PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Same vehicle, more than one driver, Received a PCN for violating parking restrictions
Chasteam
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 02:43
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 12 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,270



I received a PCN as notice to keeper, because my vehicle had visited one customer car park twice within the period of no return. However, the car had been driven by two different drivers, one didn't know of the others previous visit. The PCN arrived 21 days after the alleged parking violation, so I will fight it, anyway. What I am interested in, though, what the legal situation would be in a case like this in the first place? The company in question here are ES Parking, and their argument seems to be that the DRIVER enters a parking contract with ES Parking (representing the landlord), not the keeper nor the vehicle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 13)
Advertisement
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 02:43
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 06:58
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,503
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



The driver always forms any alleged contract. In this case there is no breach as only the 1st driver promised not to return. The 2nd driver formed their own separate contract.

That said they will push this all the way to court unless the photos prove different drivers. If you do not have them then submit a Subject Access Request (under DPA) immediately.

Appeal as the keeper that there was 2 drivers so no breach. It is almost certain they’ll reject.

There is an identical case running in the forum where they claim they’ve checked the pictures and it appears to be the same driver.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Slithy Tove
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 08:49
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,283
Joined: 5 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,178



Take a look at this active case running now with the same company: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=122238
No conclusion yet, but keep an eye!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 10:15
Post #4


Member


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



The keeper proves there was two different drivers, by naming the two different drivers.
The first driver prmised not to return, and didnt
The second driver promiosed not to regturn, and didnt
Neither driver broke any supposed contract, and they accessed YOUR data, as keeper, unlawfully. They had NO reasonable cause to access it.

Sue them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 10:36
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 11:15) *
The keeper proves there was two different drivers, by naming the two different drivers.
The first driver prmised not to return, and didnt
The second driver promiosed not to regturn, and didnt
Neither driver broke any supposed contract, and they accessed YOUR data, as keeper, unlawfully. They had NO reasonable cause to access it.

Sue them.

Slightly disagree.
They did have reasonable cause to get RK details, BUT once they were informed of 2 different drivers that situation effectively stops pursuit of the RK.
Personally, I would send in details of the 2 named drivers with entry and access times as near as possible, and if possible backed up with a printout of the Google Maps Timeline for each named driver.
If they don't drop it then you continue with direct communication by email advising them of their unreasonable conduct and that continuance of the PCN claim will result in you seeking grounds for a claim of damages for vexatious behaviour.

They'll probably ignore that, but keep on with it when they come back again with other absurd aspersions of them having the right to claim the cash from you.
You must aim for them to construct a gallows upon which you can hang them if this goes to court.


--------------------
The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 10:47
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,768
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



If the driver is named before court proceedings are commenced then the RK has no liability. If two drivers are named then neither driver can have liability.


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 12:35
Post #7


Member


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



They lacked reasonable cause, as they chose to use a detection method that is utterly incapable of determining if their condition has been breached or not. Thats their fault, not yours, and they knowingly did this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 13:05
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,503
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 13:35) *
They lacked reasonable cause, as they chose to use a detection method that is utterly incapable of determining if their condition has been breached or not. Thats their fault, not yours, and they knowingly did this.

True but they do have reasonable cause for the initial data request.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 13:17
Post #9


Member


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



Not really

They dont know if the same driver was tehre in both cases
Until they determine THAT they have no breach of terms. Until they have breach of terms they have no reasonable cause

They have to determine a breach occurred *first*, and it didnt, so they accessed without cause.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 13:26
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,503
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



Good luck with that one biggrin.gif


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 13:38
Post #11


Member


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



I dont think its an unreasonable argument to put forth

They have to take reasonable steps to comply with the DPA. One of those is establishing reasonable cause *first*. As they are *completely* aware that the driver is the one with whom any alleged contract is formed, and their is ample evidence they know this, they dont have any excuses.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 13:52
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



Over to you.



I think it wouldn't be seen as being over the top if this was the basis of a court claim
But hey ----- I wouldn't want to rely on it


--------------------
The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Steve_999
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 14:21
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,397
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
From: West Sussex
Member No.: 20,304



Same car. Chances of being same driver is (I would guess) greater (probably far greater) than 50-50.

I would say they have reasonable cause to request RK details. If only to suggest there may have been an infringement of their terms and to invite an explanation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 15:11
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,195
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



I agree it would be hard to argue the initial request as unreasonable, what would be unreasonable would be to continue to process data once they know their (probably) reasonable assumption was wrong.

I'd be in favour of a straight keeper appeal stating Driver A used the car to enter between XX:XX and YY:YY and that they did not return, later Driver B used the car to enter between AA:AA and BB:BB which was not a second entry for them, as such there was no breach of the terms and no contractual sum is owed.

That the keeper cannot be liable as they are only liable for a charge owed by a single driver. Adding in any other PoFA failings. That now they know their reasonable assumption was wrong they must cease processing the data and cancel the charge.

The rejection and how it may twist itself into knots to try and justify chasing the keeper could be a great source of mirth.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 11:33
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