage WING appeal about no keeper liability. Very easy to copy any other one!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1530303 · Replies: 2 · Views: 65

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 22:37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


When you get the hearing date, make sure you come back to show us your draft Witness Statement and evidence list, like this decent example on MSE:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...37#post76495237

  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1530302 · Replies: 15 · Views: 1,048

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 22:31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


This standard wording (your point #9 onwards) that you got from post #14 of beamerguy's abuse of process thread on MSE forum, has been updated and strengthened in the light of the 11th November case where BW Legal sent a barrister and failed to stop Southampton court from striking out every parking case where sixty quid for debt recovery has been added.

See my court report about it in the COMPLETED CASES section here, that also links back to the MSE thread about the case. Then hop to the Abuse of Process thread on MSE and swap your words about the added costs, for the new version.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1530301 · Replies: 35 · Views: 1,749

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 22:23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
But UKPCM tell me I cannot challenge this further except by going to court and that I have until 19th November to pay at the current rate of £100, after which it will go up to £160.


It can't go up to £160. Two statute laws and one binding case law say so.

Please see the completed cases section where I posted abut the Southampton case on Monday, where a barrister lost when trying to argue that £160 was actually OK...as a result, unless they appeal, ALL parking cases in the Soton and IOW area are likely to be strangled at birth if they add sixty quid (any PPC). And other area Judges can be taken to the same facts by Defendants as part of a standard defence.

  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1530299 · Replies: 17 · Views: 469

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 22:16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
Fake £60... or whatever they want to call it can't be added ( plenty of good up to date templates for this)


Even more now it has been tested face to face with BW Legal's barrister and he lost.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1530297 · Replies: 184 · Views: 25,328

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 22:15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Is this United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust (ULHT) with Total Parking Solutions?

If not, where?

One decent line of defence to at least limit the damage back to £100 per PCN, is as per the list of unfair terms nos. 6, 10 and 14 in Sched.2 of the CRA 2015.

See the completed cases section as a case was won this week, where BW Legal, tried to overturn court strike outs, and failed due to the above, and the entire claims remained struck out.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1530295 · Replies: 27 · Views: 741

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 22:09


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Love your name!

They can't recover £160, No contacting DRP at all and no paying.

Read the completed cases Southampton case I posted about this week where the Judge threw out parking claims for £160 as 'manifestly excessive' on 3 counts.= (2 x statute law ad one binding case law).

If you pay for parking, who do you pay and what does your tenancy or lease agreement say about your right to park a motor vehicle on the common areas/private road?
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1530294 · Replies: 7 · Views: 412

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 22:04


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE (R.keane @ Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 11:22) *
Think I’m just going to have to pay - wish I’d just taken my medicine at £60

Don't be ridiculous. You lost at POPLA due to a weak appeal, and this was doomed so you were ALWAYS going to lose at POPLA:

QUOTE
"I paid for two tickets whilst parked here. The car park is very difficult to park in and took a while to initially park and also pay for the first ticket due to the machine being hidden and difficult to operate together with a large queue. All signage within the car park is poorly located and not clearly visible.

Parking paid for during stay, poor signage within car park, hidden ticket machine, photos provided on PCN non compliant do not show time stamps”


These cases are won in court and it's fun! And CEL often discontinue when they see a decent defence. Now you are here, you won't be doing a weak defence like that appeal.

Come back when you get your lovely court claim as a Christmas pressie and we will talk you through the life experience of winning by defending well using the court process.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1530291 · Replies: 31 · Views: 796

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 21:56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Doesn't matter though, as all APCOA cases can be won at POPLA just by copying any other one...
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1530289 · Replies: 14 · Views: 3,290

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 21:54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE (angryBill @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 14:36) *
Now ITS MY TURN!

Are their any retired judges on this forum who fancy a battle, or maybe we can form a small group who are up for a strike back at them and all these extortionists
Because i would like to take Excel to court if there is a chance i can get them on anything.
Obviously i need to know whether its worth it , and what we can get them on.
For example Harassment, disproportionate charges, Induced stress, Lying, false evidence , expired leases to land etc etc.

