PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Britannia Parking, Alleged parking issue
Borg616
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 10:16
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 24 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,081



I wonder whether you could assist please?
I've received various parking notices about a particular parking event but think there may be a case against the initial notice period as I never got an initial notice from Britannia.

Company - Britannia Parking
Date of alleged issue - 02/09/2017
Never received a notice
Car park is ANPR
So far I've received the following;

1st Comms received 61 days after the issue - letter dated 60 days after event (01/11/2017) - DRP (Debt Recovery Plus) Parking charge for £160
2nd Comms dated 16/11/2017 - DRP Notice for intended court action - £160
3rd Comms dated 01/12/2017 - DRP final settlement offer to avoid court action - £136
4th Comms dated 18/12/2017 - ZC (Zenith Collections) Notice of Debt Recovery - £100
5th Comms dated 09/01/2018 - ZC Notice of intention to commence legal proceedings - £100 going up to £160
6th Comms dated 19/11/2018 - BW (bwlegal) Notice demand for £160 (£100 PCN Charge (that I never received) + £60 legal costs - threatening CCJ
7th Comms dated 04/12/2018 - BW Letter of Claim - balance due £160 to be paid by 9th Jan

Given that the wording is starting to talk about CCJs and Legal, I'm starting to get jittery and would appreciate some input please?
On a matter of principle I don't believe I should pay it, but I don;t particularly want a CCJ if that is the default without responding.
I feel like I now need to respond. Could someone please advise if I've left it too late and what I could do please?
Thank in advance.

This post has been edited by Borg616: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 13:53
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 10:16
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Borg616
post Fri, 22 Feb 2019 - 07:05
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 24 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,081



Sorry it’s extensive, the boiler plate data protection response is included for reference too.
Once again, I appreciate any input with this.
Probably first 4 pages (brit) and the last (bw) are relevant. Thought you could probably live without photos of my car!












This post has been edited by Borg616: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 - 07:07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 22 Feb 2019 - 08:07
Post #42


Member


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



Oh Dear, I bet Britannia wishes they hadn't sent that copy of the NTK. Date of contravention 2nd September, Date of Notice 25th September. Well outside the 14 days. There are other glaring errors as well, unless they are on the reverse

Letter to BWlegal stating that you have now received a copy of the NTK that Britannia failed to send pointing out that there client has failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms 2012 and there can be no keeper liability and therefore any claim is bound to fail and continuing with any action is perverse and unreasonable. You will be claiming full costs because of their unreasonableness

List the POFA fails. Copy to Britannia.

This post has been edited by ostell: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 - 08:10
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Borg616
post Fri, 22 Feb 2019 - 09:49
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 24 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,081



Brilliant, thanks for your quick response. I'm all over it.

you mention there being other fails? I'd only clocked the notice time but wondered whether there was anything else you'd picked up on please?
I'm happy to back on the one point as I believe this is sufficient grounds to negate the claim (outside of the fact that I didn't receive them).

When you say claiming full costs, is now the time that I should imply what these should be or is it best to leave it just as those words for the time being please?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 22 Feb 2019 - 10:02
Post #44


Member


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



Here's POFA, Compare what must be there (the start of 9 (2)) with what is actually in the notice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Borg616
post Sat, 23 Feb 2019 - 18:58
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 24 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,081



Hi All, I've had a look through the POFA and can't see anything else albeit I realise that I'd missed the reverse side of the NTK which details;
- Photos of the vehicle
- Payment information
- Appeals information
- Data Protection Act ways to complain
- Request for driver details
- Parking charge notice payment slip data

So, i've formulated the below for BW. Please let me know your thoughts.

Dear Sir or Madam
Further my Subject Access Request to Britannia in reference to this alleged incident, I have now received their response. Included in this pack was a copy of the “Notice to Keeper” that Britannia failed to send in the first place.

