PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

ES Parking Enforcement - Leaving a Site
manolo
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 14:54
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 17 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,443



Hello guys,

I received a parking charge notice for £100 in the post from a company called ES Parking Enforcement dated 10/07/2018 for an alleged incident that took place on 03/07/18, which I initially ignored (rightly or wrongly). I have since received a 'Final Demand' letter dated 10/10/18 with a increased amount due of £125

Parking at the site (a car park on Seymour Grove Trafford Manchester) is free but the alleged contravention is for "leaving the site"

There are a few shops facing the car park, an Iceland, a newsagent and an Aldi (which has since closed down).

It’s not clear that it would be a contravention to 'leave the site' if visiting the takeaway directly adjacent the car park (the takeaway rear entrance backs directly onto the car park).

The signs are quite high up on the photographs that they have sent and would be quite difficult to read. The actual 'Site' is not defined either.

Their website shows additional photos and they do show an occupant getting out of the car and walking in the direction of the adjacent takeaway and also outside the takeaway entrance.

According to the first letter the time to lodge an appeal has lapsed and they are now demanding payment, via a 'Final Demand'

I'm not sure what the best option would be now, so would really appreciate some advice guys.

Attached File  ES_Parking_Letter_10.07.18.pdf ( 278.41K ) Number of downloads: 212



Attached File  ES_Parking_Letter_10.10.18.pdf ( 254.88K ) Number of downloads: 141


This post has been edited by manolo: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 17:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 18)
Advertisement
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 14:54
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 15:12
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,505
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



A very litigious company - so a court claim is quite possible.

You have two angles that you've already identified - that is whether the contract was formed by clear signage and whether the site boundary was clear.

Of course, they will say they were. Only a court hearing could decide but is definitely winnable.


--------------------
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, SAR=Subject Access Request

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
manolo
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 15:14
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 17 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,443



What would be your advice ?

Sit and wait or respond now in some manner?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 15:20
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,505
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



Personally I think a response is better than ignoring.

They will reject any appeal.

The point of responding is to set the key issues for a defence should they issue 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, SAR=Subject Access Request

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
Dave65
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 15:33
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,887
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,368



Do the photos show someone actually cross the site boundary or just walking towards it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
manolo
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 15:54
Post #6


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 17 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,443



The photos shows an occupant exit the car and walk along an adjacent path (which could be considered part of the carpark.)
Another photo shows the occupant at the entrance of the adjacent takeaway.

This post has been edited by manolo: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 17:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
manolo
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 16:10
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 17 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,443



QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 16:20) *
Personally I think a response is better than ignoring.

They will reject any appeal.

The point of responding is to set the key issues for a defense should they issue a claim.


What would be the best basis of the response?

I have read an almost identical topic for the same company and same incident, that their initial PCN letter:

''failed to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give the warning to the keeper, contrary to section 9 (2) (f) of the Act.''

Should I base it around this point above, or around 'inadequate signage' or no clear definition of the 'Site'?

A sticking point may be that one of the photos identifies an occupant - the occupant is stood outside the open door of the car. This photo could be used to try and identify the driver and thus it may not be sensible to use the fact that ESPEL may not have complied with POFA 9 (2) (f) .

This post has been edited by manolo: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 17:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 17:23
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



no longer required

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 12:06


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
manolo
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 17:38
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 17 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,443



[quote name='The Rookie' post='1426125' date='Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 18:23']


Thanks

This post has been edited by manolo: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 12:08
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ronnie ring ding
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 19:11
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 27 May 2013
Member No.: 62,191



QUOTE (manolo @ Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 16:54) *
The photos shows an occupant exit the car and walk along an adjacent path (which could be considered part of the carpark.)
Another photo shows the occupant at the entrance of the adjacent takeaway.

Have the Parking company failed to mitigate any loss by taking photographs of a person leaving the site , rather than informing said person (if the driver) they would recive a parking charge for leaving the site?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 12:05
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Mitigting loss mostly went out the window with Beavis. Its not been tested since.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 21:36
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



have you read VCS v Ibbotson, the toothbrush case
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 21:40
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE (manolo @ Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 16:54) *
The photos shows an occupant exit the car and walk along an adjacent path (which could be considered part of the carpark.)
Another photo shows the occupant at the entrance of the adjacent takeaway.



That is not evidence of who the driver was, nor is it evidence of a clearly marked site boundary or clear prominent signs telling people not to step outside xx area.

Respond once like everyone does, same as ALL IPC threads, then come back at court stage when these cases are almost all won (no risk, as long as you update the scumbags if you move house in the 6 years that the losers could start a useless claim - and boy, I've seen some useless claims...!).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
manolo
post Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 12:26
Post #14


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 17 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,443



Hi guys,

I have cobbled together the following response, which I will send by post as they do not have an email contact on their website:

Sirs,
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and am in receipt of the above referenced PCN you have issued. I have no liability on this matter as you have failed to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give the warning to the keeper, contrary to section 9 (2) (f) of the Act:

f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
i. the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
ii. the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

Please also note that the PCN states the reason for issue as ‘Leaving a site whilst in a ‘Free Parking Whilst in Premises only’ Car Park’. However, the car park signage does not define the boundaries of the site nor provide information as to which businesses are included/excluded from the ‘free parking’.
Any further communication with me on this matter, apart from confirmation of no further action and my details being removed from your records, will be considered vexatious and harassment. This includes communication from any debt collection agencies you may care to instruct.

Yours faithfully


Any comments before I send would be much appreciated.

Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dave65
post Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 09:08
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,887
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,368



If posting send 1st class and get free certificate of posting at post office.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
raddoc
post Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 18:21
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 13 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,924



I am in the same situation for "leaving the site" at Seymour Grove retail park.
Appealed to ES Parking - Rejected.
Appealed to IAS on the grounds of unclear and ambiguous signage - rejected.
PCN raised to £125.
Now received "Letter before Claim" from Gladstones Solicitors demanding £160 or they will commence court proceedings.
Am furious about this as have parked there for many years without a problem and there is no indication that the rules had changed as to which shops could be visited. Don't really have the time or knowledge to fight them in court much as I would like to and contemplating paying 50% of it to close the matter but without accepting liability. Any thoughts ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 18:27
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,124
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



QUOTE
contemplating paying 50% of it to close the matter but without accepting liability. Any thoughts ?

Have they offered you that opportunity? If they haven't, they only accept flesh in full pounds to settle.

For further help you do really need to start a new thread of your own - one case, one thread.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
raddoc
post Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 18:35
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 13 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,924



QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 18:27) *
QUOTE
contemplating paying 50% of it to close the matter but without accepting liability. Any thoughts ?

Have they offered you that opportunity? If they haven't, they only accept flesh in full pounds to settle.

For further help you do really need to start a new thread of your own - one case, one thread.




Will create new thread.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Batman26
post Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 21:54
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 9 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,857



I’m in the exact same position, I added a thread at the weekend, I’ve just compiled 2 letters-one to Es Parking and one to Gladstones-lets keep an eye on each other’s threads to compare.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 15:19
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here