PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Parking ticket in post, Appealed as transferred liability
Sarab123
post Sun, 13 Oct 2019 - 21:13
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 13 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,162



Hi.. i am after some advice please.
Registered keeper received a PCN from es parking dated 18/7/2019 with an incident date of 13/07/2019.
Registered keeper was not the driver who was responsible for having parked the vehicle in the visitors parking bay.
Registered keeper passed on the notice to the driver and emailed ES parking of transfer of liability.
Registeted keeper received an email from ES Parking to confirm they had received the appeal of transfer of liability.
The original pcn had a final payment date of 15/08/2019 but the final demand received by the registered keeper from ES parking dated 13/08/2019 2 days prior to their pay no later than15/08/2019 deadline.
On receipt of the final demand registered keeper emailed ES Parking that they had notified them of the transfer of liability but had still not heard anying from them.
Registered keeper assumed all was settled but then received a Letter Before Claim from Gladstone solicitors requesting a payment of £160 which also states should there be a valid reason for non payment then reply pursuant to paragraph 4 of the pre- action protocol for debt claims under the civil procedure rules 1998.
Could someone please advise.
The background was that the driver arrived to park the vehicle on the private residential driveway. Unfortunately the access was blocked by a police vehicle investigating an incident that had occurred in the neighbourhood. . Hence the vehicle was left on the visitors parking bay. This bay had been used by residents for the past 15 years and had not been notified of change of parking restriction. The enforcement sign was not clear and the entrance to the crescent clearly states residents parking only.
Gladstone require a reply ithin 30 days of 20th September 2019.

Thank you for your time.

This post has been edited by Sarab123: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 11:02
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 13 Oct 2019 - 21:13
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Sun, 13 Oct 2019 - 22:50
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 650
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



If you are happy for the driver to be hounded by ES and possibly for them having to end up paying lots of money, then contact Gladstones, point out: that you have already notified ES of the driver's identity; that you have confirmation of this from ES, and that for the avoidance of doubt, you confirm that the driver is XXX of YYY address.

At this point they might drop the case and go hound the driver instead. Or they might claim that the driver never responded and so you're still liable and continue with the court case. In which case you will likely win because as long as you can show the court on balance of probabilities (including your witness evidence) that you identified the driver, it doesn't matter whether the driver ignored their subsequent correspondence.

On the other hand, if you want to take the strain yourself and protect the driver, then the defence is easy if ES haven't complied with POFA - you just tell the judge that you weren't the driver and that they haven't complied with POFA in order to transfer liability to the keeper. If they have complied with POFA, then you'll need a defence based on a combination or prior right to park and/or poor signage and/or frustration of contract (police car). If you win in court there is still the danger that they may suddenly remember that they have the driver's details and raise a court claim against them too.

In any case, show us the NtK, redacted but with dates kept. Also send a SAR to ES to find all the paperwork they have on your, especially if you have thrown away your copy of the NtK etc.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 09:01
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32,228
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Was the driver's name and serviceable address given?


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

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
Sarab123
post Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 11:05
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 13 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,162



@Jlc the drivers name and serviceable address were given.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 11:12
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32,228
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Sarab123 @ Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 12:05) *
@Jlc the drivers name and serviceable address were given.

Then they should be told that the keeper no longer has any liability in the matter.


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

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
Sarab123
post Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 11:23
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 13 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,162



QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 12:12) *
QUOTE (Sarab123 @ Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 12:05) *
@Jlc the drivers name and serviceable address were given.

Then they should be told that the keeper no longer has any liability in the matter.


I am new to the forum and also 1st time i have ever encountered such a situation in my 31 years of driving.
Do i simply tell Gladstones that the keeper no longer has any liability in the matter as the driver's name and serviceable address were provided to the parking enforcement company.
Thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 11:32
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43,661
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



That's the sum of it, yes.

Preferably provide a copy of that email from ES confirming they had received the driver nomination.


--------------------
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
Sarab123
post Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 11:39
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 13 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,162



Thank you for your help. I will see to that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 12:17
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32,228
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Many PPC's claim that they will continue to pursue the keeper if the driver denies or doesn't respond.

Personally, that should fail if the nomination is correct. If they want to sue someone then the driver is best...


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

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
Sarab123
post Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 12:35
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 13 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,162



QUOTE (Sheffield Dave @ Sun, 13 Oct 2019 - 23:50) *
If you are happy for the driver to be hounded by ES and possibly for them having to end up paying lots of money, then contact Gladstones, point out: that you have already notified ES of the driver's identity; that you have confirmation of this from ES, and that for the avoidance of doubt, you confirm that the driver is XXX of YYY address.

At this point they might drop the case and go hound the driver instead. Or they might claim that the driver never responded and so you're still liable and continue with the court case. In which case you will likely win because as long as you can show the court on balance of probabilities (including your witness evidence) that you identified the driver, it doesn't matter whether the driver ignored their subsequent correspondence.

On the other hand, if you want to take the strain yourself and protect the driver, then the defence is easy if ES haven't complied with POFA - you just tell the judge that you weren't the driver and that they haven't complied with POFA in order to transfer liability to the keeper. If they have complied with POFA, then you'll need a defence based on a combination or prior right to park and/or poor signage and/or frustration of contract (police car). If you win in court there is still the danger that they may suddenly remember that they have the driver's details and raise a court claim against them too.

In any case, show us the NtK, redacted but with dates kept. Also send a SAR to ES to find all the paperwork they have on your, especially if you have thrown away your copy of the NtK etc.


