Same vehicle, more than one driver, Received a PCN for violating parking restrictions |
Same vehicle, more than one driver, Received a PCN for violating parking restrictions |
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.
|
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 02:43
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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! |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 10:36
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 8,582 Joined: 9 Feb 2006 Member No.: 4,813 |
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
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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 |
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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
-------------------- 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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 11:33 |