PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

UK Parking Patrol, Failure to display permit
Mj3270
post Mon, 23 May 2016 - 22:17
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 23 May 2016
Member No.: 84,522



Hi all

Joined up as I've had 2 NTKs consecutively from UKPP

They manage the car park where the driver was residing. The car was parked in the car park, as usual, but the driver believes the permit may have been obscured from view slightly. The driver, as mentioned, is a resident within the building. The notice to driver and notice to keeper are attached below.

I submitted an appeal following the NTK, which has apparently been ignored as today I received 2 letters from a collections agency. (I wasn't aware these companies could just ignore an appeal that falls outside their 'unique' appeal time limits?)

Either way, I can see a few potential flaws with the wording, and as such I do not believe the notices to either driver or keeper are fully compliant with PoFA, but perhaps someone can assess this and see for sure.

There is also ambiguous information between the signage and notices, which I believe would be a significant fault for the company in question, as it would in effect invalidate any contract?


Anyway, the messages are below.











Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Mon, 23 May 2016 - 22:17
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 22 Apr 2020 - 10:17
Post #21


Member


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



QUOTE (Mj3270 @ Wed, 22 Apr 2020 - 11:08) *
The signage photo was taken in March 2016, when they were no longer a BPA Accredited member and were also trading under the name UK Parking Patrol Office LTD (Note the company name on the signage is not a ltd company, thus a different entity legally so the responses in 2016 summised?). The PCNs issued are from the LTD company but the signage is not.

I disagree,when the company became a ltd company it didn't become a different legal entity, it's assets and liabilities remained with it. I think that argument is a nullity.

Here they are on Companies house - note date of incorporation.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07105527

Now if a new company was formed that may be different.


--------------------
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
Mj3270
post Wed, 22 Apr 2020 - 10:32
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 23 May 2016
Member No.: 84,522



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 22 Apr 2020 - 11:17) *
QUOTE (Mj3270 @ Wed, 22 Apr 2020 - 11:08) *
The signage photo was taken in March 2016, when they were no longer a BPA Accredited member and were also trading under the name UK Parking Patrol Office LTD (Note the company name on the signage is not a ltd company, thus a different entity legally so the responses in 2016 summised?). The PCNs issued are from the LTD company but the signage is not.

I disagree,when the company became a ltd company it didn't become a different legal entity, it's assets and liabilities remained with it. I think that argument is a nullity.

Here they are on Companies house - note date of incorporation.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07105527

Now if a new company was formed that may be different.


How does this work when it appears they were trading under the trading name of a sole trader while the limited company existed too, surely if the limited company is already incorporated prior to these signs displaying sole trader details, its a bit hard to prove the assets and liabilites have been transferred?

This post has been edited by Mj3270: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 - 10:33
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 22 Apr 2020 - 10:34
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Mj3270 @ Wed, 22 Apr 2020 - 11:17) *
Is it worth me sending any form of C&D letter to BW Legal stating the reasons the alleged debt is denied, or is it just a waste of time?

It's a 'debt collection' letter. Save replying until a proper Letter Before Claim arrives.


--------------------
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
Mj3270
post Tue, 9 Jun 2020 - 12:55
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 23 May 2016
Member No.: 84,522



Another letter last week, seems to be another case of please pay us. They've also now got my mobile number from somewhere and are calling on a daily basis, surely this isn't right? I sure as **** didn't give either company my phone number.



Having seen that BW Legal do tend to take these cases to court, I figure a quick recap of my standing might be useful;

I am the registered keeper, the driver has not been disclosed to the claimant or anyone acting on their behalf

The driver was a resident in the premises at the time of issue. The tenancy agreement signed between the driver and the landlord contains no mention of any requirements for car parking. The tenants key fob provided full access to the secure parking area and no spaces are assigned (i.e. no set spaces for flats) therefore it is reasonable to assume the tenant was provided unfettered access to use the parking facilities - does this sound correct/reasonable?

The signage offers no ability to form a contract, it is purely prohibitive and thus the driver or registered keeper have not entered into any contractual agreement with the claimant.

