PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

One Parking Solution - Letter Before Claim, Threads merged
TLSC
post Tue, 6 Jun 2017 - 14:00
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 19 Feb 2014
Member No.: 68,866



Hi,

I am looking for advice for a private PCN from One Parking Solution. Previously I understood that if you ignored such notices they would go away, but they are very persistent.

Can anyone advise me what to do with regards to the below?



This post has been edited by TLSC: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 - 14:05
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 36)
Advertisement
post Tue, 6 Jun 2017 - 14:00
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
freddy1
post Tue, 6 Jun 2017 - 16:21
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,337
Joined: 4 Jan 2007
Member No.: 9,897



I suspect the signage had the wrong name (company) and company number and also refered to the wrong ATA , this wayback archive (oct2016) shows IPC , however a press report dated 24th oct 2016 relates to a case possably over a month old that refers to POPLa http://www.theargus.co.uk/NEWS/14819206.Pa...mmentSort=score


sommot sticks in my mind thatc he shut all his multiple companies and left the IPC (possably booted out?) and reformed at the BPA ,

we have discussed this company before , in detail , however my search function does not work
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TLSC
post Wed, 7 Jun 2017 - 12:06
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 19 Feb 2014
Member No.: 68,866



QUOTE (freddy1 @ Tue, 6 Jun 2017 - 17:21) *
I suspect the signage had the wrong name (company) and company number and also refered to the wrong ATA , this wayback archive (oct2016) shows IPC , however a press report dated 24th oct 2016 relates to a case possably over a month old that refers to POPLa http://www.theargus.co.uk/NEWS/14819206.Pa...mmentSort=score


sommot sticks in my mind thatc he shut all his multiple companies and left the IPC (possably booted out?) and reformed at the BPA ,

we have discussed this company before , in detail , however my search function does not work


Should I try and get a local friend to take a photo of the current signage before sending my letter?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 7 Jun 2017 - 12:12
Post #23


Member


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



A copy of the signage is always helpful
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TLSC
post Mon, 12 Jun 2017 - 13:21
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 19 Feb 2014
Member No.: 68,866



So, here is the draft of my response. Can anyone please critique this?

Ref: Letter Before Claim - 2nd June 2017 - Reference number: xxxxxxx

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please accept my response to your recent letter, dated 2nd xxxx 2017. I refute your claim a debt of £208 is owed to you. Insufficient signage lighting meant that parking regulations were not visible after dark on the date in question.

If you are threatening court action I request the appropriate papers within 14 days of today’s date (26.6.2017) and I will vigorously defend my position before a judge in the small claims court. In the absence of papers in the timescale given I will consider the matter closed.

Yours sincerely,

xxxxx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Mon, 12 Jun 2017 - 15:26
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



A response to a Letter of Claim must never rely on a single point
The rules are that, anything you don't dispute, you've agreed with

All OPS has to do is show that the lighting was adequate and you're sunk

You have to attack :

Whether it has a contract at all
Whether its contract grants the right to take legal action
The identity of the driver
The failure to meet the conditions of POFA to pursue the registered keeper
The placement of the signs
The visibility of the signs
The content of the signs
Whether the driver actually did anything wrong
The additional charges are fake :
OPS is trying to claim normal business costs
It hasn't paid the debt collector charges
It hasn't paid the legal costs
Legal costs can't be recovered in Small Claims

Parking companies issue claims as a high pressure debt collection tactic because victims cave in when the court papers arrive

A firm detailed response to the Letter Before Claim sends the message that the exercise is going to mean hard work and expense for them
It's intended to persuade them to look for a softer target

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TLSC
post Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 17:07
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 19 Feb 2014
Member No.: 68,866



I have recently received a Court Claim from Northampton County Court. It is in relation to a 2016 PCN I received and at the time was advised to ignore.

I really am not sure what the best course of action is an would greatly appreciate any help.

The full document in copied below, please let me know if there's anything that is not ok about that.










Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 17:13
Post #27


Member


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



This previous thread?


