PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

707 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Today, 01:28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


So pull what they say apart anyway, including pointing out no NTK was ever served, but then also talking about lack of evidence of any contravention, unclear signs (not pictured next to the car maybe?) etc.

Use your imagination and really look at the lack of evidence - but only put BRIEF bullet point comments, NOT new appeal points.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425235 · Replies: 53 · Views: 927

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Today, 01:24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Luckily, 'Napixxr' use BW Legal when they do try court, and BW Legal robo-claims drop the ball more often than not and people win when they defend a case. Even if a case is lost it's worth the fight which is risk-free.

No huge costs, no CCJ, nothing bad (losers just pay about £150 - £175 and the scam is over). Most people win here.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425234 · Replies: 7 · Views: 126

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Today, 01:13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


I don't think you should counter-claim, nor should you change your draft or be persuaded to instead use some template from a newer poster currently attempting to steer every residential case on this forum and on MSE, in a complicated way, which I find alarming.

I also think you have little time - and should just get your defence in once you are happy with it. The defence is basically good and you have the PPC your data by appealing, so you can't say they obtained your DVLA data and misused it. So I would forget the counter-claim.

As I say, your defence is based on a decent one, and IMHO just needs a few wording changes.

I would remove #2 which doesn't help:

QUOTE
2. The Defendant is a Non-UK national residing in the UK since Mar 2014. The Defendant was not fully acquainted with the finer details of UK parking laws and leaseholder rights until this point where he is having to defend himself against a ‘Private’ parking claim which he considers as ‘Unlawful’.



...and get the name of the Claimant company right, it's not:

QUOTE
UK Car park Management Company


It's UKCPM, as per the heading in your defence, but in the body of your defence there is no need to keep naming them - just change all mentions of 'UK Car park Management Company' to 'the Claimant' (apart from in the defence heading, of course, where you got the name correct).


This is American 'windshield?' 'sticker'? What do those words mean in this context in the UK? And it's not a 'fine' either:

QUOTE
On XXXX date, UK Car park Management Company issued a parking fine alleging that there was no sticker displayed on the windshield.


Change that sentence #5 to this I reckon, and then you can call the charge a 'PCN' lower down the defence:

QUOTE
On xx/xx/2018 the Claimant issued a parking charge notice ('PCN') alleging that the vehicle was not authorised to park, due to the permit apparently not being visible through the windscreen. In fact the Defendant avers, the permit was certainly in sight through the car windows had the ticketing employee carried out a full check, albeit at some unknown time before or at the time of the ticketer leaning across the cars on site, someone or something had caused the always-displayed permit to slip from the dashboard.



And here, permit, permit, permit, not ''sticker'' and I've changed: ''Upholding the ‘Spirit of honesty’,'' to 'good faith' which is a concept that was mentioned in the Beavis case:

QUOTE
6. To resolve the minor dispute and in the interests of good faith, the Defendant wrote to the Claimant requesting a cancellation of the PCN on the basis that he is a resident within the locality and has an authorised permit which had fallen off the car dashboard. A copy of the permit and a picture evidence of the permit lying in full view on the car floor below the dashboard, were also provided. The request was, however, rejected.



I'd change this a bit too (and you can only mention this offer if it was made openly and not in a letter with a heading 'WITHOUT PREJUDICE'):
QUOTE
7. The Defendant at that time, due to being fairly new to the UK and not being fully acquainted with his own prevailing lease holder rights, felt intimidated and out of his depth and made an attempt to settle the PCN and offered to pay half of the unconscionable amount without admitting any liability, but the offer was rejected by the unregulated Debt recovery agent appointed by the Claimant, who continued to bombard the Defendant with various demands for different sums of money.



And here I would add a sentence about the fact the rights are expressly stated to be 'demised with full title' (in #1 of page 6 of the lease):

QUOTE
8. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms nor interfered with by any third party. The lease terms provide the right to park one domestic private motor vehicle in the free parking area. Below is the extract from the Defendant’s lease which covers the Parking conditions:-

The lessor hereby demises with full title guarantee unto the lessee all that the property together with (in common with all other persons entitled to the like or any other rights) the easements rights and privileges set out in Part 1 of the Schedule.