The signage is the property of UK Parking Patrol Office, a sole trader and BPA accredited operator. The PCN and later communication are from UK Parking Patrol Office Limited, a limited company and IPC operator, not a BPA accredited operator. Thus, the PCN is issued by a company who had NO signage on display in the afformentioned location.

I, the registered keeper, have attempted to contact the claimant to raise these issues on numerous occasions and have been ignored, along with my appeal being rejected.


Have I missed anything else to consider? Is there any requests I should be preparing to send to any of the claimants etc?

This post has been edited by Mj3270: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 - 14:33
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dave65
post Tue, 9 Jun 2020 - 15:41
Post #25


Member


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



You could inform BW not to contact you by any others means other than in writing.
Alternatively block their number.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dadtaxi
post Sat, 19 Sep 2020 - 11:18
Post #26


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 19 Sep 2020
Member No.: 109,814



"Is it worth me sending any form of C&D letter to BW Legal stating the reasons the alleged debt is denied or is it just a waste of time?"

If they are now phoning you on a daily basis then it may be worth considering sending them a "prove it letter" as a form of C&D. Google it or modify the generic template below as necessary, ESPECIALLY the [ . . .] bits.

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

Dear [BWLegal]

Sir/Madam

Account No:[their reference]

You have contacted me about the account with the above [reference number/debt/claim], which you claim I owe.

I dispute the debt with with [original company ] regarding this matter because [ just a few words to cover the reason in headline form only, no more explanation required than that. This matter is in dispute as my original appeal letter was completly ignored by your client (let alone not rejecting it)- despite their assertion that they attemped to "engage " with me]

I am familiar with the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) Consumer Credit sourcebook which states the following.

"A firm must not ignore or disregard a customer's claim that a debt has been settled or is disputed and must not continue to make demands for payment without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why the customer's claim is not valid." 7.5.3

"A firm must suspend any steps it takes or its agent takes in the recovery of a debt from a customer where the customer disputes the debt on valid grounds or what may be valid grounds." 7.14.1

"Where a customer disputes a debt on valid grounds or what may be valid grounds, the firm must investigate the dispute and provide details of the debt to the customer in a timely manner." 7.14.3

If you do not stop collection activity whilst investigating my dispute, you are breaking FCA rules and guidance.

Also, ignoring claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment is harassment. [I have already been contacted yourselves by telephone/letter/email/your representatives at my door/ but you have continued making threatening demands including [court acytion] [CCJs] [breaking into my house and stealing my property]. This has caused me a great deal of alarm and distress

DO NOT make any further contact about the above accounts unless a) to confirm that you are no longer pursuing this so-called debt, or b) that you can provide clear and unambiguous evidence of my liability for the debt.

Further to that I now INSIST that all contact and correspondence must be by writing only [emails/letters - your choice but I would insist on letters only] and take note that any other forms of contact/correspondence including telephone calls, texts, and visits not directly complying with the above will be ignored, but will provide me with further evidence to consider making a complaint to my local trading standards service and informing the FCA of your actions. I have already noted your repeated attempts to contact me over the past few [weeks] and any further attempts will also be duly logged by time and date.

Should it be your intention to arrange a [further?]doorstep visit, please be advised that under OFT rules, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish to make such an appointment with you.

There is an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v Sheppard & Short Ltd [1959] 2 QB 384. per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and, if you do so, you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action will be taken, including but not limited to, police attendance.

Yours

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

Note the tone of the letter. You are no longer asking nicely and hoping that they will be sensible about this. You are nowdemanding that they do their jobs properly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mj3270
post Sat, 19 Sep 2020 - 20:31
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 23 May 2016
Member No.: 84,522



Arrived in the post this week, a titled 'Letter of Claim' from BWLegal where they effectively offer a final notice and offer of payment before proceeding with court action. I can't seem to find my earlier post (search seems broken and I'm away all week so wanted to get this up) but basically its from 2016, the vehicle was issued a PCN for parking in a private residential car park at a premises where the driver was resident, had unfettered access to all communal areas and no restrictions within the drivers tenancy agreement regarding parking. Further, the signage was inadequate (previous trading name of the company), offered no option for parking (prohibitive, 'you may not park without a permit') thus no contract can be entered and offered no 'additional costs' as have been added at each stage.