--------------------
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
TLSC
post Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 17:29
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 19 Feb 2014
Member No.: 68,866



QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 17:13) *


Yes, that one. Despite the advice from this board I was told by someone who worked in the venue that they'd been advised to not respond by someone with 'legal knowledge' and had had no trouble. I was not sure, but was worried if I responded then I'd undermine what a host of other people were doing. So, stupidly I went along with it and now I find myself in this predicament.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 3 Dec 2019 - 08:30
Post #29


Member


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



Yeah, so ask them to pay it.

You MUST:
0) Ask a mod to merge. ONE thread for ONE case
1) tell us the ISSUE DATE
2) go ONLINE and acknowledge the claim. YOU MUST DO THIS ONLINE. Do not use hte paper form. Do not start your defence. Do not contest jurisdiction unless you know exactly what that means
3) Confirm to us yoou have done 2)
4) Construct your defence. MSE forum -> Newbies thread (just google it) -> Post 2 tells you precisely how to do so, and gives SEVENTEEN example defences. You CANNOT sit on your hands.
5) Send a SAR to OPS to get all your documents. Again, dont ask how, if you dont know, research

You listened to the eqiuvalent of "the man in the pub told me it was ok".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TLSC
post Tue, 3 Dec 2019 - 16:59
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 19 Feb 2014
Member No.: 68,866



Yep, I am aware I took bad advice, but I was worried about causing a larger group of people a problem so peer pressure took hold! I am doing this solo now though so shall follow the advice to the letter thank you. Sadly asking them to pay it has not resulted in any thing but silence on their part. Lesson learned.

The Issue date was 27.11.2019
I have gone online to acknowledge the claim. However it does have a mandatory field to fill:
It asks if I intend to:

Defend all of this claim
Defend part of this claim


Which should I click?

I shall contact the mods now about merging this thread and begin constructing my defence.

Thank you.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 07:54
Post #31


Member


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



Well do you want ot pay them some money or no money? I would say no money
Think about it...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TLSC
post Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 11:20
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 19 Feb 2014
Member No.: 68,866



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 07:54) *
Well do you want ot pay them some money or no money? I would say no money
Think about it...


I have gone ahead and decided to defend the whole claim and am constructing a defence now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 13:52
Post #33


Member


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



You will not get any form of reminder from the courts, so make sure you dont forget. Set a reminder - 33 days from 27.11, take a day back from that to make sure you know.
You will absolutely, and with no queries, be emailing this to the CCBC, as the MCOL system is garbage. CONCISE defences, concentrating on the *legal arguments*, and with a SHORT background seciton of the circumstances is the aim. Youre not writing war and peace, you are not adding evidence, lengthy quotes etc. Just the defnece.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TLSC
post Thu, 12 Dec 2019 - 13:31
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 19 Feb 2014
Member No.: 68,866



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 13:52) *
You will not get any form of reminder from the courts, so make sure you dont forget. Set a reminder - 33 days from 27.11, take a day back from that to make sure you know.
You will absolutely, and with no queries, be emailing this to the CCBC, as the MCOL system is garbage. CONCISE defences, concentrating on the *legal arguments*, and with a SHORT background seciton of the circumstances is the aim. Youre not writing war and peace, you are not adding evidence, lengthy quotes etc. Just the defnece.



I have begun constructing a defence on one of the examples you directed me to that seemed most suitable. Is there anything in the below that strikes you as unnecessary, incorrect or missing?



1. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

2. The defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of PoFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.

2(i) There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is a keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4.

3. The signage displayed had no illumination and as the alleged contravention occurred at 20:17:12 to 20:24:35 on the 19/11/2016 it was dark. Any signage without illumination was not therefore clear

4. The car park has a security gate which can be opened only by authorised people. In this case, it is my belief as registered keeper that the car was parked inside the premises with permission from the security & reception staff for loading/Unloading heavy items during the time of the alleged incidents. Specifically the new defunct ‘Sticky Mike’s Frog Bar’ venue (9-12 Middle St, Brighton BN1 1AL)

5. The reason for this parking company's presence on this gated site can only be for the sole purpose of deterring parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of drivers authorised by the leaseholder businesses. Instead, contrary to various consumer laws, this Claimant carries out a predatory operation on those very people whose interests they are purportedly there to uphold.