We are all sick to the back teeth of these bullying extortionist private parking companies who hide behind shaky legality and kangaroo courts to basically rob honest hard working people of their hard earned money.

AngryBill


No retired Judges but for £25 and with a well worded LBC being served by you first, to comply with the pre-action protocol, you can file a claim for up to £500 I think, for:

- breach of the DPA 2018 (no reasonable cause to get your data from the DVLA or process it)
- breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
- breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regs (misleading omissions)
- breach of the Consumer Rights Act Schedule 2 (unfair & misleading terms and consumer signs)

Read the court report I put in COMPLETED CASES this week, about that last one. The CRA Schedule 2 is dead easy to do your homework on; I did it the night before the case.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1530287 · Replies: 22 · Views: 1,408

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 21:47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Well done - that's a BIG update!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1530285 · Replies: 31 · Views: 2,812

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 21:45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


When you get a LBCCC from ParkingEye it is a different 'team' considering your responses than handled the earlier ones at appeal stage.

So, you have NOT yet made a WP offer to the enforcement dept, so start an email chain and start again:

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

Do this again:

QUOTE
one option is an offer Without Prejudice Save to Costs of £20 in full and final settlement along with a statement that parking was available for longer but their system unfairly didn't allow stays to be extended
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1530284 · Replies: 16 · Views: 987

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 21:42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


This is why parking firms exist. WHY ON EARTH would anyone dump their car at a pub and go offsite for hours and think that's OK?

We will help you defend it in court but heck, stop parking so selfishly. I;m not going to dress that up! It is awful that people park like you did.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1530283 · Replies: 20 · Views: 678

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 21:39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE (Alan86 @ Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 18:36) *
Sounds like I'll have to pay up sad.gif


You posted that despite all the advice, including from nosferatu1001 who had made it crystal clear:

QUOTE
No, this is VCS. No-one bloody pays them. They are WOEFUL

QUOTE
They WILL reject your appeal. Thats a given.


QUOTE
Ignore. They're trying to find out the drivers identity a they can't hold the keeper liable.


So now complain to Josh, the person named here, and if it's not in his remit to cancel a parking shark's PCN due to disability discrimination on their managed land, ask who can:

https://www.cspretail.com/properties/southgate-retail-park/

Given that the driver remembered their badge within minutes and that a person with protected characteristics MUST be allowed a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010, the PCN is illegal so kick up a stink and KEEP complaining. No idea why on earth you want to pay?! You only have to find the person at the Retail Park who can cancel it!

HTH
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1530281 · Replies: 24 · Views: 714

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 21:25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Easy when you know how, isn't it!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1530275 · Replies: 3 · Views: 158

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 21:21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
whilst the popla appeal goes on will i have to pay the full £100 for this imaginary thing if it goes nowhere?


No. You do not pay until a Judge tells you to, but we are telling you how to win a POPLA appeal and unlit signs in the dark, where evidenced with photos, is a winner. Do not show the other two photos to POPLA.

Please show us your draft POPLA appeal first, after reading others on this forum because it is not about writing in your own words or filling in boxes with restricted word-counts on the POPLA website. We have POPLA appeals that are at least 10 pages long every time and we almost always see wins ay POPLA, certainly when the signs were unlit and not legible. We want to see an informed draft POPLA appeal from you, copied & adapted from others about signs in the dark (search the forum).
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1530272 · Replies: 20 · Views: 690

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 21:15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


I would email P/Eye and ask why they have pursued a case where the driver paid what was displayed on exit, when the only error seems to be that a sticky key in their old weather-worn keypad failed to record one digit of the VRN.

Not only should the system not recognise a VRN & take payment until the system records it correctly against the images they have already captured, but in addition, the BPA issued clear instructions to all AOS members in 2018, warning them not to pursue 'minor keying errors' whether caused by faulty equipment or driver error. One digit out should have been easily reconciled by ParkingEye's routinely trumpeted to POPLA '19 manual checks' especially given the fact that the system already has an image of the numberplate in full.

