Car Park Management CPM Parking Charge, Parking Charge Notice Harrow received - help please |
Car Park Management CPM Parking Charge, Parking Charge Notice Harrow received - help please |
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 14:41
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 8 Jun 2010 Member No.: 38,080 |
Hi All,
A Parking Charge Notice was received last week for parking in a private commercial premises. Driver 1 paid for parking on the machines located and received a ticket as shown below. A second individual (Driver 2) went to retrieve the car just before the expiry time shown on the ticket, however was unable to start the car. Driver 2 waited for Driver 1, who managed to start the car and drive off. Parking ticket paid for as well as the PCN received all have been uploaded with some personal details redacted. I would be grateful for guidance on what the next steps should be to appeal this. Thank you very much in advance. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 14:41
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 15:06
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
IPC member so a basic appeal - frustration of contract, someone not aprty to any purported contract attempted to start the car but could not , therefore the overstay was beyond their control. Witness statememtns from two individuals will be provdided to a court if you are foolish enough to continue any claim.
|
|
|
Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 12:31
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 8 Jun 2010 Member No.: 38,080 |
Ok great thanks.
How does this sound? Dear Sir/Madam, Re PCN number: XXXX I appeal and dispute your purported 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle on which the alleged charge was incurred. Somebody who was not a party to any purported contract attempted to start the car however was not able to. Any overstay was therefore beyond their control. Witness statements from two individuals will be provided to a court if any claim is unreasonably continued. Yours faithfully, The only option to appeal is by post - should the appeal be sent signed for or would standard post do? |
|
|
Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 12:56
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Not signed for, they can refuse, but get free proof of posting at any post office. Keep the certificate you get.
You haven't put in about "frustration of contract" that's the proper legal term. Just lets them know they are not talking to a dumbo. |
|
|
Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 13:08
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Use ‘a frustration of contract’ after the beyond their control.
You’ve also failed to point out that the driver who entered any contract, driver1 broke the terms (if any applied) as the person who should have removed the car on time failed to do so and that was outside the control of driver 1. -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 13:56
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 8 Jun 2010 Member No.: 38,080 |
Thank you.
Is the below ok? Dear Sir/Madam, Re PCN number: XXXXX I appeal and dispute your purported 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle on which the alleged charge was incurred. A second individual who was not a party to any purported contract attempted to start the car with the intention of removing it however was not able to. Any overstay was therefore beyond the control of the driver who parked the car and who may have entered in any contract. There was therefore a clear frustration of contract, should any contractual terms been in place. Witness statements from two individuals will be provided to a court if any claim is unreasonably continued. Yours faithfully, This post has been edited by treetrunk: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 13:57 |
|
|
Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 22:46
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 8 Jun 2010 Member No.: 38,080 |
So I sent the above letter to UK CPM and have received the response below, where it seems they have ignored my representation and just sent a template response.
What should I do next? I understand that using IAS is pointless so is the next step for me to just file the correspondence until UK CPM does unreasonably try to go to a CC? |
|
|
Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 00:04
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Yep, just that. A LBA will need responding to, plenty here to understand what one looks like
|
|
|
Wed, 12 Jun 2019 - 11:02
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 8 Jun 2010 Member No.: 38,080 |
After a number of letters, I have today received a Letter Before Claim from Gladstones. Grateful for advice on my next steps please. Should I post the letter here first?