Easement granted by this lease for the benefit of the Property’ -
‘The right in common with all others entitled thereto from time to time to park one domestic private motor vehicle only on the Estate in any free parking space other than those specifically allocated or to be allocated’



And remove all of this, as it doesn't assist your case:

QUOTE
11.1. The Deed of covenant nowhere mentions about the display of the parking permit and also about the terms and conditions or even any of a fine. See below extract from the ‘Sales Pack’ provided by the Managing Agent at the time of purchasing the property.

'There is a parking regulation in place at this property and residents must have a permit to be able to park in the bay. Permits are available at a cost of 25 plus VAT. A copy of the scheme regulations pertaining to the unit address is available from the property manager upon request'

11.2. There seems to be a questionable intent in purposely favouring the Car Management Company whereby terms and conditions can be amended in future to suit the interest of a single party i.e. the Claimant.




And I would have this as #15 onwards, as I notice you had nothing about distinguishing your case from Beavis, or questioning the landowner authority/legitimate interest of this charge, or dodgy/prohibitive signs (always mention the signs even in a residential case):

QUOTE
15. In the alternative, if the Court considers that a contract might have existed, it is denied that the Claimant’s signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any permitted resident. The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in small font, and appear to be aimed at would-be trespassers by seeking to deter 'unauthorised' parking. No contract is on offer - the signs are prohibitive at best - and the Defendant already enjoys a demised right to park and has a permit, so no parking licence or anything of value could possibly be described as flowing between the parties by way of consideration. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract between this third party agent and a permitted/authorised resident.

16. Further and in the alternative, this Claimant is put to strict proof that whilst operating as a contractor on an agency basis with a bare licence, it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to pursue payment from residents by means of litigation in its own right. The Claimant is required to show not just authority to issue PCNs and put some signs up, but must explain how they consider they have the right to disregard the primacy of contract of residents and unilaterally impose an undoubted private nuisance of an onerous obligation and unconscionable penalty, that rides roughshod over the clear unfettered right to park, as set out in the lease.

17. The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts and location in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. Mr Beavis had no prior rights in the land, and he admitted being the driver and that he overstayed, having seen the prominent signs offering a parking licence with caveats. Thus he had entered into a contract with ParkingEye, whose charge only escaped falling foul of the penalty rule due to the clear wording on the signs and the 'rare and complex' legitimate interest arising from the commercial need for a regular turnover of spaces in an otherwise free retail park. None of this applies in this case, where there was (and is) no comparable 'legitimate interest' in penalising residents, which - even if the Claimant has a contract with the Managing Agent or freeholder - the Defendant avers is a derogation from grant.

18. The claim inexplicably includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, under the excuse of 'indemnity costs if applicable' which the Claimant passes off as 'damages' or sometimes 'debt collector costs'. Given the fact that the notorious debt collectors used by firms like the Claimant openly advertise their 'service' on a no-win-no-fee basis, and secondly, that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims track, these costs are an attempt at double recovery and are a gross abuse of process. In any event, the binding Supreme Court decision in Beavis confirmed that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages or indemnity costs, and could only collect a prominently advertised contractual sum for parking (in that case, £85) and only where the sum flows from a 'relevant contract/obligation' and is supported by a compelling commercial and legitimate interest.

19. The Claimant has also added on top of that £60, a further £50 in 'legal costs' that have also not been expended. The Claimant uses a solicitor - closely connected to their Trade Body and the so-called appeals service - which files hundreds of similar robo-claims every week. As such, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims at all. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.

20. In summary, the Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success.

21. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim, using its case management powers pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules 3.4.

21.1. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the Court to order the Claimant to provide Further and Better Particulars of Claim - specifically explaining how it believes it can interfere with and override the rights and privileges already granted to the Defendant under the lease - and allow the Defendant a specified time to respond, and/or requests that the Court uses its case management powers to order a preliminary hearing to examine that vital issue.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.


Name

Signature

Date
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425232 · Replies: 29 · Views: 461

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 23:34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 01:45) *
Bumble62
One of the great things about this forum is that you are free to take advice from whomever you choose. Unfortunately, of course, that choice brings with it some difficulties...

SchoolRunMum
I wonder whether or not you may wish to explain to Bumble62 why over twenty of your recent posts on MSE have been deleted.
Could it be that MSE’s Forum Team thought they were inappropriate?
I wonder also whether or not you might like to explain why you, who contributes on average over thirteen posts per day on MSE, has not posted anything there since, I believe, Monday, 8 October.
Could it be that MSE’s Forum Team were so concerned about your posts that they have suspended or banned you from making more?


