PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Euro Parking Services, Appeal rejection letter & letter before action
Mr.Brown058
post Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 23:14
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 7 Mar 2016
Member No.: 82,829



Hi all,
I am seeking advise on how best to proceed.
I have received a final reminder for payment of a parking charge for Euro Parking Services (EPS) however this is the first communication I have had from them.
I am the registered hirer of the vehicle and have not responded yet.
The final reminder letter does not state the date of the incident however they show pictures of the vehicle manoeuvring & leaving the car park these were taken by a car park attendant working for EPS as the driver remembered the incident.
The driver of the vehicle at the time honestly parked in the car park, went to a cash machine and then entered the Lidl store to purchase some milk. On returning to the car the driver was approached by an EPS employee saying as they left the premises they would receive a PCN in the post. The driver of the vehicle stating they were a customer and showed the attendant the receipt got in the car and drove off.
the pictures on the letter show the vehicle and driver driving off.
The time stamps on the pictures are shown 8secs apart. The driver has given me the receipt from that day however the time stamps on the pictures show the vehicle leaving 3 minutes before the receipt was issued.
I have contacted Lidl who's response is the usual, we are not the land owner it is between you and the Car park company.
EPS have also claimed that the 21 day period has now lapsed for an appeal but mention exceptional circumstances for appealing outside the 21days.
I have contacted the lease company who confirmed they received the notice to keeper on the 20th of December 17 , 20days (should be 14 days under POFA) after the incident and only gave my details as the hirer to EPS on the 27th. I received the final reminder ( My 1st communication) on the 17th Jan. exactly 21days after EPS got my details from the Lease company.


I have not received a notice to hirer and I am unsure if to proceed using the POFA notice to Hirer failings they will just say they sent it previously and generate one meeting all the requirements. I am unsure of any further evidence they have but clearly the time stamps differ slightly from the receipt on the day. Do I proceed using the IPC Code of Practice Section 15 'Grace periods as the pictures shown do not show the car parked, however the driver was there for about 25 minutes ,well within the contract


I have also asked the Lease company to see if they can give me any evidence of what they actually sent to EPS as this would allow me to use the POFA route.

Any help greatly appreciated





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 31)
Advertisement
post Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 23:14
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 10:17
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,992
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



What did the signs actually say? Was it "parking only for customers" or "parking only for customers whilst on the premises"/"driver must not leave site"? I have parked at my local Lidl, done my shopping and left the site to grab lunch (returning within the permitted 90 minutes), but I did so only after reading the restrictions and finding that they did not preclude such activities. This Lidl apparently does not control the car park, so the signage may indeed be different. It might be useful to know what the alleged contract actually said.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr.Brown058
post Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 13:48
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 7 Mar 2016
Member No.: 82,829



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 10:17) *
What did the signs actually say? Was it "parking only for customers" or "parking only for customers whilst on the premises"/"driver must not leave site"? I have parked at my local Lidl, done my shopping and left the site to grab lunch (returning within the permitted 90 minutes), but I did so only after reading the restrictions and finding that they did not preclude such activities. This Lidl apparently does not control the car park, so the signage may indeed be different. It might be useful to know what the alleged contract actually said.

--Churchmouse






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr.Brown058
post Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 14:21
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 7 Mar 2016
Member No.: 82,829



QUOTE
It's not strictly Letter Before Claim but I would write back to them just in case.


Thanks Ostell

This post has been edited by Mr.Brown058: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 14:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 22:44
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,992
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Mr.Brown058 @ Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 13:48) *

So, according to the signage, the driver had to remain on the premises, and the driver had to be a customer of Lidl. That's clear, and assuming the cash machine referred to in the first post is off-site, they observed the driver leaving the site. Sorry, no "get out of jail free card" there, so back to the usual procedures...

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anon45
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 09:24
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,068
Joined: 7 Aug 2009
Member No.: 31,007



I would argue that there is no 'commercial justification' for charging £100 to legitimate customers who very briefly cross the road to visit a cash machine to obtain cash to shop with Lidl on site, such that the charge is a penalty which is not saved by Beavis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 09:38
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,021
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



I agree

There is no commercial justification, land-owner or public interest in such a charge

Lidl clearly didn't perform a lot of due diligence before they appointed Euro to harass their customers

If they had, they might have asked its owner why four of his other parking companies had been dissolved or struck off the register

This post has been edited by Redivi: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 09:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 23:06
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,992
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (anon45 @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 09:24) *
I would argue that there is no 'commercial justification' for charging £100 to legitimate customers who very briefly cross the road to visit a cash machine to obtain cash to shop with Lidl on site, such that the charge is a penalty which is not saved by Beavis.

