PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Minster Baywatch charge
Richy320
post Wed, 24 Apr 2019 - 08:21
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 425
Joined: 4 Aug 2014
From: In the beautiful Chilterns
Member No.: 72,309



My son received the following as the keeper of the vehicle concerned.



As he is away from home a lot, his brother is supposed to forward on any mail. Unfortunately he failed in this simple task and the following arrived.



A quick look suggests Minister Baywatch are litigious so I am sure he can expect further correspondence to follow.

Obvious questions are is this PoFA compliant? Can he be held liable as the keeper? What should he do from here?

Many thanks


--------------------
Speed does not kill. It's more to do with how you stop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 8)
Advertisement
post Wed, 24 Apr 2019 - 08:21
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Richy320
post Thu, 25 Apr 2019 - 11:06
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 425
Joined: 4 Aug 2014
From: In the beautiful Chilterns
Member No.: 72,309



Does anyone have any advice for him?


--------------------
Speed does not kill. It's more to do with how you stop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Thu, 25 Apr 2019 - 12:26
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,053
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



Well you need to go through paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of POFA to see if it compiles, but at a quick glance it appears compliant. This is assuming there was no windscreen ticket. As long as your brother hasn't identified the driver, and continues not to do so, then under keeper liabillity they can only charge £100 max. Even if he were pursued as driver, they can't add on that extra £60 unless one of the terms on the parking sign allowed them.

Other than that, since we know absolutely nothing about the incident, its difficult to comment further. Pictures of signs and GSV of the car park tend to help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 25 Apr 2019 - 16:08
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Nope, the invitation specified by 9 (2) (e) is not in the prescribed form, there is no "required" about it and the warning text in 9 (2) (f) is not as required. Note section 2 is preceded by the word "must".

There is also no period of parking. Photographs of the car moving in front of a camera is not, by definition, parking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richy320
post Mon, 29 Apr 2019 - 16:51
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 425
Joined: 4 Aug 2014
From: In the beautiful Chilterns
Member No.: 72,309



Apologies for the delay, I needed some photos of the area.

Unfortunately GSV isn't a great deal of help as it doesn't get particularly close. It appears to be a new development known as Kimberlow Hill retail park. The description of "Heslington Retail Park", as described in the original notice, doesn't exist as far as I can see!

GSV

I can't see how the photos show anything other than a car driving towards a camera on a public road and the same car driving away from the same camera on the same public road. I'm not sure how this is supposed to prove the driver parked at all!






--------------------
Speed does not kill. It's more to do with how you stop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 29 Apr 2019 - 17:14
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



To be valid a PCN has to state the land. If they get that wrong then the whole PCN fails. I can't find Heslington retail park.

Dear Sirs,

I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx

You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give the invitation to keeper as prescribed 9 (2) (e) of the Act. Nor does Heslington Retail Park appear to exist and therefore there is no definition of relevant land as required by 9 (2) (a) nor a period of parking required by the same section. Driving in front of a camera is not, by its very definition, parking. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

Any further communication with me on this matter, apart from confirmation of no further action and my details being removed from your records, will be considered vexatious and harassment. This includes communication from any Debt Collection companies you care to instruct.

Yours etc


First class postage with free certificate of posting from a post office.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richy320
post Mon, 29 Apr 2019 - 17:26
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 425
Joined: 4 Aug 2014
From: In the beautiful Chilterns
Member No.: 72,309



Many thanks. I'll get that sorted.


--------------------
Speed does not kill. It's more to do with how you stop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richy320
post Wed, 10 Jul 2019 - 10:08
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 425
Joined: 4 Aug 2014
From: In the beautiful Chilterns
Member No.: 72,309



Letter received from Gladstones marked "Letter before Action" for £100 plus £55 admin charge.

Is the advice still to just ignore as they haven't complied with POFA?



This post has been edited by Richy320: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 - 11:00


--------------------
Speed does not kill. It's more to do with how you stop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 10 Jul 2019 - 10:39
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



No, you MUST respond.

Noone actually ever told you to "ignore". If you had read a few threads you would have seen you always respond to LBAs

So, you respond along the lines of - your client is fully aware they have not met the strict requirements of POFA. Furthermore you are fully aware that the MAXIMUM amount that can ever be claimed from a Keeper is the amount specified on the PCN, as clearly and unambiguously defined in POFA; claiming an amount you know you are not entitled to is an abuse of process.

Inform your cilent they have no basis for this claim, and that any claim would be both doomed to failure and vexatious. I will hold your client lia ble for my costs on the indeminty basis and calculated at £19 per hour.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 11:50
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here