Obsessively reading all my posts on both forums, and reporting them avidly, getting me banned about once a year by MSE for daring to suss who you are, and then weirdly re-counting the number of my MSE posts and working out how many you think were removed, is a form of stalking (again, as you already know).
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425229 · Replies: 20 · Views: 476

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 23:28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
I imagine that will have been CCTV in action
You imagine wrong!

Private firms alleging the driver left the site have no evidence and no CCTV. Take the advice given, it is correct.

The registered keeper (NOT SAYING WHO WAS DRIVING) appeals ONLINE so that it arrives on day 26 (reason is to head them off at the pass and hopefully make them forget to send any NOTICE TO KEEPER and then run out of time to do so...hence the 'day 26' carefully timed appeal delay)
QUOTE
...and complains that the driver* did not leave the site and, after inspection by keeper, the signs were not clear etc. Then wait for the Notice to Keeper to appear, or not, as the case may be. It has to agree with the details on the Notice to Driver


NO PUTTING ''I DIDN'T LEAVE'' OR ''WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE OF ME LEAVING THE SITE?''

No silly wording, this appeal is from the keeper.

QUOTE
Is this parking charge valid?
As valid as any private parking charge scam. And easy to beat if you follow the advice to the letter.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425228 · Replies: 5 · Views: 85

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 23:14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE (Doraemon @ Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 23:52) *
In many defence I am seeing a mention of Beavis. I am not sure if I should also mention it in my case. The circumstances are different.

Yes, like most people on parking forums do. They have a point explaining why their case is different, and thus, Beavis is distinguished.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425227 · Replies: 29 · Views: 461

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 23:12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
1. Can i still make the SAR request to VCS directly even now as the case is going to CC?


Yes, as I said, just do it NOW. Loads of people here are defending claims and also sending a SAR to force info from the scammers.


QUOTE
2. RE your suggestion of going down the disability discrimination route, would you say there's grounds for a counter-claim against VCS?
The Defendant's grounds would be higher if they'd not ignored it and had told VCS about the disability at the time, because they could then, IMHO far more compellingly, argue that VCS were harassing a known disabled person and had continued to discriminate with knowledge that the demand was unjustified under the circumstances (indirect would then have become direct discrimination).

In this case if VCS have not been told and were ignored...technically yes, the D could add a counter claim but I am really not sure what result you'd get with the lottery of small claims. A Judge might agree that a disabled person can sue for indirect discrimination (they can) but then might offset that with ''why didn't you complain?'' and feel there is no award to be made for compensation. A gamble maybe.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425226 · Replies: 16 · Views: 168

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 21:05


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Equality Act 2010 - indirect discrimination.

Google it and find the EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers and click on the document, then Control & F to search it for the word 'tours'. That gives an example of indirect discrimination by allowing an arbitrary time limit that doesn;t make any reasonable adjustment for the disabled population at large.

Also search the EHRC CoP for the word 'indirect' to understand what that form of discrimination is, and why the PPC cannot be heard to say ''we didn't know about this individual's mobility problems - her fault, why didn't she tell us...waaah!'


QUOTE
Your SAR point is a good one but am i able to ask VCS for this now even as the case is going to court?


Yes but it can't be YOU, must come from the Defendant (or you using the D's email!) attaching a copy of the V5C to prove he/she is the data subject in connection with that car. Send the SAR right now, look up the PPC's Privacy page and find the contact details for their Data protection Officer.

NOW, yes, never mind the claim as long as it's acknowledged, the defence can then be worked on (it's not 28 days from the date you do the AOS).
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425193 · Replies: 16 · Views: 168

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 20:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
Unfortunately the driver was admitted (as didn't look here before submitting first claim to FP), so they even got that part wrong in their generic blurb. They've provided a contract (heavily redacted though), and a bunch of photos, none of which I think are sufficient to counter my point 4.

Darn.

You blew it, although is there ANYTHING they or you have said to POPLA that ADMITTED who was driving? Will POPLA be able to tell?

QUOTE
But the problem is that driver has already been admitted (as I fell into their 'appeal' trap before looking on these forums). They even provide a screenshot of this in their 'evidence' pack...
Screenshot of what, you admitting to driving in so many words? what words?
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425190 · Replies: 53 · Views: 927

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 20:55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


You don't need any real help - honestly this is a cinch, it's only Smart! You are not over your head, this is so easy.

Just look for other Smart POPLA cases on here or on MSE.

It might be easier to Google Smart POPLA and then just click on 2017 or 2018 results.

