PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

CPM Unsucessful "Appeal" Letter - What Next?
MrsPickle
post Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 17:02
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 7 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,903



I received a PCN through the post for parking in the unused carpark of an empty building. I had checked before I parked, and I couldn't find any signs, so I left my mobile number in the windscreen just in case. I was in a building across the road so could have moved it easily should there have been a need.

Anyway, I responded to the letter saying that I would not be paying, gave them a few reasons, and said I wouldn't be in touch again unless they answered all my points. I wouldn't call my letter an appeal, it was just a reply to say no.

They have now sent another letter to say they haven't dropped their charge. They've given me a few reasons, but I do not feel that they have answered my points. I wont be taking it up with the IAS as they advise, as this to me is giving some merit to their parking charge, which has no merit at all due to lack of signage.

I'm just not sure of next best step. Do I send another letter to them (I said in my letter I wouldn't do this unless they answered ALL of my points, and they don't appear to have done so), do I just ignore it, or do I pay the £60 for an easy life? (PS I'm not going to pay).

If I ignore it, what's the likelihood of them dropping it v. them referring it to their solicitors?

I have uploaded their initial letter here, along with my reply. I will load their 2nd letter in a further comment, and try to load the photos I sent to them.

Please bear with, and thank you for any help/advice.

This post has been edited by MrsPickle: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 17:21
Attached File(s)
Attached File  CPM_Letter.pdf ( 653.61K ) Number of downloads: 61
Attached File  Response_to_CPM_Letter_Only_Low_Res.pdf ( 236.6K ) Number of downloads: 51
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 49)
Advertisement
post Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 17:02
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
MrsPickle
post Mon, 24 Jun 2019 - 14:06
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 7 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,903



I'm going to post the below SAR to UKCPM today or tomorrow.


Data Protection Officer
UK Car Park Management Ltd
PO Box 3114
Lancing
BN15 5BR
Dear Sir or Madam
Subject access request ( Data Protection Act 2018 / General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) )

RE: Name & Address
Vehicle Registration
Court Claim No.
UK-CPM Ref.
Gladstones Ref.

Please supply the data about me that I am entitled to under data protection law relating to myself, my vehicle with registration as above, and the files that have been set up in relation to both myself and my vehicle.

This should include, but is not limited to:
• All photos taken
• All letters/emails sent and received, including any appeal correspondence
• All data held
All evidence you will rely on
• A full copy of the parking charge notice/notice to keeper
• A list of all parking charge notices you consider are outstanding against me and/or the captioned vehicle registration

I remind you that any claim must be for all parking charge notices in one claim, not several separate claims.

If you need any more data from me to confirm my identity please let me know as soon as possible. It may be helpful for you to know that data protection law requires you to respond to a request for data within one calendar month.

If you do not normally deal with these requests, please pass this letter to your Data Protection Officer, or relevant staff member. If you need advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner’s Office can assist you. Its website is ico.org.uk or it can be contacted on 0303 123 1113.

Yours faithfully

This post has been edited by MrsPickle: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 12:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 12:05
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,749
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Evidence they will rely on MAY NOT be personal data. FOr example a photo of a sign may be evidence but certainly isnt personal data...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrsPickle
post Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 12:23
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 7 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,903



Remove the word "All" from that bullet point?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 12:29
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,749
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



No, because youre stil asking for evidence. WHy. WHat "evidence" will you get tehre that you havent already asked for elsewhere? If you cant answer that, then you dont need that bullet at all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrsPickle
post Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 12:46
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 7 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,903



I haven't ever requested any evidence. They've only had one letter from me in early 2018 and at the time I wrote it I wasn't aware of all the requests for data that should have gone with it. Similarly, when I responded to Gladstones LBC I only sent them a copy of what I sent UKCPM last year with a cover letter adding the additional point of their sign not being a valid contract.

So you think take that bullet point out completely? I agree that it doesn't quite fit in with the request for PERSONAL data, but I borrowed a template for an SAR from MSE and that was one of the things on there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 12:49
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,749
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yes, yes you are requesting it.

"All evidence you will rely on"

If you cant work out what "evidence" will mean, when it can ONLY relate to personal data as you are asking for your personal data here, then dont include it as a bullet point. Just delete that bullet point.

The template there is wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrsPickle
post Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 12:54
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 7 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,903



Thanks nosferatu - removing now thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrsPickle
post Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 23:11
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 7 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,903



hi. i've now done my defence letter after looking through a number of posts on mse. should i set up a new thread on mse and post it there or post it here for comment? i noticed nosfertu also on the mse site, so don't want to post both places and waste peoples time reading it twice! but mse seems to be the place to post court defences for review.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 10 Jul 2019 - 09:39
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,749
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Not a letter. Jsut a defence.

POst it in both places. Link to here from MSE and from here to MSE so people know its in both places.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrsPickle
post Wed, 10 Jul 2019 - 11:54
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 7 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,903



here's the link to the new thread i started on MSE:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...56#post76021256

Claim No. xxx
Claimant xxx
Defendant xxx

Continuation of Defence and Counterclaim Form
3. Defence
1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver's alleged breach of contract, which is denied. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a £100 'parking charge notice' (PCN).

2. It is admitted that on xxx, the date of the alleged infringement, the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark xxx which is the subject of these proceedings.
3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Furthermore the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £76.88, for 'contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest' which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

5. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

a. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the parking charge of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been legally binding and properly displayed and accessible to a driver.

b. The alleged contract does not permit parking to unauthorised vehicles, there is no consideration on the part of both parties.
c. The alleged contract does not permit parking, but states a parking charge of £100, which is contradictory and confusing.
d. The alleged contract does not give any information on how to obtain a permit.

e. The Defendant denies that the signs at this location meet the mandatory test of transparency of terms that are 'bound to be seen', as set out within the Consumer Rights Act 2015. For a driver any terms relating to a parking contract would have had to have been extremely clear in all places within the site, in very large letters to ensure all drivers were 'bound to see' the terms.
f. There was no sign upon entry to carpark, contravening requirement 18.2 of the BPA code of practice.
g. The two signs that the claimant alleges were in the car park were not there.
h. The Claimant has provided no evidence, photographic or otherwise, of where the vehicle parked within the site, and/or whether the car stopped adjacent to, or in close proximity to which signage terms.

6. Failure to set out clear parking terms - ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 distinguished.

a. The Claimant is put to strict proof, with the bar being set by Denning LJ in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] in the well-known 'Red Hand Rule' where hidden/unknown terms were held to be un-enforceable: ''Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink...with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.''

b. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout. This case is distinguished from the Beavis case in that there are inadequate signs which are incapable of binding the driver who did not enter into any contract, and nor was the site of commercial value.

c. This land is not comparable with the retail park in Beavis, and nor are the facts of the case.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says:
1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

8. Legal Representatives Costs are disputed. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims, as demonstrated by a notification of “systems error” letter received dated 14th June 2019.

9. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

10. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.
11. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14
12. Data Protection Act breach. For the reasons set out above, the parking charge which is the subject of these proceedings is invalid. The Claimant therefore had no right to request the keeper’s details from the DVLA and to use them, and has breached the Defendant’s rights under the Data Protection Act by doing both. Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) is authority that misuse of personal data is a tort. Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 is authority that a reasonable sum of compensation would be £750. The Defendant reserves his rights in respect of these matters.
13. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge.

Name

Signed

Date
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Tuesday, 19th November 2019 - 00:41
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.