Putting aside the fact that this is the first time I’ve seen this notice your client has still failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 and there can be no keeper liability.
Any claim is bound to fail and continuing with any action in this regard is perverse and unreasonable. Should BWLegal continue with this action even in light of this contravention, I will be seeking to claim my full costs based on BWLegal’s unreasonableness.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (4) states that;
"The notice must be given by—
(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period."
Paragraph 9 (5) then goes on to define the "relevant period" in which to deliver a notice to the keeper. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (5) states that;
"The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended."

Having reviewed the “Notice to Keeper” sent by Britannia in my Subject Access Request pack, it quotes two dates.
“Date of contravention – 02 September 2017”
and
“Date of this notice – 25th September 2017”
Which clearly still exceeds the requisite 14 days as defined in the act.
I would appreciate your urgent attention to call a halt to this action and save us all the time and effort in pursuing this vexatious claim further.

This post has been edited by Borg616: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 - 19:24
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 23 Feb 2019 - 23:21
Post #46


Member


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



And the failure to give the warning to keeper 9 (2) (f), paragraph 9 (2) (e) is not there, no period of parking (photographs of the car moving in front of a camera cannot, by definition, be parking, 9 (2) (h) no creditor has been identified, 9 (2) (i) no date of sending or given has been given
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Borg616
post Mon, 25 Feb 2019 - 17:36
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 24 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,081



Thanks for that. I'd completely missed the obvious one failing to send!
With ref to the rest, on the notice to keeper front page, I can see;
- Entry and exit date and time for the vehicle (which could imply a duration - however a duration is not explicitly written).
- it cites "Britannia Parking (The creditor")
- it explicitly says that they do not know the drivers name or current address
- it cites the "Date of this notice" at the top.
The only one I feel I can roll with is the failure to give the warning to the keeper, which I'll factor in now.
Thanks again for checking for me.

This post has been edited by Borg616: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 - 17:41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Borg616
post Mon, 25 Feb 2019 - 19:51
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 24 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,081



Dear Sir or Madam,

Further my Subject Access Request to Britannia Parking Limited in reference to this alleged incident, I have now received their response. Included in this pack was a copy of the “Notice to Keeper” that Britannia failed to send in the first place.

The copy of the “Notice to Keeper” from the Subject Access Request clearly shows that your client has still failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 and there can be no keeper liability.

Any claim is bound to fail and continuing with any action in this regard is perverse and unreasonable. Should BWLegal continue with this action even in light of these contraventions, I will be claiming full costs based on BWLegal’s unreasonableness.

Contravention – Incorrect Notice period from two perspectives;
1) The Notice to Keeper was never received at all.
2) When reviewing the copy of the “Notice to Keeper” from the “Subject Access Request” data, notwithstanding point 1), it demonstrates a further contravention of Schedule 4.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (4) states that;
"The notice must be given by—
(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period."

Paragraph 9 (5) then goes on to define the "relevant period" in which to deliver a notice to the keeper. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (5) states that;
"The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended."

Having reviewed the “Subject Access Request” supplied copy of the “Notice to Keeper” it quotes two dates.
“Date of contravention – 02 September 2017”
and
“Date of this notice – 25th September 2017”
To further back up the 25th September 2017, the DVLA check data also shows the 25th September 2017 when keeper details were retrieved.

The notice exceeds the requisite 14 days as defined in the act.

I would appreciate your urgent attention to call a halt to this action and save us all the time and effort in pursuing this vexatious claim further.
Yours Sincerely,

I reckon it's pretty much there, but I'll get it printed out in the meantime.
I'd appreciate any comments positively or constructively.
Thanks again for your support.

This post has been edited by Borg616: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 - 19:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 09:20
Post #49


Member


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



No "contravention" of POFA - just a failure to meet the strict requirements of such

They dont give the warnign tot he keeper that they then become liable
Date of the notice is NOT the date of SENDING. its the date the notice was created.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 10:18
Post #50


Member


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



Fully read the requirements in POFA and what was actually on the NTK. Ok, I missed the creditor statement.