Show us your adapted version. Simple.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425189 · Replies: 13 · Views: 194

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 20:52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE (Edinburgh87 @ Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 11:03) *
Hi.I need some advice for the following:-
My car was parked in Edinburgh at my mother's flat and I was in another town.The flat has two permits.
I received a letter from Parking4U saying that I was due £120 and that if I was not the driver I was to name the person who was.
I wrote to them explaining the situation and then another letter came in from TCN saying that I was due the money as the car was registered to me.
I phoned them and got a very rude man who said I would be taken to the small claims court.
Another annoying letter came in the day after saying payment should be made immediately. What do I do?

Just stop contacting them, stop taking the bait - you are in Scotland and can ignore them.

NEVER say who the driver was.

DO NOT panic about stupid debt demands, laugh at them but keep them in a drawer marked 'scam'.

Come back if P4Parking break the habit of a lifetime and try a claim in the Sheriffs court...as Umkomaas pointed out, it's never happened yet.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425187 · Replies: 15 · Views: 217

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 20:46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


What were your four points - this thread is too long for me to have time to read back looking (sorry!) and was the driver never admitted?
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425184 · Replies: 53 · Views: 927

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 20:45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


This needs moving to the council tickets forum. This is the wrong place.

I think you need to hit 'report' on your own post and ask for it to be moved.

QUOTE
I paid the entire amount there and then on my credit card.

OMG.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1425182 · Replies: 12 · Views: 163

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 20:38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Just to add to the advice to appeal (not yet) - shortly before the appeals deadline:

NEVER BLAB ABOUT WHO THE DRIVER WAS, NO RUSHING TERRIBLE APPEALS - SPREAD THE WORD.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425179 · Replies: 8 · Views: 87

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 20:35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Is it here?

A brand new parking regime - typical DE private parking cash cow site started just one week ago then, with what they describe as 'temporary signs'? How dare they inflict DE on people, flipping heck what is the matter with the Park Estate Committee, can they not research?

http://www.thenottinghamparkestateltd.co.uk/

QUOTE
Nottingham Park Estate Ltd

28.09.18 - Parking Enforcement
Temporary signs are being installed today to enable the new parking enforcement company to start managing parking within The Park next week. These signs will be replaced with permanent signage in the coming months. The wardens will be on The Estate seven days a week at varying times.


Wardens...? DE do not have anyone who could be described as 'warding' cars or property. These firms are parasites, money-grabbers.

The FAQS are interesting and suggest they think they can issue 'PENALTY NOTICES' and also say people CAN park...

QUOTE
Am I entitled to park my car in the Park?

If you reside in the Park you are generally entitled to a residents’ parking permit (restrictions apply). Visitors who are genuinely visiting a Park resident may also park here for a short time. Please see Parking Section for details.

http://www.thenottinghamparkestateltd.co.u...and_Access.html


If I have a residents' parking permit , can I park anywhere in the Park?

No, there are restrictions. You can only park on the section of road "immediately abutting" (i.e alongside) your property where there are no double blue lines or double yellow lines. If there isn't any space outside of your property then you are permitted to park neary, within a reasonable distance. "Free" parking for any permit holder is also available on Ogle Drive, and on Park Valley, north of the Park Steps (depending on space available, of course).


How can I get through the bollards on Peveril Drive?

The bollards operate on Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). When you register your vehicle for a parking permit, you will also be registered for ANPR. The bollards are present to reduce traffic cutting through the Estate.


What can I do if I see someone parking their car here when they don’t have a permit, aren’t a legitimate visitor, etc?

Please report it to the Estate Office who will ensure the wardens issue a parking penalty notice.



Even more interesting:

http://www.thenottinghamparkestateltd.co.u...and_Access.html

QUOTE
Parking and Access

The NPEL monitors the state of the various roads, considers priorities in resurfacing, determines where speed ramps should be installed and generally oversees representations and complaints made by residents.

Traffic Regulations are made and issued under Section 14 (2) (b) of the Park Estate Act - please see the NPEL Structure page.

The last Regulations review and consultation was carried out by the Board in 2014 and 2015. Members were consulted (via meetings, a survey, and an online forum) on proposed new Parking Regulations, to reduce parking congestion and unauthorised parking in The Park. Many Members felt that most parking issues would be solved by more enforcement of the current regulations, and following increased NPEL spend in this area (wardens carrying out more patrols for longer periods), the parking issues have indeed decreased. Patrols cover all roads in The Park but there is more focus on "hotspot" areas like Park Valley, Park Terrace, Western Terrace.