Thank you in advance. |
|
|
Sun, 8 Sep 2019 - 19:50
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 8 Jun 2010 Member No.: 38,080 |
Hello everybody,
I think I have unfortunately messed up here and grateful for any help. A lot has been happening in my personal life and haven't paid attention to this as I should have. I have Claim from Gladstones received via Northampton CC dated 8 August 2019 and have not filed any defence, however I definitely made an Acknowledgement of Service online about 3 weeks ago. I think this means that I have until tomorrow to file a defence . I am unfortunately unable to log on to MCOL online as it keeps on saying my username/id is incorrect. Will call them tomorrow. In the meantime I am going to make an attempt at drafting a defence this evening and will post all relevant images as soon as I can. A brief timeline is as follows - After a number of letters from Gladstones which I ignored, I received a Letter Before Claim a couple of months ago. - I sent a SAR to CPM on 5 August 2019 by email requesting i) Copies of all photos or videos taken ii) all letters/emails sent and received, including any appeal correspondence earlier iii) A PDT machine record of the PCN date of payments made iv) all data held, including all evidence that you will rely on, and a full copy of the PCN and Notice to Keeper v) a list of all PCNs they consider are outstanding against me and/or the Vehicle Registration Number above. I have still not received a response to this SAR. This post has been edited by treetrunk: Sun, 8 Sep 2019 - 19:51 |
|
|
Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 00:07
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 8 Jun 2010 Member No.: 38,080 |
|
|
|
Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 00:27
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 8 Jun 2010 Member No.: 38,080 |
Hi All,
My draft defence is as follows. Grateful for any comments. Is the absence of the reply to the SAR another defence point? Thanks! 1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. 2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant XXXX was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle XXXX. 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. Further, 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. 3. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct. 4. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. 5. The parking ticket machine sets out the parking charges depending on the length of parking stay. A further sign then appears to set out parking ‘fees’ which bear no resemblance to the charges indicated on the parking ticket machine. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 6. 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. 7. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will – (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and (b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party. 8. 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. 9. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters. 10. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. 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. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity. 11. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff. 12. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery. 13. 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...'' 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. An individual who was not a party to any purported contract attempted to start the car with the intention of removing it from the location however was not able to. Any overstay was therefore beyond the control of the driver who parked the car and who may have entered in any contract. There was therefore a clear frustration of contract, should any contractual terms have been in place. |
|
|
Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 09:09
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
It isnt a defence per se, but it shows the claimant is unreliable.
You had 33 days from DATE OF ISSUE, so you are just inside time. I dont have time to review this today. |
|
|
Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 09:18
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 564 Joined: 15 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,103 |
You can always add a little more persuasive case law...
5. The parking ticket machine sets out the parking charges depending on the length of parking stay. A further sign then appears to set out parking ‘fees’ which bear no resemblance to the charges indicated on the parking ticket machine. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. The contract should be formed at the point of sale as noted in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA - Lord Denning then Master of the Rolls ruled that contract terms remote and hidden from the machine were not enforceable. |
|
|
Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 14:07
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 8 Jun 2010 Member No.: 38,080 |
Thank you, defence has been filed.
|
|
|
Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 07:33
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Now you cannot let this happen again
Keep a diary entry of key dates You must read up on the WHOLE process so youare *prepared* MSE forum -> Parking -> NEWBIES thread -> post 2. READ IT. I mean it - read it carefully and more than once. |
|
|
Fri, 13 Sep 2019 - 11:05
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 8 Jun 2010 Member No.: 38,080 |
Yes, noted and thank you again for help.
I have unfortunately not been able to log on online and the court were unable to help restore this. Over the phone however they advised that my defence has been registered and sent to the Claimant to decide, within 33 days how they wish to proceed. An further communications will follow to my postal address which I will ensure to monitor. Will post an update as and when I have any. |
|
|
Fri, 13 Sep 2019 - 11:40
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Have you read the thread you were directed to?
|
|
|
Thu, 13 Feb 2020 - 11:33
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 8 Jun 2010 Member No.: 38,080 |
Hi all just a brief update on this. Will add more information in the evening. Sorry have been occupied with other matters and haven't kept the kind people here in the loop on stuff.
So my court case was scheduled for next week. I submitted my witness statement by the deadline. Didn't receive anything from claimant/Gladstone apart from their reply to my defence. Yesterday I received notification from Gladstones of them applying to the court to discontinue the case. Just wanted to ask other more learned members on what I should do next. Let it go or can I apply for costs? Let me know if you would like to see all documents and I can upload tonight. Thanks all. This post has been edited by treetrunk: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 - 11:33 |
|
|
Thu, 13 Feb 2020 - 11:48
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Check with the court if the notice reached them. Until you do this you MUST assume the case is live
Send a letter to the courts. If the notice was served UNDER 7 days frmo the date of the hearing, then it is arguable that they should still be liable for costs 1) Ordinary costs - if you have booked holiday to attend and cant release this booking , then you should be reimbursed this. Half a day at a max of £95. PROVE this. 2) Unreasonable costs - if they behaved unreasonably (do a search to get examples) then you need to submit a claim for your time spent on writing the defence, WS, printing and copying etc. £19 per hour for your time. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 20:13 |