ES Parking Blackpool, Daughter receives £300 fine for parking over line |
ES Parking Blackpool, Daughter receives £300 fine for parking over line |
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 - 08:36
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 28 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,244 |
Hi
Advice needed please. The driver visited Blackpool. The driver parked the car for three days in a pay and display car park and paid the appropriate fee. The driver has now recieved in the post 3 parking fines for the three days she was parked from a company called ES parking enforcement ltd. The fine for each day including photographic evidence is for Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space. The photo clearly shows that as well as parking with one rear tyre on and slightly over the white line the driver is also right next to the parking enforcement notice sign. 3 separate fines at £100 each for each day so a total of £300. The driver did not move the car for the duration of the 3 days once the driver had parked. Is there anyway to reduce or nullify these fines? Thank you This post has been edited by Bushido: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 - 09:57 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 - 08:36
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 12:52
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
But they have issued 3 PCNs. They have to apply for each PCN issued. If there is only 1 application that's got rid of 2/3 of the claim.
|
|
|
Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 12:58
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 28 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,244 |
|
|
|
Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 21:09
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Their attempt to comply with the pap is terrible.
Write back. Require them to SEND you the firms and documents they’re required to send , you do not consent to giving them personal details just to make their jobs easier. |
|
|
Tue, 24 Oct 2017 - 09:50
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 28 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,244 |
Is there anything else I should put in writing to them?
Thanks |
|
|
Tue, 24 Oct 2017 - 12:05
Post
#45
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
well you can add alist stating you require any and all doucments they intend to rely upon, such as copies of the alleged contract, copies of the contract with the landholder autohrising their client to operate on that land, etc.
|
|
|
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 07:48
Post
#46
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,770 Joined: 17 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,602 |
But they have issued 3 PCNs. They have to apply for each PCN issued. If there is only 1 application that's got rid of 2/3 of the claim. This is only true if they are using POFA to pursue the keeper. In this case they are not but doubtless are assuming that the keeper is the driver & also that whoever was the keeper (& thus the driver) on Day 1 was also the keeper (& thus the driver) on Day 3. The Letter Before Claim from Gladstones is woeful & totally ignores the new Pre-Action Protocol. Here is a link to the new Pre-Action Protocol https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure...debt-claims.pdf The OP needs to respond detailing all the deficiencies & inviting them t send a compliant LBC Something along these lines:- QUOTE As a firm of solicitors I am surprised that you seem unaware that since 1st October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with. For your convenience I enclose a copy.
. Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon. Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6©) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents & information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered. As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1st October 2017 and the Protocol which now applies. As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague 'Letter before Claim' completely ignoring the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol. Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol. I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information & documents: 1. An explanation of the cause of action 2. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper 3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 4. What the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated 5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? 6. Is the claim for trespass? 7. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added 8. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Thu, 26 Oct 2017 - 09:55
Post
#47
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
So, still no pictures of the signs? That's evidence of "the contract" the OP is alleged to have breached, so its terms are somewhat important. As mentioned earlier, it would be useful to determine if the PPC's terms even allow for the "KA-CHING" to occur each 24 hour period.
--Churchmouse |
|
|
Sun, 29 Oct 2017 - 09:22
Post
#48
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 28 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,244 |
Thank’s all for the advice and guidance, very much appreciated.
|
|
|
Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 10:46
Post
#49
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 28 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,244 |
|
|
|
Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 10:57
Post
#50
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11,094 Joined: 24 Aug 2007 From: Home alone Member No.: 13,324 |
ES Parking will be grateful you've identified you case on an open forum together with information they did not have.
In any case the issue will be "de minimis" so why not tell them to stop pissing around and to take the matter to court where you will have a long list of costs. A few of these scams around from ES Parking who think taking pics of someone just over a line is a new way of making money. This post has been edited by emanresu: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 11:02 |
|
|
Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 12:01
Post
#51
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
YOuve left their ref number on. Take it down, now
STate that, as they have STILL failed to comply with ALL the reuqirements of the new PAP for debt claims, should they issue a claim without complying you will immediately apply for a stay of the claim until they DO comply. This wil be at their clients expense. |
|
|
Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 14:42
Post
#52
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 28 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,244 |
Where do we stand in that they did not apply to claim from the owner within 14days?
