PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

ES Parking Enforcement/Gladstones
edwj2001
post Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 08:45
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,136



Hi,

We have a really worrying situation involving ES Parking Enforcement that I would really appreciate some help on.

We live close to a council controlled road, which has two marked out parking bays on the pavement. The driver has been happily parking in those whenever they are free over the past 3 or 4 years. On the 25th May 2019, the driver parked the car there only to find she had a PCN ticket issued and affixed to the car by ES Parking Enforcement for allegedly parking in the bays. Unknowingly to the driver signs had been put up by ES Parking Enforcement claiming that the bays were private land and you are unable to park there without a valid permit. We are unsure when those signs went up but it must certainly have been fairly recently. The signs aren’t particularly clear, but were there at the time as backed up by their photo evidence. We were pretty annoyed by this, as she had parked there without issue for several years, but after a rejected appeal decided to pay the £60 fine to avoid any hassle.

We didn’t think anything more of it and haven’t parked there since until we received a Letter Before Claim in the last few days from Gladstones Solicitors claiming that the car had been parked in the same spot, but this time on an entirely different earlier date of the 13th April 2019. They are requesting £160. We have since received another Letter Before Claim from Gladstones solicitors claiming £320, for two other alleged offences on the 18th and 19th April. We have received absolutely no correspondence for any of these 3 claims previously up until we received the LBCs and parking tickets were definitely not issued and affixed to the car on those dates.

The LBCs we received were actually addressed to an address that the registered keeper has not lived at for over 10 years, but were sent to our current address with a covering letter saying “we understand you may now reside at the following address”. They also say in the covering letter that they will continue to send correspondence to the old address to do with any litigation.

The registered keeper and I have since discovered that the car in question is still registered to their old address, and presumably ES Parking Enforcement got that address from the DVLA. The registered keeper had changed the address on their driving licence but had not changed the registered keeper address details. It’s a very old car that she has had for a long time.

We have followed the guidance on here by issuing the SAR to ES Parking Enforcement as we literally have not seen any evidence to date which backs up their three claims, and tickets were not affixed to the car on any of those dates. We have also issued a Restriction of Data Processing Letter to Gladstones which also tells them not to send any correspondence to the old address.

We are obviously really worried that there might be several other LBC claims coming through the post for dates between 19th April and the 25th May, where tickets were not affixed to the car but we were alleged to have parked there, which could amount to several thousands of pounds.

I am absolutely amazed that companies can issue fines without affixing tickets and/or issuing us with any sort of correspondence or evidence. They may have been sending letters to the registered keepers previous address, but this still seems grossly unfair that we did not know that the driver was doing anything wrong, but could now be issued with over a months’ worth of parking tickets if they have done the same thing between the 19th April, and when they did decide to finally affix a ticket on the 25th May.

I would really appreciate any advice on if we have any chance of fighting this claim and the best steps to take.

This post has been edited by edwj2001: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 11:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 08:45
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 08:53
Post #2


Member


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



Google street view link to the location please.

Edit your post immediately, refer to the driver only as 'the driver', never give ANY clue as to driver ID.

A photo of the bays and any signage when you can please.

Your partner has received the paperwork as registered keeper, a different legal entity to the driver.


--------------------
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
Jlc
post Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 09:08
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



They can issue tickets in 2 ways - either by affixing a PCN (Notice to Driver) to the car or via the post.

The postal method involves them simply taking a picture of the car and then sending the charge (Notice to Keeper) to the RK's address. (This has to meet certain conditions for keeper liability, not least arriving within 14 days)

Alternatively, perhaps PCN's were affixed and they somehow 'disappeared'.

But submit the SAR asap to get all photo's - they may show the car with a PCN affixed.

I would also check the DVLA that she hasn't accumulated any unexpected endorsement points.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 09:08


--------------------
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
ostell
post Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 10:05
Post #4


Member


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



And change the address registered with the DVLA to your current address. This could result in a real £1,000 fine. As you've found out the DVLA driving licence and Keeper sections are entirely separate.

Any letters you send get a free certificate of posting from a post office.

Get pictures of those signs
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 10:07
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,985
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



Check your credit record too, in case there's any vehicle related CCJ on there (unlikely, but not unknown).


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
edwj2001
post Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 10:14
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,136



Thanks for all of your so far.
Here's a link to the street view. It's the bays on the pavement next to the gates. The google street view was taken before signs had gone up.

https://mapstreetview.com/#vu321_-1civ0_1q.b_-tg41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 10:40
Post #7


Member


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



That's interesting, its likely that isn't relevant land for the purposes of PoFA in that the council may well be able to enforce that DYL in those 'bays' with PCN's. I'd be asking the council for a copy of the Traffic Regulation Order for the DYL in that location to see if the restriction really does end at the gate.

You still have clues in your first post, please leave no him/her etc only an ambiguous 'they'.

GSV shows there have been some form of private parking 'control' sign there for some time, but also that the DYL were repainted at some point between the last pass in 2015 and the earlier 2012 photo https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4717704,-...3312!8i6656


--------------------
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
edwj2001
post Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 11:34
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,136



Thanks for all of your help. Sorry all the acronyms are a bit new to me. Are you saying that I should try and obtain info from the council to see if those bays are actually private land or areas enforced by the council? The council have previously confirmed that that road and pavements are controlled by them, but I have asked them specifically about that area now. I'm trying to upload a few photos of the area as is now. The sign on the google maps photo isn't the same as the one that's there now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 11:48
Post #9


Member


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



For the protection of freedom acts (PoFA) to apply and make a keeper liable the land must be 'relevant land', and land a council can issue PCN's on is not relevant land.