Enforcement

​The roads within the Park are patrolled daily, with particular focus on the perimeter roads (such as Newcastle Drive, Park Valley, North Road, Huntingdon Drive) that suffer from non-Park residents attempting to park illegally. Parking Charge Notices (Fixed Penalties) are issued to those infringing the Regulations and are legally enforceable. Residents who wish to report a vehicle parked illegally should contact the Estate Office.

CCTV cameras monitor activity at the rising bollards on Peveril Drive, and the NPEL takes legal action against motorists who damage the bollards.



What do we think, under 'STATUTORY CONTROL' - due to the fact the regulations fall under an Act?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1990/14...19900014_en.pdf

http://www.thenottinghamparkestateltd.co.u...osting_BH_2.pdf

QUOTE
THE NOTTINGHAM PARK ESTATE REGULATIONS 2009
All estate roads in the Nottingham Park Estate are privately owned by The Nottingham Park Estate Limited (“the Company”)
and are not highways maintainable at public expense. Parking is reserved for residents and bona-fide visitors only.

The Company has issued these Regulations pursuant to section 14(2)(b) of the Nottingham Park Estate Act 1990.


Was the car parked in a bay?

Was the car parked on a single blue line?

Was the car parked on double blue lines (yes really...that's what that Act talks about - prohibition on parking on double blues!).

The registered keeper of the car should send an 'appeal' and ask how DE reckon they can issue 'fixed penalties' on land covered by statute, who they think is liable and why and under which applicable law, and to show images of which 'temporary signs' they allege were displayed to ensure that what is clearly a brand new parking regime was drawn to the clear attention of drivers familiar with the area before the parking enforcement changed (starting last week, according to the NPEL website).


Can I just warn you, very clearly -

AVOID THAT ARE LIKE THE PLAGUE AND TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS NEVER TO PARK THERE - DE OFFER NO INDEPENDENT APPEAL (IPC FIRM).

IF ANYONE HAS A PERMIT FOR THERE, STICK IT TO THE DASHBOARD WITH BLUTACK - NO LETTING *SOMEONE* DISLODGE IT. NO FLIMSY BITS OF PAPER PROVE TO SLIPPING OFF THE DASHBOARD, NOT NOW THIS LOT ARE INFESTING THE SITE.

  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425175 · Replies: 8 · Views: 87

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 20:03


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
First Parking are also fully compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act.

Our Notice to Keeper clearly states
'If you were not the driver at the time, please tell us who was driving’. If you are unable to provide the driver's name and valid address and the amount remains outstanding after 28 days, the Creditor has the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper as described under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012.



QUOTE
A Notice to Keeper wasn’t issued as they appealed within the first 28 days.


No laughing at the back...you really could not make this dross up!

No NTK, no win for First Parking!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425164 · Replies: 53 · Views: 927

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 19:56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
In this instance, it is a physical impossibility for the RK to be the driver and that can be proved unequivocally. Does this help the situation at all?
Yes!! Because VCS cannot hold a registered keeper liable - unless you get a Judge who cannot see that the '28 warning / keeper liability' paragraph near the bottom of that NTK, doesn't match the timeline set out as mandatory under the statute (Schedule 4 of the POFA, para 9(2)f.

VCS say 'from the issue date of this notice'

Para 9(2)f requires by law 'from the day after the date of service of this notice' which can anything from 2 days to a week different depending on weekends/bank hols etc in between.

So, we would have any Defendant in your shoes argue that the Defendant cannot be held liable (search this forum and MSE parking forum, for defences with that wording in already).

QUOTE
The entry time to the car park claimed on the PCN was hours earlier than the vehicle could have been in said area
How can that possibly be? Wow... never seen that. Are you certain it wasn't two visits? I think the rk should send a SAR to VCS asking for all images of every time the car passed cameras within that location that day, and the unaltered list of all times it was captured (i.e. not just images but a system report).

Sounds like the rk Defendant might meet the definition of disability under the EA? Do they have a mobility condition and did they spend a few hours at the retail park that day and needed more time to get about (even if they didn't arrive as early as the first image says?). The EA might be worth including.

QUOTE
My initial questions to the board are:
1. do i go and acknowledge the case online now? Assuming leaving defence bit blank if i do?

