PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Parking & Property Management Ltd. - Parking charge in residential car park
emergencychimp
post Wed, 2 Aug 2017 - 20:49
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 199
Joined: 7 Sep 2013
Member No.: 65,032



So the driver got a parking charge in a residential car park in the time from leaving the car in a visitor space and going up to grab a parking permit from an outgoing tenant.

It seems this place is employing 'civilian' type attendants. No marked car, no uniform...

Anyway, of course a valid permit was in the possession of the driver.

My initial question is, do you send the appeal before the 28 days? I've read some people send it a couple of days prior. Or is the normal procedure to wait for NTK?





This post has been edited by emergencychimp: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 - 20:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Wed, 2 Aug 2017 - 20:49
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
emergencychimp
post Wed, 6 Sep 2017 - 09:53
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 199
Joined: 7 Sep 2013
Member No.: 65,032



Appeal rejected. No surprise.

I'm a bit confused they're saying the appeal is out of the time limits. Is that something to do with waiting on NTK?

And do you think they really don't know their notice to driver and NTK, and signage are not compliant or are they just lying.





This post has been edited by emergencychimp: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 - 10:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 6 Sep 2017 - 10:42
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,637
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



They claim the vehicle did not have a permit for 12 minutes. (And only allow 5)

The appeal date appears to be referring the original PCN date and not the NtK? (Some companies don't accept appeals from a NtK)


--------------------
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

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
emergencychimp
post Wed, 6 Sep 2017 - 10:56
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 199
Joined: 7 Sep 2013
Member No.: 65,032



How relevant is it that there is no mention of a grace period on any sign?

Should I post their photos or just wait to see if a letter before claim turns up?

Should I chase the landowner to get them to cancel it?

This post has been edited by emergencychimp: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 - 11:05
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 6 Sep 2017 - 11:25
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,209
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



1/ Not at all relevant

2/ No, they aren't relevant

3/ You can do, yes, it depends if the Landowner brought them in or a managing company (which is good news as they have even less right to impose extra restrictions as they are meant to work for flat residents/owners). I would ask your customer (the landlord) to pay for the parking cost (as the PPC claim its a contractual cost and not a fine/penalty) of recovering the permit unless he gets it cancelled for you, he will have more clout and also it saves giving away the drivers ID.


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emergencychimp
post Wed, 6 Sep 2017 - 11:41
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 199
Joined: 7 Sep 2013
Member No.: 65,032



I'm not going to ask anyone to pay for anything.

I have the details of the property management company at the site. I assume they are responsible for bringing in the parking system.

I suppose I could advise them it would be best to cancel the PCN as their parking agent is not compliance with POFA 12 and they will be grouped into any legal action.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 6 Sep 2017 - 12:41
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,637
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (emergencychimp @ Wed, 6 Sep 2017 - 12:41) *
I have the details of the property management company at the site. I assume they are responsible for bringing in the parking system.

Yes, but they'll probably say the matter is with the parking company...

QUOTE (emergencychimp @ Wed, 6 Sep 2017 - 12:41) *
I suppose I could advise them it would be best to cancel the PCN as their parking agent is not compliance with POFA 12 and they will be grouped into any legal action.

What's not in compliance?

How will you group them in legal action? (This would only be possible if you claimed or counterclaimed)

The bottom line is a claim is extremely likely - prepare for it. You need your facts straight as you said it took less than 10 minutes to get the permit (reasonable) where they state 12. (May be sharp practice but is important)


--------------------
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

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
emergencychimp
post Wed, 6 Sep 2017 - 12:55
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 199
Joined: 7 Sep 2013
Member No.: 65,032



But they are capable of cancelling the PCN if they employed the parking company

Their notice to driver and NTK are not in compliance with POFA 12.

Yeah. Just thinking out loud there.

Maybe it was 12 minutes. I don't know. Who would count. As you can see from the sign, there is no mention of any permit being required. It just says 'strictly residents parking only'. Had there been a full sign over the visitor parking bays, perhaps a permit might have been acquired quicker.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 6 Sep 2017 - 13:15
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,637
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (emergencychimp @ Wed, 6 Sep 2017 - 13:55) *
But they are capable of cancelling the PCN if they employed the parking company

Believe or not, not necessarily! One wonders who signs up for these conditions but there's often a limit to the number of cancellations or even a charge to do so!

QUOTE (emergencychimp @ Wed, 6 Sep 2017 - 13:55) *
Their notice to driver and NTK are not in compliance with POFA 12.

You'll have to be more specific...

QUOTE (emergencychimp @ Wed, 6 Sep 2017 - 13:55) *
Maybe it was 12 minutes. I don't know. Who would count. As you can see from the sign, there is no mention of any permit being required. It just says 'strictly residents parking only'. Had there been a full sign over the visitor parking bays, perhaps a permit might have been acquired quicker.

Of course, but if they disprove any witness statement it won't assist your case. The signage angle is much better.


--------------------
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

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 Wed, 6 Sep 2017 - 18:06
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,230
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Most IOC members don't allow keepers to appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emergencychimp
post Sun, 19 Nov 2017 - 22:04
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 199
Joined: 7 Sep 2013
Member No.: 65,032



So I got a nice little letter from the lovely bunch at Gladstones.



I was thinking something along the lines of the below. Suggestions, criticisms welcome.



