Devere (Castlepoint) PCN going to court, Advice req with defence |
Devere (Castlepoint) PCN going to court, Advice req with defence |
Sat, 5 Jan 2013 - 22:17
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 5 Jan 2013 Member No.: 59,175 |
Hello,
I could do with some help in how to proceed and also complete the court papers received from these [mod edit] The background is that in my work capacity I was taking a wheelchair bound disabled passenger to Castlepoint shopping centre. On arrival I was unable to park in a standard bay as my passenger requires his door to be fully open to be helped out of the vehicle and into his wheelchair, I opted to park in a disabled bay as my passenger is disabled and upon return about 20 mins later I had a pcn on my vehicle. After some reading of other threads on various websites the general course of action seemed to be to ignore the ticket and any further correspondance which I have done so, therefore meaning no appeals or contact have been established with either devere or popla. I have now received some court papers through the post which look genuine and are from Northampton CCBC for the sum of £175, I therefore believe that I am being taken to small claims and this is where I require some help as I am going to fight this all the way. Help and advice would be really welcome in what to do next Thankyou This post has been edited by southpaw82: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 - 22:22 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 5 Jan 2013 - 22:17
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 5 Jan 2013 - 22:28
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,503 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Devere do court - have a look at this recent thread too.
You will get help here. I presume the blue badge wasn't displayed? (not that it has any legal status on private land) Might be worth giving bargepole a pm... This post has been edited by Jlc: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 - 22:27 -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Sat, 5 Jan 2013 - 22:47
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22,678 Joined: 23 Mar 2009 Member No.: 27,239 |
Devere do court - have a look at this recent thread too. You will get help here. I presume the blue badge wasn't displayed? (not that it has any legal status on private land) Might be worth giving bargepole a pm... And Schoolrunmum, who takes a particular interest in disability issues Alexis and Wageslave can prepare defences that will be familiar to Devere Don't respond to PM messages from members unless they have a few hundred posts to their credit |
|
|
Sat, 5 Jan 2013 - 22:53
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,503 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Indeed. Definitely check and acknowledge the papers and ask time to file your defence. Is this your local court?
-------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Sat, 5 Jan 2013 - 23:43
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,114 Joined: 7 Aug 2009 Member No.: 31,007 |
I assume that this is the same incident as the one on MSE at: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4372375
If so, it is worth noting that RK liability only applies if the PPC invoice meets certain criteria as set out in the POFA 2012, and I have yet to see a post 1 October PPC invoice that is indisputably 100% Schedule 4 compliant. If the invoice issued by Devere is not fully compliant (and accepted as such by the judge), then they would still have to prove that you were driving on the balance of probabilities, although: a) this is not a high standard for Devere to meet: b) I most certainly do not recommend lying as to the identity of the driver, and; c) in any case, it might be difficult to run a 'Equality Act disability adjustment' defence without admitting to being the driver. This applies in addition to all the normal defences relating to the necessity of making 'reasonable adjustments' for disabled customers under the Equality Act 2010, the clearly penal nature of the charge, questioning both whether Devere have sufficient interest in the land to bring claims and whether the signage was sufficient. If at all possible without lying or otherwise giving false information, you really need to try to make sure that the case is not heard in Bournemouth, since it is alleged that at least one judge there has *very* close links with Devere and that they invariably win in Bournemouth but lose everywhere else. Certain respected posters, as named earlier in this thread, will be able to assist with the latter points in more detail. In the short term, you need to acknowledge the claim and ask for an extra 14 days to prepare your defence. |
|
|
Sun, 6 Jan 2013 - 08:21
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 957 Joined: 13 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,486 |
Acknowledge, ask for the extra 28 days,
msg Alexis/wageslave , the case will be transfered to your local court. you need to do as coupon mad( school run mum on here) suggested on mse and counter sue under the equality act. Mention that to wageslave/alexis. just dont delay and keep us informed |
|
|
Sun, 6 Jan 2013 - 08:53
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,503 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
The passenger was disabled and not the driver 'forming the contract'?
-------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Sun, 6 Jan 2013 - 09:13
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
you will need pics of the signs etc.