Yes int he name of the Defendant only of course (so set up a Gvt Gateway a/c in their name not yours. You can't do it on their behalf.

QUOTE
2. Can anyone guide me as to what grounds the defendant should construct their defence on?

- No keeper liability - POFA failure. The rk cannot have been the driver so cannot be liable due to VCS being unable to rely on the POFA.

- the ANPR images are inaccurate and the car was not in the car park for one single period of parking from xx time to xx time. Suggest 2 visits or other ANPR system error and put VCS to strict proof.

- signs appear to be dark and therefore no contract formed, no terms visible

- EA (if the D was a passenger who needed a reasonable adjustment of time, regardless of whether the ANPR images are wrong).

- no landowner authority and no legitimate interest in penalising drivers for what either appears to be 2 visits, 2 parking events in one day, or a visit by a disabled passenger who needed more time (ANPR systems fail the disabled population at large - indirect discrimination)

Have a look at example defences here and on MSE parking forum (the latter has longer defences written by me and concise ones written by bargepole - try to use bargepole's one as a base but read the longer ones to see what else might apply).
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425162 · Replies: 16 · Views: 168

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 - 21:11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Let sleeping dogs lie, but inform the parking firm if you move house, so that you know they can't sneakily start a court claim in a couple of years, getting you an unexpected CCJ at an old address.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1424973 · Replies: 59 · Views: 3,282

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 - 21:07


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Do not pay the 'TRAFFIC OFFICER'...who are they kidding with that misleading job title?
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1424972 · Replies: 6 · Views: 149

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 - 20:46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Send a SAR to the parking firm's Data Protection Officer (DPO) asking for all times that this VRN (your personal data) was captured that day at that location, and head it up 'RECTIFICATION NOTICE UNDER THE GDPR'.

Ask the DPO to show you all images captured and the list of captures that day, and to then you require them to admit their mistake, apologise and erase your data, and/or rectify the inaccurate data that they have been processing that claimed wrongly, that the car stayed there the whole time. Tell the DPO that if they fail to reply properly then you will escalate the complaint to the Information Commissioner.

I just looked up their Privacy Policy page which tells you the contact details for data concerns:

http://parkwatch.co.uk/pdf/privacy.pdf

QUOTE
You’re Rights under the GDPR
No laughing at the back!

Also don't forget the POPLA appeal deadline once they reject your appeal. That code must be used within 32 days (no, not 28).

SAR first though! That's URGENT and to be done by email this weekend, attach a copy of the PCN and your V5C to prove you are who you say you are, the data subject connected as the registered keeper, to that car.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1424963 · Replies: 3 · Views: 91

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 - 17:24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
Think we have gone past the point of no return? I don’t want this getting to be any more than £100!


Odd that you think you have to pay anything. I've only seen ONE case v CEL lost on either this or MSE forums, and that was a dropped ball by the poster. They had a winnable case against the claim, and sent a winning defence, but didn't read the stupid court letter that said the Judge had decided to hear the case on the papers, so the case was heard without the OP expecting it (they were waiting for a court date) and the Judge found against them when that should never, ever have happened!

So, you are not past any point of no return, and should never thing you should pay £100. No-one has done to date, v CEL, when properly defended, although you have thrown the baby out with the bathwater by actually transferring liability to you (sigh).

Are you missing the importance of the POPLA complaint? If you word it right POPLA will be pretty much forced to look at it again!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1424908 · Replies: 17 · Views: 222

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 - 17:19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Good, and do the emailed POPLA complaint at the same time or I am knocking my head against a brick wall...it will take you 10 minutes max.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1424904 · Replies: 17 · Views: 224

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 - 17:16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
I wrote to them asking for details of how I had breached the contract and they said I did not pay the correct fee. The problem I have is that I am adamant I paid the correct fee, but of course, I no longer have the ticket, and in fact, threw it away as soon as I got home-I would have kept it as evidence if there had been a PCN on my windscreen, but there wasnt.

The reason I am adamant I had the correct ticket is because my partner who was with me, has a rather annoying habit of always paying too much to park, so if we think we will be parked for 2 hours, she will pay for 4, just to be sure. In fact, she nipped into a nearby shop and bought a bottle of water just to get extra change, and we took a taxi back rather than walk, just to be sure we would be early.



Your defence looks to be based upon one on MSE and looks good to me (including the DPA concern about ANPR, although maybe move it further down and have the top bit saying more like the above, i.e. how it is the Defendant's honest belief that the driver actually paid the right amount).