There are indeed many arguments one could make. I was just saying that the easy one I had hoped for wasn't going to be as easy as it would have been had the language on the sign been different. The tried-and-true approach is probably the best way to deal with this one.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr.Brown058
post Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 00:20
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 7 Mar 2016
Member No.: 82,829



Hi all, back again, sorry.
I have now received a County Court Claim form, & it's Gladstones
Having Responded as Ostell advised back in Feb this year ( see below) I heard nothing until today with this county court form.

QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 09:54) *
It's not strictly Letter Before Claim but I would write back to them just in case.


In response to your Letter Before Court Action dated XX/XX/XXXX

I note that you are asking for a response within 14 days when the current Pre Action Protocol for Debt requires at least 30 days. I cannot find paragraphs 13 - 16 that you have referenced, the last paragraph in the current protocol is numbered 8.2. Would you please submit a Letter before Court Action that conforms to the current requirements. With this letter I require a copy of all the documents that you will be using to show that the alleged debt actually exists.

I note in your rejection of my appeal dated 7th February that you have singularly ignored my statements about the fact that you have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in particular, but not limited to, Paragraphs 14 (2) (a) and as such I cannot be held liable as the Keeper/Hirer for the actions of the driver at the time.

As you have already been told there is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I would not be doing so.

The driver has confirmed to me that there was no breach of your conditions and has in his possession a receipt from a store on site, timed a few minutes after the time stamp on your photos.

I will not be appealing to your "Independent" Appeals Service as this is run under the auspices of your trade association, which in itself is controlled by the same people who control your solicitors, Gladstones, despite the attempts at Companies House to obfuscate these "minor" details.

Further to my request for documents above I will require from you at least the following:

* The Notice to Keeper to the hire company.
* The Notice to Hirer to myself.
* A copy of the contract you hold with the landholder showing your rights to act. A witness statement saying that a contract exists will be insufficient.
* A map that was available on site showing the limits of the site.
* The statement from your operative about the alleged breach.


I await your response and a properly formatted letter before claim.


POFA paragraph 13 is about the actions between the parking company and the hire company. You cannot possibly be privy to what happened between them.


The official date of service is the 07/11/18 so I will acknowledge the claim first.

This is what I have so far.

1) EPS have failed to follow POFA 2012 schedule 4 para 14 & therefore cannot hold me liable as the Hirer.
I never received a notice to hirer, or the a copy of the docs mentioned in para 13(2) & NTK required under the above.

2) The first communication I had from them ( a final reminder dated 06/12/17) was sent 15/01/18 (post mark on envelope), to which I appealed in writing (within 10 days) posted to them 25/01/18.
I received their rejection letter dated 07/02/18 giving me 28 days to pay or giving me 21 days to appeal to the IAS ( I declined their appeal service).
I then received a letter before claim dated 08/02/18 ( dated 1 day after their rejection letter) to which I responded as per above.

3) I also have had an email from the lease company confirming they passed liability to me on the 27/12/17 after receiving the NTK on the 21/12/17 (alleged incident was 30/11/17)
They posted the final reminder to me 19 days after receiving my details from Lease company.
Some how the final reminder (1st communication I had) gives me 28 days form the 06/12/17 ( 7 days after the alleged incident) to pay yet they did not receive my details until the 27/12/17.


So in summary,
A) They failed to comply with the relevant parts of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4.
B) They have issued a final reminder letter before they had a response from the lease company.
C) They have gave me the option for an IAS appeal while almost at the same time issued a Letter before Court Action.
D) They have failed to provide me with the documents I requested in my response to their Letter before Court Action.



Any help, advice etc very much appreciated



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 08:26
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,637
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So you have multiple failures of POFA, spell them out.
The first is the failure to deliver the NTK with 14 days to the hire compnay
The second is the failure to provide the documents.
Lots of bits of 14 (5) mot correctly stated or missing, especially the warning at 14 (5) ©
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 12:46
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,385
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Also attack signage, standing etc. Not just one point, but many

Post two, newbies thread, MSE parking forum

Once acknowledged ONLINE you have 28 days from date of service for the court to receive your signed, emailed pdf defence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr.Brown058
post Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 23:49
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 7 Mar 2016
Member No.: 82,829



Thanks very much.
I'll read up a bit for a few days and post my response prior to submitting.
I've obtained a Copy of the original NTK from the lease company which offers the discount if paid within the 14days.
Yet In their first communication with me, even if considered a Notice to hirer the discount is not offered.
So my question is did they have to offer the same as in the NTK to me, if so, failing to make me aware is another breach of the POFA.?
Also is it advisable to use this copy of the NTK I obtained myself from the lease company as proof of the discount existing in the first place.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 07:41
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,385
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Post your formal, final and ONLY defnce you mean wink.gif

Just to get across that this isnt something trivial. Its a formal process.

The NtH does not have to offer the discount. Ignore it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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, 13th November 2018 - 03:37
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.