Hi... i am going down the route of the transfer of liability. I have proof of return email from ES to confirm the rec of appeal and also my reply to them my email saying i had emailed them but not had any closure.

However i am eager to learn a little about the system and how it operates.
If the keeper was to inform the judge that the keeper was not liable as ES had been notified of the driver. Am i correct in understanding that as ES have not transferred the liability to the driver then ES have not complied with FOPA. If ES have complied and transferred liability then they should take it up with the driver.
Defence which can be used if complied -
1 - prior right to park. as residents from when property built 15 years ago have always had the right to park in the visitors bays should the need arise. Parking permits were provided for 1st couple of years as the land was private. It was then passed on to the local authority so permits were no longer required as the land had been taken on by the local authority.
2 - changed to permit holders only suddenly without notification
3 - the signage was not clear as it was covered by over grown bushes and leaves see pic in post
5 - half the parking bay was used by fly tippers and occupied with a bed base and other rubble. See pic in post.
4 - signage at entrance stating residents parking only.
5 - Restricted to permit holders only and keeper not a permit holder, then can be argued it was forbidding signage as didn't offer any thing so couldn't have entered a contract so couldn't have breached it.
6 - then leads to frustration of contract as police car had blocked entrance to keepers driveway which has been confirmed by the police by email.

What is a SAR.

Thank you.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 12:35
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32,228
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Subject Access Request (under Data Protection Act).


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

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 Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 14:01
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,114
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



POFA 5 (1) (b) is the relevant portion where they can only claim against the keeper if they didn't know the details of the driver. They lose the right to claim if they do know the driver
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sarab123
post Tue, 19 Nov 2019 - 22:50
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 13 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,162



Hi...
Registered keeper has now received this email from Gladstones.
Where does the registered keeper go from here. Your help and advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.


"Thank you for your correspondence.

 

Our Client wrote to the nominated driver however as the address is in India, this is not a serviceable address.

 

You will now be pursued as keeper and the balance of £160 is due within 30 days of this email, in the absence of this after the time we may be instructed to issue proceedings without further notice which will increase the amount due.

 

Kind Regards

Phoebe McClean
Litigation Assistant

On Google this has been found

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014...can-be.html?m=1

@Ostell @Jlc @The Rookie

This post has been edited by Sarab123: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 - 00:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 20 Nov 2019 - 13:56
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43,661
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



They are lying, it is a serviceable address, not one they may want to (as the driver is untouchable) use but that's not the keeper's fault.

If they do take this to court you will have to convince the judge on balance of probabilities that the named driver was indeed driving.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 - 13:57


--------------------
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 Wed, 20 Nov 2019 - 14:18
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32,228
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Here.


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

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
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 20 Nov 2019 - 14:50
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,411
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Inform Gladstone they're lying, and agrees in India is indeed serviceable. That it might be less convenient for them than they wish, does not alter this.

If they continue to misrepresent the clear law on the matter, which does not limit a serviceable address to within the uk, then you will happily report them to the SRA for misleading a consumer

Over to them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sarab123
post Wed, 20 Nov 2019 - 15:02
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 13 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,162



Hi all

I thought as much it was a serviceable address.

What does the registered keeper do now ?? Ignore and let it go to court or reply back?
If reply back what should the registered keeper state.

Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sarab123
post Wed, 20 Nov 2019 - 15:28
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 13 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,162



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 20 Nov 2019 - 14:50) *
Inform Gladstone they're lying, and agrees in India is indeed serviceable. That it might be less convenient for them than they wish, does not alter this.

If they continue to misrepresent the clear law on the matter, which does not limit a serviceable address to within the uk, then you will happily report them to the SRA for misleading a consumer

Over to them.


Ooops ignore my last post pls... just seen this post.

So the registered keeper writes to Gladstone

Dear sirs/ madam

The Indian address is in fact serviceable and ES Parking are lying about it. It may be less convenient for ES Parking than they wish but that does not alter the situation of the address being serviceable.
The law does not limit the serviceable address to be in the uk only.
Should ES Parking continue to misrepresent the law then they will be reported to the SRA for misleading a consumer.

Yours faithfully
Registered keeper

Hope that reads ok.. any changes or anything else to include??

Thanks

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 20 Nov 2019 - 15:48
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43,661
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



NO.

I wouldn't say lying, I would say mistaken. Lying is a deliberate act which while likely may not be provable

You can't report ES to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority, they aren't solicitors, Gladstones are solicitors and can be reported to the SRA.

Gladstones are part of the parking industry, they work for them and have the same (lack of) morals and scruples as the rest of the industry, however as solicitors they are requires to represent the law in an impartial manner, something that seems to slip their mind occasionally, this is little more than a debt collection letter.

How about......

Dear sir/madam

The Indian address is indeed serviceable, you are mistaken when you say it is not. It may be less convenient for yourselves and ES Parking than you may wish but that does not alter the situation of the address being serviceable.
The law does not limit the serviceable address to be in the UK only.
Should you continue to misrepresent the law then I will be forced to refer this matter to the SRA for misleading a consumer.

Yours faithfully
Registered keeper



--------------------
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
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 20 Nov 2019 - 15:48
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,411
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



ES aren't making the claim it is not serviceable, to your knowledge. Gladstone's are. That's why I said Gladstone's. The sra will only care about solicitors, ie Gladstone's.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
1 Members: Sarab123

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Tuesday, 21st January 2020 - 07:45
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.