And you did keep copies of all communications ? Did you write to them at all ? If so exactly what did you say ? coupla suggestions challenge the amount - how do the landowner's losses come to £175, what is the breakdown. (hard to see how blue badge issue causes such a loss to the landowner). challenge their standing to bring the contract into play - is this action in their own name or are they acting as agents for the landowner/occupier ? Do Devere have sufficient rights to offer a parking contract. -------------------- Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
Sun, 6 Jan 2013 - 13:10
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 165 Joined: 12 Jan 2011 Member No.: 43,423 |
I assume that this is the same incident as the one on MSE at: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4372375 If the invoice issued by Devere is not fully compliant (and accepted as such by the judge), then they would still have to prove that you were driving on the balance of probabilities, although: a) this is not a high standard for Devere to meet: b) I most certainly do not recommend lying as to the identity of the driver, and; c) in any case, it might be difficult to run a 'Equality Act disability adjustment' defence without admitting to being the driver. If at all possible without lying or otherwise giving false information, you really need to try to make sure that the case is not heard in Bournemouth, since it is alleged that at least one judge there has *very* close links with Devere and that they invariably win in Bournemouth but lose everywhere else. For this case or any other Devere/Castlepoint case that comes up, assume Devere have photographic evidence of the driver from the Castlepoint cctv system. A former Castlepoint security employee confirmed on a thread some time ago that they took a still from the ccctv footage and printed it out in the security control office. It would be nice to think that the photo also showed your 'disabled' passenger, however I would assume with editing and cropping and their ability to select the best 'frame', any photo they could produce as evidence will not do 'the driver' any favours. Any footage of you assisting your passenger will have long gone. As time goes by I am less and less inclined towards the view that a local Bmth judge has some/any influence and more to the fact that Devere are (is) very well practised at what they do ( he does ). For most of their 'victims' it is a one-off event for which they have little or no prior experience or knowledge. However if/when Devere are successful in court this must set local 'precedent'. You are playing their game on their manor in a local environment that is very favourable to their operation. There's a little bit of financial info for the Ltd Co on this link http://companycheck.co.uk/company/0770665588 "After some reading of other threads on various websites the general course of action seemed to be to ignore the ticket and any further correspondance which I have done so, therefore meaning no appeals or contact have been established with either devere or popla." Another Devere case where the OP has decided to follow general advice and ignore - just one small part of the favourable environment that 'under the radar' Devere use to their advantage. Should there be a sticky ref not ignoring Devere tickets ? |
|
|
Sun, 6 Jan 2013 - 17:20
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 77 Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Member No.: 57,178 |
devere i belive have had that contract since castlepoint opened
but that link says Devere Parking Services Limited is an Active business incorporated in England & Wales on 15th July 2011 if you want a pic of the signs let me know as im only across the road from there |
|
|
Sun, 6 Jan 2013 - 17:51
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22,678 Joined: 23 Mar 2009 Member No.: 27,239 |
Thisr thread mentions that the company added "Ltd" stickers to all the signs.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=70632 He asked Castlepoint who has the contract and it's not clear from their reply. The most recent post was in August although he was back on the site yesterday As time goes by I am less and less inclined towards the view that a local Bmth judge has some/any influence and more to the fact that Devere are (is) very well practised at what they do ( he does ). For most of their 'victims' it is a one-off event for which they have little or no prior experience or knowledge. However if/when Devere are successful in court this must set local 'precedent'. This argument has some merit There's a current thread involving Sussex Security Solutions Ltd, another company that makes use of the courts and provides details of their cases. Out of nearly forty claims, only two or three went to a hearing and the defences were weak. Of the remainder, most of them were default judgements because no defence was entered. The others were settled by mediation or the victim caving in before the hearing - usually to avoid a judgement. If that's the pattern it appears that PPCs are rarely faced with a proper defence and also explains why, out of 845 PPC claims in 2011, only 49 got as far as a hearing |
|
|
Sun, 6 Jan 2013 - 21:44
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 165 Joined: 12 Jan 2011 Member No.: 43,423 |
devere i belive have had that contract since castlepoint opened but that link says Devere Parking Services Limited is an Active business incorporated in England & Wales on 15th July 2011 Yes they did. A lot of small PPC's turned in to Ltd Co's in 2011. I'd suggest this was part of a BPA clean-up prior to the Freedom Bill. A lot of the PPC entities, not least Devere Parking Services, were scandalously vague. |
|
|
Sun, 6 Jan 2013 - 22:03
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
QUOTE devere i belive have had that contract since castlepoint opened I don't understand, could you please rephrase ? -------------------- Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
Sun, 6 Jan 2013 - 22:18
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 165 Joined: 12 Jan 2011 Member No.: 43,423 |