As I pointed out the time between the cameras is not parking, it cannot be, the car was moving

It might say they do not know the drivers detqils but do they include the rest of the required statement
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Borg616
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 05:31
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 24 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,081



@nosferatu - Thanks for the heads up ref "contravention", i've stripped it out now.
on inspecting the notice, there is the section on the reverse that goes into the liability if you weren't the driver so i think that may not be usable.

@ostell - also thanks for the detail ref camera photos. I'd not considered that fully.

Final draft below;

Dear Sir or Madam

Further my Subject Access Request to Britannia Parking Limited in reference to this alleged incident, I have now received their response. Included in this pack was a copy of the “Notice to Keeper” that Britannia failed to send in the first place.

The copy of the “Notice to Keeper” from the Subject Access Request clearly shows that your client has still failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 and there can be no keeper liability.

Any claim is bound to fail and continuing with any action in this regard is perverse and unreasonable. Should BWLegal continue with this action even in light of both failures to adhere to the requirement of the act, I will be claiming full costs based on BWLegal’s unreasonableness.

Failure to adhere to the strict requirements of the Act;
1) The Notice to Keeper was never received at all.

2) When reviewing the copy of the “Notice to Keeper” from the “Subject Access Request” data, notwithstanding point 1), it shows further failure to comply with Schedule 4.
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (4) states that;
"The notice must be given by—
(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period."
Paragraph 9 (5) then goes on to define the "relevant period" in which to deliver a notice to the keeper. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (5) states that;

"The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended."

Having reviewed the “Subject Access Request” supplied copy of the “Notice to Keeper” it quotes two dates.

“Date of contravention – 02 September 2017”
and
“Date of this notice – 25th September 2017”

To further back up the 25th September 2017, the DVLA check data also shows the 25th September 2017 when keeper details were retrieved by Britannia.
The notice exceeds the requisite 14 days as defined in the act.

3) The “Notice to Keeper” does not display the date on which the notice was “sent”. The only date in reference to the notice is “Date of this Notice” which as confirmed by the DVLA request was the date that the notice was created and not the date that the notice was “Sent”.
Paragraph 9 (2) (i) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, defines the requirement to specify a date on which the notice was “sent” as follows;
“(i) specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).”

4) The “Notice to Keeper” does not specify a “period of parking” for which the charges are applicable to.

Paragraph 9 (2) (a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, defines that a Notice to Keeper must;

“(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”

The entry and exit photos of the vehicle along with date and time stamps are insufficient as in both cases presumably the car must have occupants inside and is moving (and more importantly not actually parked).

I would appreciate your urgent attention to call a halt to this action and save us all the time and effort in pursuing this vexatious claim further.
Yours Sincerely,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Borg616
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 09:01
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 24 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,081



Thanks for your help everyone. I’m sending this morning and hopefully Britannia will see sense and stop this madness.
It’s a shame I cannot change my evidence to the court now to include these extra bits of information.
Will let you know how I get on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 10:00
Post #53


Member


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



Why not send it to the court now, anyway?

Youre adding to, not changing
POint out that the claiant has only just released this VITAL piece of info - that they cannot hold the keeper liable, and they knew this when filing the claim - at the last minute in resposne to a SAR. They have not cooperated with the court or the defendant
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Borg616
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 10:30
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 24 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,081



Brilliant, I thought it was closed off once submitted and accepted.
Will sort that now too.


This post has been edited by Borg616: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 11:00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 10:57
Post #55


Member


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



Dont ask, dont get, is the principal here
APOLOGISE to the court for the late submission, but add that this was due to the claimant only just releasing the info.
PResumably the NtK was NOT in their byndle to the court and you either - and point out that the omission of this was clearly deliberate, to show they knew they had failed to meet the requirements of POFA (14 days, cite the speicifc bit of POFA para 9 this is found in) and had omitted this to hope you would not find this info out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Borg616
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 11:27
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 24 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,081



Thanks for this. I can't see any detail about the case from the portal at this point, only my defence so can't say for sure whether it's in any evidence bundle, however I've worded it speculatively below;

Dear Sir or Madam
I am the defendant in this case.

Please accept my apologies for this late submission. The claimant has released some vital information that I wish to add alongside my previous defence. I was not in possession of the information before my last submission hence applying now.