In this case it appears that the DYL are council and should be backed by a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) if there is indeed a TRO for the lines up to the gate then a council CEO can issue PCN's and it is not relevant land. Your 'the council said' would seem to back that up, but you need the facts.

That may still mean they COULD have a case against the unknown driver, but not against the keeper. If however the pavement (in legal speak, footway) is adopted (maintained by the council) then ES have no case at all. So you need to get that in writing form the council as well if you can.



--------------------
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
edwj2001
post Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 13:23
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,136



Here are some photos of the area as is now, with signage and parking bay. The seem to have tried to rub out the DYL although they are still visable.

Additional photo

This post has been edited by edwj2001: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 13:24
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 13:41
Post #11


Member


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



And prohibiting sign. No offer of a contract to oark for non permit holders
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
edwj2001
post Sat, 24 Aug 2019 - 19:44
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,136



Just as an update to this. We have now received a total of 5 letter before claims with a total of 7 parking fines on of £160 each. We put in the SAR and have been provided with photos of each alleged offences. Gladstones have obviously said they will continue with the claim. The council have unfortunately confirmed that the road is unadopted. Do we now just wait for the court claim letter to come in?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 25 Aug 2019 - 13:02
Post #13


Member


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



Have you pointed out to them that the signs are prohibiting and not offering a contract to oark and any claim would gave to be from the land holders cor trespass.

Here's some words I sa ed for situations like this:

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
edwj2001
post Tue, 27 Aug 2019 - 06:41
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,136



Thanks for that. Should I go back to them with that now or wait and use it as a defence in any court papers that are sent through?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Tue, 27 Aug 2019 - 07:55
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Haven't seen this mentioned

Check with the DVLA for details of every request for the keeper details

ES must make a separate application for every parking event
If they use an address on file, they've failed the first condition to recover payment from the keeper

The Code of Practice for the rival British Parking Association says that, when new restrictions are introduced, parking should not be enforced for a short period so that regulars can discover the new signs. Don't see why a defence can't include this point to demonstrate a failure to observe good practice

This post has been edited by Redivi: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 - 08:00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
edwj2001
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 19:53
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,136



Hi all,

We have today received 3 separate claim Forms from the county court.

I'd really appreciate some more advice on how to defend the claim but just as an update on where we are up to now:

1) An area of pavement with a parking bay which was previously council controlled was made into a private parking bay and signs put up.
2) The driver was unaware of the change in circumstance and over a period of time 7 alleged parking offence took place in that bay. Tickets were not affixed to the car but we presume letters were issued to a previous address as we had not updated the DVLA address of the vehicle.
3) On an 8th occasion a parking ticket was affixed to the car, and we became aware of the new parking restrictions, having not received any of the previous 7 letters at this point. This PCN was paid.
4) We gradually became aware of the previous 7 alleged offences as LBCs starting coming to our correct address, with a covering letter to say they were aware that we had moved.
5) The vehicle address details were updated with DVLA.
6) We issued a SAR to ES Parking, and received pictures of the car parked in the bay for all of the alleged offences.
7) The council confirmed the bay area is unadopted.
8) A also received a copy of the TRO from the council for the road in question that I am struggling to interpret. I am struggling to attach it as too large but will try and split it down and post.
9) We have received three separate claim forms today from the court (which have 4 of the alleged offences on). There are still 3 alleged offences not yet included (which were the first three alleged offices chronologically) but I think they have probably gone to the address that they had been previously sending correspondence to.

So I was wanting some advice on what to do next.

Presumably we should ring the court and get them to consolidate the three claims and enquire of the other three have gone to the previous address?
Then for our defence I was thinking of using the forbidding signage defence as mentioned above and obviously that the signage was unclear and that we were unaware of the new regulations. Is the fact that the notices were not issues to us a defence? Or is that our fault as we hadn't changed the DVLA address?

Thanks in advance for your help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
edwj2001
post Thu, 10 Oct 2019 - 10:12
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,136



Hi,

These are the TROs in relation to the road which the alleged incident took place on Hulme Hall Road. The corner where the car park bay is is on the plan on the last page of the last attachment where the 23m section is.

Any help with this greatly appreciated.
Attached File(s)
Attached File  Pages_1_3_from_Hulme_Hall_Road_TRO.pdf ( 155.6K ) Number of downloads: 30
Attached File  Pages_4_7_from_Hulme_Hall_Road_TRO_2.pdf ( 135.46K ) Number of downloads: 29
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
edwj2001
post Thu, 10 Oct 2019 - 10:23
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,136



I can't seem to get the rest of the pages of the TRO attachment on as reached the size limit for a thread I think. Any ideas?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
edwj2002
post Thu, 10 Oct 2019 - 19:54
Post #19


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 10 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,115



Remaining attachments on this post. We have now received a total of 5 court claim forms with the 7 various alleged parking offences on. Total claim is about £1500. I have spoken to the court who have said they cannot combine the claims so looks like we will have to defend 5 times. Any help with the defence much appreciated.

This post has been edited by edwj2002: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 - 19:57
Attached File(s)
Attached File  Pages_8_10_from_Hulme_Hall_Road_TRO_3.pdf ( 127.03K ) Number of downloads: 32
Attached File  MC000017_18APPROVAL__hulme_hall__road_1820180221_090940.DOC.pdf ( 76.89K ) Number of downloads: 31
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 11 Oct 2019 - 23:47
Post #20


Member


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



Of course they can combine th3 claims

It's happened before
The advice is the same each time. EVERY time you correspond with the court you're asking to combine the claims or ask the court to strike out the duplicate claims as an abuse of process

You must must must acknowledge and defend every single claim and keep on top. Fail to do so, you lose.

You use the read me sticky to host the pics in future.

Get your defences going. Confirm your EARLIEST issue date. Confirm you've acknowledged the thread.
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 22:16
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