. If that's the pattern it appears that PPCs are rarely faced with a proper defence and also explains why, out of 845 PPC claims in 2011, only 49 got as far as a hearing Agreed ref proper defence Based on Devere issuing 26% of the claims in 2011, these figures would suggest that 200 or so could have coughed up and 10-12 might have ended up in court. If you take 200 x £150 you get a nice little earner. Devere is at some risk of exposure when in court so, based on these figures, I am sure he can afford to drop cases if and when people hire lawyers, let Devere know they will put up a decent, informed defence or threaten exposure. . |
|
|
Sun, 6 Jan 2013 - 22:56
Post
#15
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 5 Jan 2013 Member No.: 59,175 |
Hi All
Thanks for all the replies, info etc its appreciated. Off to pm certain individuals suggested and also try to answer any questions and also have a couple to ask too. one thing is certain that is going to be seen through with help and a good defence. Bama, there has been no correspondance from defendant to devere but any correspondance sent from devere has been retained along with PCN. Re: challenging amount, would this be done in any defence or would contact have to be made by writing to devere, I do not think making contact with devere would achieve anything at this stage. Anon45 No intention of lying, no admittance of who was driving yet made EHBA I would have thought cctv could only be used in any criminal case, for arguments sake if a still was produced not showing the passenger then would that not look to a judge as being edited to the benefit of the claimant. this is the same case re thread on MSE chris_g any pics would be of help thanks, would it not be the case also that where the defendants car was parked there would have to be adequate signage ie; on a disabled bay? or would it be the case that signs dotted sporadically around the car park suffice. Should defence be issuing a counter claim? if defence is using equalities act forming part of defence would any passenger have to be involved? This post has been edited by naga: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 - 14:42 |
|
|
Mon, 7 Jan 2013 - 00:13
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
I would have thought cctv could only be used in any criminal case You think wrong. Evidence is evidence. Do you have home insurance? Does it include legal cover? Might be worth engaging a lawyer to scare Devere off perhaps. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Mon, 7 Jan 2013 - 06:01
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 957 Joined: 13 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,486 |
Hi All Thanks for all the replies, info etc its appreciated. I am going to pm certain individuals suggested and also try to answer any questions and I also have a couple to ask too. one thing is certain that is I am going to see this through with help and a good defence. Bama, there has been no correspondance from defendant to devere but any correspondance sent from devere has been retained along with PCN. Re: challenging amount, would this be done in any defence or would contact have to be made by writing to devere, I do not think making contact with devere would achieve anything at this stage. Jlc, No Badge displayed, I think it would be a local court unless there is any ideas for an alt. Anon45 No intention of lying, no admittance of who was driving yet made EHBA I would have thought cctv could only be used in any criminal case, for arguments sake if a still was produced not showing the passenger then would that not look to a judge as being edited to the benefit of the claimant. this is the same case re thread on MSE chris_g any pics would be of help thanks, would it not be the case also that where the defendants car was parked there would have to be adequate signage ie; on a disabled bay? or would it be the case that signs dotted sporadically around the car park suffice. Should I be issuing a counter claim? if I am using equalities act forming part of defence would my passenger have to be involved? with regards to the counter Claim, you will be pm'd about that, as mentioned on MSE the passanger would have to "issue" the claim, but that doesnt mean you cant do it on thier behalf (ie paper work etc), but it will be the quickest way to see them off! |
|
|
Mon, 7 Jan 2013 - 23:24
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 165 Joined: 12 Jan 2011 Member No.: 43,423 |
EHBA I would have thought cctv could only be used in any criminal case, for arguments sake if a still was produced not showing the passenger then would that not look to a judge as being edited to the benefit of the claimant. this is the same case re thread on MSE In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it would look like the driver, a non blue badge holder, getting into a vehicle parked in the disabled area at Castlepoint and that said vehicle, ( assume there is another photograph of the dashboard ) is not displaying a blue badge. In Court, the 'driver' may never get the chance to explain his job, his passengers' disabilities, or what others may perceive as his 'excuses' to a Judge, because there will be no opportunity and no-one will be putting forward any 'tame' questions. Read the buster9999 thread for more background info, but be aware Devere was not a Ltd Co when that case started. Some Castlepoint links on that thread are broken http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t63114.html Scaring Devere off, or threatening exposure are the steps to playing your game and not their game. Your game will not end up in court. At some stage you'll get to the BmthDriver thread which had a happy ending. Once you've read that and the various links you'll see what you are up against and should relish the thought of paying Devere not one single penny. |
|
|
Thu, 10 Jan 2013 - 10:11
Post
#19
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 5 Jan 2013 Member No.: 59,175 |
Just a quick update really but had some v good help (you know who you are) and a process has started ,
Ehba:- thanks for the heads up and have read said posts, knowing what I am up against is half the battle. Will post back with any updates in due course and all help really appreciated. |
|
|
Fri, 11 Jan 2013 - 13:24
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 77 Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Member No.: 57,178 |
ive taken some pics of the signs at castlepoint is there a trusted member that i could email them to or shall i try to upload them ??
some of the signs say devere parking other signs have devere ltd on them also there are no signs by the disabled bays downstairs |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 08:30 |