ES Parking Enforcement - Leaving a Site |
ES Parking Enforcement - Leaving a Site |
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. ES_Parking_Letter_10.07.18.pdf ( 278.41K ) Number of downloads: 212 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 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 14:54
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 15:12
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,506 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. |
|
|
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? |
|
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 15:20
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,506 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. |
|
|
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?
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 16:10
Post
#7
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 17 Oct 2018 Member No.: 100,443 |
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 19:11
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 27 May 2013 Member No.: 62,191 |
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? |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 21:40
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18,751 Joined: 20 Sep 2009 Member No.: 32,130 |
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...!). |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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 ? |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 18:35
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23 Joined: 13 Nov 2018 Member No.: 100,924 |
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. |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 17:44 |