PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Over £3.5k Claim, Help appreciated!
oasis786
post Sat, 6 Jan 2018 - 17:54
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 6 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,828



Hi everyone,

Having visited the hospital every day for around 18 months, I have paid for many many tickets at QA Hospital in Portsmouth.

If anyone has visited here, they will know the parking is a nightmare. Friends also used the car in question very frequently and to cut a long story short, I didn't get any of the mail until recently I got this letter..

https://s14.postimg.org/s2decjyc1/IMG_8787-blank.jpg

Would love some help with this and what route to take. The Carillion attendants here really have it in for me. Ticket the car within a few minutes now. There was actually one time where I dropped somebody off and the attendant blocked me from leaving. I was in the driver seat the whole time and the car was always running. The attendant then threw the ticket through the window at me and told me to have a nice day!

Thank you in advance

This post has been edited by oasis786: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 12:59
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Sat, 6 Jan 2018 - 17:54
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
peterguk
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 00:48
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,104
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



OP. Difficult as it maybe, you and any other drivers of your car need to start abiding by the car park T&Cs.

If you have a permit, get it back from whoever has it and use it.

We have seen cases where continuous and repeated breach of T&Cs has gone against the defendant in court.

And do not ignore future tickets or correspondence.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 00:55
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,778
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (4101 @ Sat, 6 Jan 2018 - 22:02) *
They should have listed each ticket with the ref, the time etc. on a separate particulars of claim.

There’s no need for them to be in separate particulars of claim (in fact, they can’t be).


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


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 01:14
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 00:55) *
QUOTE (4101 @ Sat, 6 Jan 2018 - 22:02) *
They should have listed each ticket with the ref, the time etc. on a separate particulars of claim.

There’s no need for them to be in separate particulars of claim (in fact, they can’t be).



I meant on an attached sheet of paper.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 08:13
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,017
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Member No.: 13,324



The is a PFI site owned by Carillion so PALS won't be able to help. Parkshield process the paperwork on behalf of Carillion so it appears someone at Carillion has got p***ed off which the driver's antics.

Suggest, on the basis of what you've said so far, you don't want this to go to court and it may be worthwhile talking to the on site people there about the case to see if you can get the matter settled without court.

This post has been edited by emanresu: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 08:13


--------------------
Where there is a claim - there is a counterclaim.
Are Parking companies misusing your personal data or interfering with your lease? Counterclaims are only £25. Makes them sit up and take notice. For leaseholds, join in the Managing agents too. Since the purpose of these claims is to frighten you, give them something to be frightened of.
Subject Access Requests to the DVLA?Find out who accessed your data and when. Try SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk. [Apologies if it does not work]
Double Dip / ANPR FaultsThe BPA Report on ANPR Double Dips is here. Ideal case for a counterclaim (see above).
Daily Court List. See who is doing what and where here
Printing and posting Witness Statements. Easy and cheap way DoxDirect
What is court like. A District Judge's view
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oasis786
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 16:44
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 6 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,828



Firstly, I just wanted to say I am amazed at the responses and the effort people put in to helping people on here. Massive thank you. Yes I made some mistakes with these PCNs at a time where my only concern was to visit my ill family member, and I won't be repeating it. When checking online after getting a PCN, the advice was always "ignore" so I assumed nothing would come of it.

Copy of PCN front: https://preview.ibb.co/mnDqPw/blankticket.jpg
Back: https://preview.ibb.co/kWUrWb/bk.jpg

I have gathered the following defence ideas from the thread and added in some of my own...

- Ask for evidence for every single PCN. I wonder if they could for all 36 alleged tickets?

- As Ostell advises.. Make mention that the PoC "does not give the breach that was the cause of the charge, as well as stating 2 then claiming 36. It does not say whether claiming against the keeper or the driver."

- Also mention there should be a name of someone with authority in the company on the claim, rather than just the company name. Would this just delay the process and they would send another with someones name on?

- Ask them how they gave me 36 tickets on the two stated dates of 10/06/2014 and 12/10/2017 - I would be happy to pay the tickets given on these two dates, but refuse to pay for 36. Is the the 2 dates they stated a major point they have messed up on?

- A few people have recommended to settle out of court, and I could make them an offer of say x ticket charges and hope they settle it. I can also tell them who the driver of the vehicle was for perhaps bulk of the tickets, but the person is now living abroad.

Just throwing some ideas out there before I get something written up.

This post has been edited by oasis786: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 16:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emsgeorge
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 16:48
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 442
Joined: 2 Dec 2007
Member No.: 15,762



QUOTE (emanresu @ Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 08:13) *
The is a PFI site owned by Carillion so PALS won't be able to help. Parkshield process the paperwork on behalf of Carillion so it appears someone at Carillion has got p***ed off which the driver's antics.