As such, the charge is unconscionable and should never have been pursued as far as POPLA, and it is ParkingEye's own oversights and machine failures which have allowed this case to get this far. Further, they may or may not be aware that the Southampton Courts have just this week found in favour of a consumer on three counts of breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, in a case where BW Legal unsuccessfully made an application to object to duplicate Britannia Parking cases being summarily struck out. District Judge Grand sitting at the Southampton Court, very close to Town Quay, was persuaded that the CRA 2015 certainly applies to such cases.

Whilst the facts differ, the CRA 2015 is engaged and breached in this case too. Schedule 2 of the CRA 2015 is breached more than once, including but not limited to paragraphs 6 and 18 of the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair. Consumer signs are never saved by the core exemption and nor are faulty machines.

Further, a failure of the system to properly attribute the payment and/or display the wrong payment due on exit then try to blame the consumer for paying the sum displayed, is a 'misleading omission' contrary to 6(1)(c.) of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, in that the commercial practice ''provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely''. This is explained further in 6(3)(1) “material information” means the information which the average consumer needs, according to the context, to take an informed transactional decision''.

Paying for parking space is an invitation to purchase, where ''the following information will be material if not already apparent from the context in addition to any other information which is material information''
- ref 6(4)(d)(ii) where the nature of the product is such that the price cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the manner in which the price is calculated; or (e)where appropriate (ii) where such charges cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the fact that such charges may be payable;
(f) the following matters where they depart from the requirements of professional diligence—(i) arrangements for payment,''

Clearly, in this case, ParkingEye has departed from the requirements of professional diligence and this is not a matter where your company can be heard to say that this is a complaint about a price term that might otherwise be exempt from the test for fairness. If you disagree, perhaps ParkingEye would like to test this in front of District Judge Grand or Taylor, if you believe you will have more success fighting against consumer statute law than BW Legal did on Monday.

I urge that your Legal Team now cancel this flawed PCN to save your time and mine and to save wasting the court's resources.

yours

your name and PCN number


Send the above to

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

The point being, the legal team have NOT seen your case yet so this is news to them. So hit them with the above. Only the appeals team has handled it in robotic style so far and we know from experience that the legal team WILL cancel hopeless causes.

HTH

  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1530270 · Replies: 11 · Views: 571

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 18:02


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


OK so if this is not PPS (London) Ltd who offer POPLA, an is in fact PPS in the West Country, then no appeal would have worked, you wasted your time.

These cases are won in court so come back when you get a claim and no panicking, as long as the claim won't go to the company who own/lease the van if they are your employer. As long as this is all coming to you then you can control it and defend and win, as we almost always do.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1530232 · Replies: 12 · Views: 330

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 17:56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
I thought that they had to offer a reasonable grace period to at least drop off pick up otherwise it was to restrictive to owners ?


Yep - read Jopson v Homeguard; it's in the Parking Prankter's case law pages. Read the transcript.

You write as though you are surprised that claims are made despite the PPC having no grounds...in fact that sums up ALL PPC claims! All chancers.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1530230 · Replies: 36 · Views: 1,427

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 17:49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


If it was dark when the car arrived on the parking event day, use those two middle photos ONLY and embed them in the actual word document of your deliberately loooong POPLA appeal, like you see as examples all over this forum and MSE parking tickets board. That forum has template POPLA appeal wording to use, in post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky thread.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1530229 · Replies: 20 · Views: 690

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 17:45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
Seems strange to me that they would send a letter 3 years later. It is entitled ‘letter of claim’.


No that is perfectly normal for a scam PPC. Happens all the time. You need to look around this forum and MSE and you'd find claims from 2015 or older.

QUOTE
Are there any templates about to reply?


Yep - post #2 of the MoneySavingExpert parking tickets 'NEWBIES FAQS' sticky thread deals with LBC stage, then how to win the inevitable claim.

QUOTE
In peoples opinion will this go to court?


Yes if Gladstones or BW Legal get involved. But isn't this just a letter from the PPC telling you they might take it to court after 14 days? If so, that is NOT a real LBC.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1530228 · Replies: 26 · Views: 1,392

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 17:23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


The Southampton case is one everyone can cite - it's not a precedent but can be used in every case where £100 has morphed into £160.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1530222 · Replies: 14 · Views: 233

742 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 24th January 2020 - 19:51
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.