The company that has issued the PCN has already been informed of all the above points at appeal, which they promptly ignored.


So, attached is the letter that arrived today minus identifying details.

Do I bother contacting them or submitting a complaint? What's the next steps here?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mj3270
post Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 14:33
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 23 May 2016
Member No.: 84,522



Any advice for my response to the above? I assume this is a letter that requires a response now, based on other threads.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 15:14
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



Yes, it's good practice to reply to a LBCCC - the idea is to attempt to narrow any issues to avoid a court claim.

However, I suspect they'll plough on regardless but you just need to make yourself seem reasonable.



--------------------
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
Mj3270
post Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 15:26
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 23 May 2016
Member No.: 84,522



So I've pulled this from a post by Redivi on a similar BWLegal claim:

QUOTE
Tick Box D

I dispute the debt because

The signs and their contents are inconspicuous and not in accordance with their client's trade association code of practice
The signs do not offer a contractual licence
The £60 debt collection costs have been previously described as legal costs that they know cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court
The drivers property lease terms allowed unfettered access to the car parking areas

Tick Box I

I require the following information Use a separate sheet

1 Copies of all the documents and evidence that your client intends to rely on
2 Copies of any other documents/letters sent to me or the registered keeper
3 The information provided by the DVLA regarding the details of the registered keeper
4 Any photographs of the driver
5 Any other documents that identify the driver
6 A copy of your client’s contract with the land-owner under which it asserts the authority to bring a claim, as required by the IPC Code of Practice Section B clause 1.1
7 A copy of your own contract with your client that supports your addition of £60 legal costs
8 A plan showing the distribution of the signage, and the location of the vehicle
9 Details of the signs displayed – size, content, font, height of display

Please also state clearly :

1 Is your client pursuing me as the driver or the keeper ?
2 Is your client relying on Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
3 Is the claim for a contractual charge, a breach of a contract or trespass ?
4 Does your client dispute that a motorist that is not authorised to park has not accepted a contract but is a trespasser ?
5 Why do you believe that your £60 Initial Legal Costs are exempt from CPR 27.14(2) ?
6 On what date did your client instruct you to commence legal action ?


About right? Is there anything else worth adding or removing?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mj3270
post Thu, 22 Oct 2020 - 15:55
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 23 May 2016
Member No.: 84,522



So, I requested info from BW in a similar vein to the above, the 'evidence' they have returned showed the car parked for a total of 40 seconds (therefore not in conformity with PoFA 2.4 to transfer liability?). They also provided a scan of a sign differing to the one posted above stating these were in place (they weren't).

However, the more important development; today I received a Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, so I need a bit of advice for submitting my defence. From reading, it seems the best option initially is to submit the acknowledgement thus giving 28 days to submit a defence.

As for my defence, any advice on where to start? The summary of the argument is as follows:

  1. The driver was a tenant in the building, the tenancy agreement offered no requirement to display any permits for parking and their key fob provided unfettered access to the access-controlled parking garage i.e. the vehicle gate was separate from the pedestrian access.
  2. The signage in place offered no contract i.e. purely prohibitive
  3. The signage in place was that of 'UK Parking Patrol Office', a BPA accredited operator. The PCN and NTK were from 'UK Parking Patrol Office Limited', an IPC accredited operator, therefore the signage cannot meet the requirements in PoFA


Further, the claim is issued by the court in Northampton. I live in Manchester, the claimant is registered in Manchester. Surely the expectation to travel 150 miles each way should it progress to court is ridiculous? Can I not insist on a court closer to home?

Any help would be hugely appreciated, I'm already feeling anxious about this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 22 Oct 2020 - 16:37
Post #32


Member


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



Northampton is the clearing house, it will eventually be moved to a court of your choice.

For a prohibiting sign I have this text saved:

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

The driver had permission to park by virtue of the issue of an access fob and had no need of of an additional contract to park.