Does this not make it all null and void anyway? |
|
|
Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 14:52
Post
#53
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,124 Joined: 8 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,842 |
Where do we stand in that they did not apply to claim from the owner within 14days? Does this not make it all null and void anyway? Not really clear on what you’re asking. If you mean they did not apply to to the DVLA for the registered keeper’s details within 14 days to hold the RK potentially liable - this condition relates to ANPR or camera capture. If it’s a windscreen ticket, in order to hold the RK potentially liable, then it’s between days 28 and 56 after the date of the parking event. But the days above relate only to holding the RK potentially liable. Beyond those, they can apply to the DVLA for the RK’s data, but only to write to the RK to seek the details of the driver. They have up to 6 years to make a county court claim. |
|
|
Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 15:14
Post
#54
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 28 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,244 |
Where do we stand in that they did not apply to claim from the owner within 14days? Does this not make it all null and void anyway? Not really clear on what you’re asking. If you mean they did not apply to to the DVLA for the registered keeper’s details within 14 days to hold the RK potentially liable - this condition relates to ANPR or camera capture. If it’s a windscreen ticket, in order to hold the RK potentially liable, then it’s between days 28 and 56 after the date of the parking event. But the days above relate only to holding the RK potentially liable. Beyond those, they can apply to the DVLA for the RK’s data, but only to write to the RK to seek the details of the driver. They have up to 6 years to make a county court claim. Now I am confused, a previous poster stated the following The dates look as though they are beyond the 14 days for keeper liability anyway. If POFA is not mentioned on the back of the letter (I can't read it) then a simple BOGOFF letter is called for as long as the driver has not been identified. Which is it? Do they only have 14 days to claim off the registered keeper or is longer? Thank you |
|
|
Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 16:07
Post
#55
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,124 Joined: 8 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,842 |
QUOTE Now I am confused, a previous poster stated the following The dates look as though they are beyond the 14 days for keeper liability anyway. If POFA is not mentioned on the back of the letter (I can't read it) then a simple BOGOFF letter is called for as long as the driver has not been identified. Which is it? Do they only have 14 days to claim off the registered keeper or is longer? Thank you Your confusion seems to emanate from your thoughts that if the NtK wasn’t delivered within 14 days then the charge is null and void. That is only the case against the Registered Keeper. It’s not the case (because of missing the 14 days) in relation to the driver. It will not stop them pursuing this on the ‘reasonable assumption that the registered keeper was the dtiver’ And will be wildly quoting Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films. It may well take a judge to sort this out for you. I’ve skimmed back over the full thread, but didn’t see what the outcome of your query to the DVLA resulted in. |
|
|
Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 04:54
Post
#56
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 28 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,244 |
QUOTE Now I am confused, a previous poster stated the following The dates look as though they are beyond the 14 days for keeper liability anyway. If POFA is not mentioned on the back of the letter (I can't read it) then a simple BOGOFF letter is called for as long as the driver has not been identified. Which is it? Do they only have 14 days to claim off the registered keeper or is longer? Thank you Your confusion seems to emanate from your thoughts that if the NtK wasn’t delivered within 14 days then the charge is null and void. That is only the case against the Registered Keeper. It’s not the case (because of missing the 14 days) in relation to the driver. It will not stop them pursuing this on the ‘reasonable assumption that the registered keeper was the dtiver’ And will be wildly quoting Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films. It may well take a judge to sort this out for you. I’ve skimmed back over the full thread, but didn’t see what the outcome of your query to the DVLA resulted in. so do you think a judge will side with us? If we lose will there be additional costs to pay? I did not enquire with the DVLA as there was further advice on here that it was not applicable. |
|
|
Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 08:21
Post
#57
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
We cannot tell you whether they will or wont. They SHOULD, because both EvL and CPS vs AJH have been thrown out oas having ANY applicability to these cases on numerous occasions - however that is not a g'tee!
If you lose you will pay around £200 total. £25 hearing £25 filing UP TO £50 to file the claim (which you can challenge in most cases, as no way did they spend £50 on the filing). as long as you pay up within (usually) 1 month, there is no effect on credit record. None. However we see a VERY good win rate here, but ONLY if you keep in touch on here at all stages - and with plenty of time. Coming back giving people 2 days to check isnt enough This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 08:26 |
|
|
Wed, 6 Dec 2017 - 04:31
Post
#58
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 28 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,244 |
We cannot tell you whether they will or wont. They SHOULD, because both EvL and CPS vs AJH have been thrown out oas having ANY applicability to these cases on numerous occasions - however that is not a g'tee! If you lose you will pay around £200 total. £25 hearing £25 filing UP TO £50 to file the claim (which you can challenge in most cases, as no way did they spend £50 on the filing). as long as you pay up within (usually) 1 month, there is no effect on credit record. None. However we see a VERY good win rate here, but ONLY if you keep in touch on here at all stages - and with plenty of time. Coming back giving people 2 days to check isnt enough Ok thanks, just to be clear do you mean £200 total including their claim? Where has the two days come from? If you are referring to the solicitors deadline for reply this seems mute as they ignore everything I send back anyway so I see no point in replying by their deadlines other than to delay the possible court day which might be better coming sooner rather than later. It is great to receive advice from here but I do find it awkward to judge where we are as there is often conflicting opinions to work through. This post has been edited by Bushido: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 - 04:32 |
|
|
Wed, 6 Dec 2017 - 06:12
Post
#59
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,124 Joined: 8 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,842 |
QUOTE Ok thanks, just to be clear do you mean £200 total including their claim? Yes, includes original single parking charge. As your case involves 3, the likely costs would be £300 + £35 (filing - slightly more because of the value of the claim) + £25 (hearing) + up to £50 solicitor costs (capped @ £50 in the small claims court). QUOTE Where has the two days come from? I think nosferatu was speaking figuratively. We often get people coming to the forum with a long, messy defence saying ‘This is urgent, will you sort out my defence, I’ve only got two days to get it in (and I’m away for the next 24 hours)’. Get the drift ......? QUOTE It is great to receive advice from here but I do find it awkward to judge where we are as there is often conflicting opinions to work through. On a public forum you are exposed to anyone who wishes to give his/her opinion. Anyone who is providing advice which is widely at odds with what should be correct advice will get short shrift from regulars. At times even regulars between them will offer different opinions, but generally a degree of consensus will emerge. The point with all this is that there is no single, prescribed way of dealing with cases to generate a guaranteed positive outcome - the whole business is fast moving. We are dealing with dozens of different parking companies, none of which does exactly the same as any of the other ones, so a static template never emerges. Have you really had such wildly conflicting advice? |
|
|
Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 09:06
Post
#60
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 28 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,244 |
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 19:14 |