Having issued a Subject Access Request to Britannia Parking Limited in reference to this alleged incident, a response pack was received that included a copy of the “Notice to Keeper” that the claimant failed to send in the first place.
The copy of the “Notice to Keeper” from the Subject Access Request clearly shows that the claimant has still failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 and there can be no keeper liability. I have detailed the points below for your additional consideration.

Failure to adhere to the strict requirements of the Act;
1) The defendant has already mentioned in the defence that the original “Notice to Keeper” was never received.

2) When reviewing the copy of the “Notice to Keeper” from the “Subject Access Request” data, notwithstanding point 1), it shows further failure to comply with Schedule 4.
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (4) states that;

"The notice must be given by—
(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period."

Paragraph 9 (5) then goes on to define the "relevant period" in which to deliver a notice to the keeper. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (5) states that;
"The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended."

Having reviewed the “Subject Access Request” supplied copy of the “Notice to Keeper” it quotes two dates.
“Date of contravention – 02 September 2017”
and
“Date of this notice – 25th September 2017”
To further back up the 25th September 2017, the DVLA check data also shows the 25th September 2017 as the date when the keeper details were retrieved by Britannia.

Even though this was not received by the defendant, the copy the claimant has provided shows the two dates that clearly exceed the requisite 14 days as defined in the act.
Presumably if this information is not in the evidence bundle, its omission was deliberate and implies that the claimant knew they had failed to meet the requirements of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 hoping the defendant would not find out.

3) The “Notice to Keeper” does not display the date on which the notice was “sent”. The only date in reference to the notice is “Date of this Notice” which as confirmed by the DVLA request date (which also shows 25th September 2017) was the date that the notice was created and not the date that the notice was “Sent”.
Paragraph 9 (2) (i) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, defines the requirement to specify a date on which the notice was “sent” as follows;
“(i) specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).”

4) The “Notice to Keeper” does not specify a “period of parking” for which the charges are applicable to.
Paragraph 9 (2) (a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, defines that a Notice to Keeper must;
“(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”
The entry and exit photos of the vehicle along with date and time stamps are insufficient as in both cases presumably the car must have occupants inside and is moving (and more importantly not actually parked).

Once again, the defendant would like to apologise for this late submission but if the court would take this information in consideration alongside the previously submitted defence, the defendant still respectfully asks that the court dismiss the claim.

This post has been edited by Borg616: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 11:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 11:59
Post #57


Member


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



Youre not looking at the portal any longer.
OK
Ive looked back

You failed to read up on the process as you were told!
Thats why you are confused

MSE forum
Newbies thread
Post 2

You will see that sending in EVIDENCE is not done yet.
In your defence did you argue POFA non compliance? Yes or No. If YES then easy - when it comes to writing your WS, you can just add in this detail of the NtK.

So you dont sending anythuign to the corut YET
AS before. You MUST MUST MUST be fully aware of what you do and when. This is a lEGAL PROCESS and you dont step outside of it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 13:53
Post #58


Member


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



If you're sending additional defence points to the court send them to the claimant as well so you can't be accused of ambushing them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Borg616
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 17:57
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 24 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,081



Thanks both for your feedback.
I appear to have missed a little from the forum and triggered the defence early based on the looming date. I did have enough space to adjust the formatting though to make it easier to read.

The Claimant has been sent these points already (they will be signing for them tomorrow morning) - with the only exception being the failure to provide evidence that a ticket was not purchased.
Yes I argued in my defence on compliance with POFA. I've not fallen foul of any of the points that are irrelevant defences from MSE from what I can see.

Thanks again, will sit tight to see what happens from my letter to Britannia and BW.

This post has been edited by Borg616: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 18:01
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 28 Feb 2019 - 07:59
Post #60


Member


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



good
As you have argued POFA non compliance, you cna then use the evidence from the SAR when you compile your WS and bundle

Make sure you jhave the MSE Forum -> newbies thread -> post 2 bookmarked. It takes you through the entire process.
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 - 21:04
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