6. The driver was allowed the right to load/unload by the leasehold business, relying on an express verbal agreement with the on duty security/reception staff. The alleged contravention lasted less than 6 minutes and 30 seconds, a very short time to load heavy equipment into the aforementioned venue.

7. This permission created the prevailing and overriding contract - the only contract - and the business was concluded as agreed, at no cost or penalty.

8. Loading or unloading with the permission of the landholder is not 'parking' and signs cannot override existing rights enjoyed by landowners and their visitors, as was found in the Appeal case decided by His Honour Judge Harris QC at Oxford County Court, in case number B9GF0A9E: 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES’ which also adduced a business car park decision, analogous to this present case.

8(i) In the Jopson appeal in June 2016, the Senior Circuit Judge found that the position was analogous to the right to unload which was the subject of Bulstrode v Lambert [1953] 2 All ER 728. The right of way in that case was: “To pass and re-pass with or without vehicles…for the purposes of obtaining access to the building…known as the auction mart.''

8(ii) In the Jopson appeal it was also held as a finding of fact, that stopping to unload was not 'parking'.

8(iii) In the Jopson appeal it was held that ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 had no application to a situation involving drivers with a right and expectation to be entitled to park under the grants flowing from a lease.

8(iv) In the Jopson appeal it was also held that signs added later by a third party parking firm are of no consequence to authorised visitors to premises where other rights prevail and supersede any alleged new 'parking contract’.

9. The right of the on site businesses to allow authorised vehicles to load/unload pre-dates the arrival of this Claimant.

10. In any event, the signs make no offer to authorised visitors engaged in permitted loading/unloading for which no 'parking permit' was ever required (neither before the arrival of this Claimant onsite, nor after).

11. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to One Parking and that they have a right to unilaterally remove or interfere with the overriding rights enjoyed by the lessee company and extended to permitted drivers who were expressly allowed on site.

13. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment of £100 is an unenforceable penalty clause.

14. Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of £100 is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

15. This charge represents a breach of the well-known and well-established principle of promissory estoppel, i.e. that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration, when party A has made a promise to party B, who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment.

16. This charge represents a breach of the well-known and well-established principle that 'a grantor shall not derogate from his grant'. This rule embodies a general legal principle that, if A agrees to confer a benefit on B, then A should not do anything that substantially deprives B of the enjoyment of that benefit.

17. On the one hand the security/reception staff verbally allowed access and opened the gate, to enable loading/unloading (the vehicle could not have entered without such express permission and this is proved by the very fact that the gate was opened to allow the entry of the vehicle). Landholders cannot allow or promise this on the one hand, then on the other hand, take away this permission or promise, in allowing a third party to disallow and/or seek to charge for the permitted action by a driver.

17(i) In 'Saeed v Plustrade Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 2011' a tenant was granted a right in common with others to park on such part of the forecourt as might from time to time be specified by the landholder, who later proposed to reduce the availability of parking and to charge for it. On appeal it was held that the landholder was only entitled to change the location of spaces, not to reduce their number, nor to unreasonably restrict parking previously offered, nor to charge for it. Such restrictions would interfere with easements enjoyed under the lease.

Statement of Truth:

I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TLSC
post Mon, 23 Dec 2019 - 07:33
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 19 Feb 2014
Member No.: 68,866



Bump.

I need to submit my defence and wondered if anyone with more knowledge than me can look over my defence (above) and tell me if it is too much?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TLSC
post Tue, 28 Jan 2020 - 09:26
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 19 Feb 2014
Member No.: 68,866



I have heard from One Parking Solution since submitting my case previously. It is in the form of a PDF titled :Directions questionnaire
(Small Claims Track)

I can copy it here later today (when not at work). I really have no idea how to proceed and would gratefully receive any instruction.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 28 Jan 2020 - 16:37
Post #37


Member


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



MSE Forum -> Parking -> Newbies thread
Read POST 2 of the thread
Literally every step of the process is there, including this one.
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 01:20
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