The heading must be DEFENCE (NOT 'STATEMENT').

I would not have your point #5 about the POFA at all, nor anything about the POFA, partly because I think MB NTKs do comply with the POFA (usually) and because if you were the driver it will be a better defence position to go to the hearing as a genuine witness to the events, which MB won't bother to have in court. You could also bring your partner as a second witness (you being the first).

If you were the driver I would admit it at the start where you admit being the keeper.

Then explain more relevantly about the parking event and your primary defence being the correct fee WAS paid, and that if the Claimant is averring otherwise, you suspect they are just playing fast & loose with the mandatory 'observation period' (before paying, and the 'grace period' (which in itself must be at least ten minutes - not a maximum a minimum) after expiry of paid-for time.

This bit is not right, you've copied a ParkingEye one, where they do have salaried solicitors, but MB do not:

QUOTE
16. Whilst £50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim,
Minster Baywatch Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case. This Claimant utilises the services of
Gladstones Solicitors and it files hundreds of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per month, not incurring any
legal cost per case. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary, given the fact that their
in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.


Replace it with an objection to the added £50 AND the added 'indemnity costs if applicable' of a further £60. Something like this has been used in recent defences I've seen (of course, it doesn't have to feature as number 11):

QUOTE
11. In addition to the original punitive charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of its claim by adding purported but unsupported damages, described vaguely as 'indemnity costs if applicable', which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred at all. The claim flows from an alleged (already hugely inflated) 'fine' - for want of a better word - of £100 but the sum on the claim form is well in excess of twice this sum. The Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a cynical, calculated 'robo-claim' attempt at double recovery and is a gross abuse of process.

11.1. The Claimant also attempts to claim £50 for 'legal costs' but the Defendant has reason to believe that the Claimant has expended none, and that no solicitor has in any way worked on or supervised this latest cut & paste batch of claims. The Claimant is a serial offender on this regard and their Solicitors must be well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims track. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.



And this bit has featured in some recent forum 'PDT machine' defences, I don't recall seeing this in yours? Obviously it doesn't have to be point #8:

QUOTE
Authorities other than Beavis, better apply to the instant case

8. It is the Defendant's case that the correct authorities in a PDT machine car parking case are not Beavis at all, but instead, due to the above quoted precedent findings, Kemble v Farren is the correct authority regarding this sort of of unrecoverable penalty, as well as:

8.1. Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 where Denning LJ held that a person will not be bound by terms of a contract of which he has not received reasonable notice: ''I quite agree that the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink on the face of the document with a red hand pointing to it, before the notice could be held to be sufficient'', and

8.2. Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, where it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach, and

8.3. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] QB 163, where it was held that the machine itself constituted the offer. The acceptance was by putting the money into the machine. The ticket was dispensed after the acceptance took place; therefore another unknown/hidden clause that the driver learned about too late, was not incorporated into the contract.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1424900 · Replies: 8 · Views: 198

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 - 16:26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE (Bohemiath2 @ Sat, 13 Oct 2018 - 10:30) *
I will write this on day 25 to park direct UK

Dear Sir/madam,

Ref. Xxxxx

I am the keeper of this vehicle and have been notified of your PCN for the car allegedly being 5 minutes in a bay without a valid permit. I was not the driver and it is my understanding that the driver was merely unloading, so I require evidence of the 'parking event' of which you speak.

I am not liable for this charge for various reasons including, but not limited to, the IPC Code of Practice regarding 'grace periods' and I require your evidence and notes from the ticketing employee that prove on the balance of probabilities that the car was observed for long enough to discount the clear probability that the driver was involved in exempt activity, e.g. unloading, or if planning to actually park and not just unload, fetching a permit from the adjacent promises in that 5 minutes.

My name
My address slightly altered

Regards



Thanks



Obviously you MUST only write 'I was not the driver' if that was true.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1424892 · Replies: 16 · Views: 257

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 - 16:21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,839
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE (10020132 @ Sat, 13 Oct 2018 - 03:27) *
The issue date is 4 October
I will acknowledge it today but i say that I need upto 28 days to prepare my defense?
You do not ''say that you need 28 days''. By doing the AOS, you then automatically get 28 days from SERVICE of the claim form, to defend (NOT counting from whenever you do the AOS).

And it's 'DEFENCE', not 's'.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1424891 · Replies: 12 · Views: 219

707 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Monday, 15th October 2018 - 15:59
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.