To whom it may conern

I am writing to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle *** and to confirm that I have no liability in this issue.

As you are aware, you need to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA2012) to hold the keeper liable and your client has failed to follow the procedures outlined.

As such, I cannot be liable for the alleged debt because of failure to adhere to these requirements, in particular (but not limited to) schedule 4, Paragraph 8.

In addition, the signage isn't capable of forming a contract.

The parking firm are not landowners and have no contract or status which would allow them to sue in their own name.

The sign was forbidding and that there was no offer of a contract to park as it stated "Private Property - Strictly Residents Parking Only"

Also, I am in my right to decline to name the driver and any presumption that the keeper is the driver using the inappropriate case of Elliot v Loake will be strongly refuted.

As I have no liability to you, I request that my details are removed from your filing systems under the requirements of the Data Protection Act. This request is to be taken as a request under Section 10 of the Act and I therefore require confirmation of removal within 21 days. Failure to comply with this request will result in a complaint to the ICO and to the DVLA for breach of the KADOE agreement.

I therefore expect that this issue (and any associated charges) are cancelled and that you respond to me confirming as such within 14 days of the receipt of this letter.

You should also note that I am now tracking costs in this matter.

Yours faithfully


emergencychimp
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sun, 19 Nov 2017 - 22:14
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,637
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



You should follow PAP - the stuff you’ve said above will not stop a claim.


--------------------
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

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
emergencychimp
post Sun, 19 Nov 2017 - 22:19
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 199
Joined: 7 Sep 2013
Member No.: 65,032



Oh right. I grabbed that off another thread and modified it. I guess I didn't read it properly. Sorry, I'm not familiar with PAP. What's that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 16:00
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,230
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Pre action protocol.
From 1st October they have to comply with more stringent rules.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 16:38
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,637
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 16:00) *
Pre action protocol.
From 1st October they have to comply with more stringent rules.

Indeed, but more importantly the 'defendant' has the opportunity to narrow the issues and request certain documentation.


--------------------
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

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
emergencychimp
post Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 19:05
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 199
Joined: 7 Sep 2013
Member No.: 65,032



I'm reading the thread on MSE and there is a letter that pretty much just says the LBC is not compliant with PAP and to send a proper one before doing anything else? Is this OK to do, or do I need to point out the many failures of the LBC? (there are a lot) Or is that done at a later stage?

Also, as it requires a date for acknowledgement, is them simply stating 30 days from the date of the letter sufficient or does it need to put a date in proper date format?

This post has been edited by emergencychimp: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 19:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 10:04
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,230
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



30 days is fine. Presumed to be 30 days from service whic his presumed to be 2 working days after they send it.

There is a MSE letter which then also goes onto exactly what documetns you wish to receive.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emergencychimp
post Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 14:52
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 199
Joined: 7 Sep 2013
Member No.: 65,032



Thanks. I've submitted a letter stating their LBC is defective and that I await one that is compliant. I was dreading messing around researching this but that excellent thread on MSE was very useful and it was actually quite straightforward.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emergencychimp
post Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 17:56
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 199
Joined: 7 Sep 2013
Member No.: 65,032



OK. So this was the letter I sent to Gladstones.

QUOTE
To whom it may concern,

Thank you for your letter of ***** 2017.

First, the alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

Your letter before claim is defective as it does not comply with numerous requirements of the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct.

Please therefore provide a Letter Before Claim which complies with the requirements of the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct:

I confirm that I shall then seek advice and submit a Response as required by the Practice Direction.

Please ensure that someone does actually read and respond to this letter, providing the specific information relating to any court claim that you intend to make against myself as the defendant to the proposed legal proceedings. Please DO NOT send a generic letter in reply as to do so does not meet the requirements of the Practice Direction and will take this matter no further forward.

Please note, a refusal to comply with the Practice Direction will result in an immediate referral to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for breach of the Principles contained in the SRA Handbook version 8, published on 1st October 2013.

I trust this will not be necessary, and look forward to receiving a fully compliant letter before claim in due course.



And the below is their reply.

QUOTE
You have replied to our letter, yet failed to advance the version of events as you know them. Please let me know what happened from your point of view and what you need from our client.
Please also let me know what section of the SRA handbook (version 8) you are referring to.
If I don't hear back, a claim will be issued.


Off the top of my head, I'm thinking something along the lines of.

Your reply has failed to address my issue with your letter before claim despite me explicitly requesting it. My version of events was not requested. I need your client to drop this ridiculous debt claim.

You should not be threatening claims if you cannot construct a compliant letter before court.

What do I do here? Mention their client has not complied with PoFA2012 again?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 18:32
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,617
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: Hampshire
Member No.: 16,066



I think it is encumbent upon them to provide a compliant LBC before they can issue a claim. It should be grounds to have the claim dismissed, but others will advise in detail.


--------------------
Cabbyman 9 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 20:35
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,230
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



That was the massively short letter

You need to respond robustly, stating that they have failed to follow the requirements of the new PAP for debt claims. You require them to comply with their obligations , and you will then consider their response

State that, in the event they again refuse to comply with the protocol, and raise.p a claim, you will immediately apply for a stay of proceedings until they do comply, at their clients expense.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: Tuesday, 21st August 2018 - 15:38
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.