If it is claimed that a contract was created then this would be with the entity named on the sign. The claimant is a different entity and thus has no interest in this matter


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mj3270
post Mon, 26 Oct 2020 - 23:21
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 23 May 2016
Member No.: 84,522



Thanks! Would it be worth mentioning that the PPC has failed to follow the requirements on POFA to transfer liability to the keeper? BW Legal have confirmed they are pursuing me as the keeper and have no information on the driver.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 27 Oct 2020 - 08:44
Post #34


Member


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



But of course you mention POFA and be specific with the actual failures. If the fail POFA requirements they cannot claim against the keeper
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 27 Oct 2020 - 09:36
Post #35


Member


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



Absolutely.....

Are you sure, they will usually state they are pursuing the keeper on the reasonable (to them anyway) assumption they were driving.


--------------------
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
Mj3270
post Thu, 29 Oct 2020 - 12:02
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 23 May 2016
Member No.: 84,522



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 27 Oct 2020 - 10:36) *
Absolutely.....

Are you sure, they will usually state they are pursuing the keeper on the reasonable (to them anyway) assumption they were driving.


The following is what I sent in response to their LBCCC:

I dispute the debt because

The signs and their contents are not in accordance with their client's trade association code of practice as they reference a separate company to your client
The signs do not offer a contractual licence, they are prohibitive
The £60 debt collection costs have been previously described as legal costs that they know cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court
The driver was resident at the property. The drivers tenancy agreement offered no restrictions on any parking and the driver wa provided full access to all enclosed parking areas via issue of an key fob.
The drivers property agreement and situation implied unfettered access to the car parking areas.


I require the following information

1 Copies of all the documents and evidence that your client intends to rely on
2 Copies of any other documents/letters sent to the registered keeper
3 The information provided by the DVLA regarding the details of the registered keeper
4 Any photographs of the driver
5 Any other documents that identify the driver
6 A copy of your client’s contract with the land-owner under which it asserts the authority to bring a claim, as required by the IPC Code of Practice Section B clause 1.1
7 A copy of your own contract with your client that supports your addition of £60 legal costs
8 A plan showing the distribution of the signage, and the location of the vehicle
9 Photographs of the signage in place
10 Details of the signs displayed – size, content, font, height of display

Please also state clearly :

11 Is your client pursuing me as the driver or the keeper ?
12 Is your client relying on Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
13 What is your clients cause of action for pursuing this claim?
14 Does your client dispute that a motorist that is not authorised to park has not accepted a contract but is a trespasser ?
15 Is the claim for a contractual charge, a breach of a contract or trespass ?
16 Why do you believe that your £60 Initial Legal Costs are exempt from CPR 27.14(2) ?
17 On what date did your client instruct you to commence legal action ?


And the response:








Court claim letter:


Actual signage photo:


Original PCN as issued:


This post has been edited by Mj3270: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 - 16:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mj3270
post Mon, 9 Nov 2020 - 11:36
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 23 May 2016
Member No.: 84,522



Anyone able to offer some points for the defence? Will make use of the 'prohibiting' notes from Ostell, thank you kindly. Unsure how best to word the failures to meet PoFA and that the implied access for the resident surely takes precendence over the PPCs contract
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 9 Nov 2020 - 12:51
Post #38


Member


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



Primacy of contract, your lease gives you the right to park and you have no need of another alleged contract with a third party stranger

Your lease does not require you to display a permit nor pay a penalty to a third party stranger as a penalty

Any display of a permit is purely as an aid to the operators, there is no intention to create a contract

And all the POFA fails
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dave65
post Mon, 9 Nov 2020 - 15:09
Post #39


Member


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



and as mentioned you attack the £60 added costs
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 9 Nov 2020 - 16:01
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Dave65 @ Mon, 9 Nov 2020 - 15:09) *
and as mentioned you attack the £60 added costs

The signs are uncertain on this - 'Additional charges may apply' (in micro font).

The AoS CoP is not law and makes no claims about whether they are enforceable. (Many court cases seem to lean towards not being so)


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

4 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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 17:57
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