Suggest, on the basis of what you've said so far, you don't want this to go to court and it may be worthwhile talking to the on site people there about the case to see if you can get the matter settled without court.


There is more to this that meets the eye.

I've worked on their cctv systems in this venue before. Their security team work with the car parks lot closely.

Looks like someone has been really taking the pee, and they have got together to make sure they are stuffed.

Others will assist you in the technical points, but expect every single ticket to be on cctv from the security team, including the drivers movements whilst in the hospital / getting into and out of the vehicle.


What exactly did you do to upset them so much ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 17:01
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,778
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (oasis786 @ Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 16:44) *
- Ask for evidence for every single PCN


Do you deny being there and being in breach of the terms and conditions 36 times? The evidence is going to be the same in each case as concerns the signs (I would imagine) and so copies of the 36 tickets should evidence your vehicle was there. What are you hoping to gain here?

QUOTE
- As Ostell says.. Make mention that the PoC "does not give the breach that was the cause of the charge, as well as stating 2 then claiming 36. It does not say whether claiming against the keeper or the driver." and also mention there should be a name of someone with authority in the company on the claim, rather than just the company name. Would this just delay the process and they would send another with someones name on this time?


It’s a rubbish particulars of claim that I would never allow to leave my office - however, it’s not something that can’t be cured by simply asking the court to allow an amendment. You can hardly say you’re mislead, you know full well what the score is. A court is likely (though not bound) to allow an amendment.

QUOTE
- Ask them how they gave me 36 tickets on the two dates of 10/06/2014 and 12/10/2017 - I would be happy to pay these two tickets. Is the the 2 dates stated a major point they have messed up on?


See above.

QUOTE
- A few people have recommended to settle out of court, and I could make them an offer of say x ticket charges and hope they settle it. I can also tell them who the driver of the vehicle was for perhaps bulk of the tickets, but the person is now living abroad.


You should always try to settle, in fact you’re under an obligation to try. If you weren’t driving on any particular occasion then they can only claim against you for that incident if (a) they comply with the terms of PoFA to make you as keeper liable or (b) they convince the court that you were in fact the driver.


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


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oasis786
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 17:08
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 6 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,828



QUOTE (emsgeorge @ Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 16:48) *
QUOTE (emanresu @ Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 08:13) *
The is a PFI site owned by Carillion so PALS won't be able to help. Parkshield process the paperwork on behalf of Carillion so it appears someone at Carillion has got p***ed off which the driver's antics.

Suggest, on the basis of what you've said so far, you don't want this to go to court and it may be worthwhile talking to the on site people there about the case to see if you can get the matter settled without court.


There is more to this that meets the eye.

I've worked on their cctv systems in this venue before. Their security team work with the car parks lot closely.

Looks like someone has been really taking the pee, and they have got together to make sure they are stuffed.

Others will assist you in the technical points, but expect every single ticket to be on cctv from the security team, including the drivers movements whilst in the hospital / getting into and out of the vehicle.



Any video/photo shown for around 20 tickets will actually show someone else driving and not myself. The car V5 is in my name, but it's driven by friends and relatives. If I admitted to 10 for example, can I refuse to supply the name/address of the person that was driving for the alleged other 26?

Yes I noticed I would get a ticket within minutes at times. Not enough time to get change. Of course the slip will say 10 minutes observation.

QUOTE
What exactly did you do to upset them so much?


I am not quite sure, but they did stop me from leaving one time after dropping someone off, and they threw the ticket in through my window.

This post has been edited by oasis786: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 17:11
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 17:18
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,665
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Unfortunately now that proceedings have started then POFA allows them to claim from the keeper even if another driver is identified or known. See paragraph 5 of POFA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 17:29
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,104
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



Out of interest, if you had a permit, why wasn't it used?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 17:57
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,743
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 17:18) *
Unfortunately now that proceedings have started then POFA allows them to claim from the keeper even if another driver is identified or known. See paragraph 5 of POFA

I don’t see anything in the thread that suggests any ticket is being pursued under PoFA.

@OP - have you received a Notice to Keeper through the post for any of the tickets (28 - 56 days after each parking event). If there have been no properly served NtKs, then there’s no prospect of Keeper Liability.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
unicorn47
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 18:14
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 138
Joined: 24 May 2015
Member No.: 77,413



cancel

This post has been edited by unicorn47: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 18:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 18:19
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,279
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Indeed, the rather poor PoC does say "...for the purposes of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012..." - it doesn't go into details but one would presume they are hoping to engage such keeper liability for the driver's unpaid parking charges. (But of course, nothing stopping checking/confirming etc.)


--------------------
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
anon45
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 19:43
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,068
Joined: 7 Aug 2009
Member No.: 31,007



I have a degree of sympathy with OP, especially as he/ she was apparently unable to use his/ her permit when it was in use by other relatives- my relatives incurred a large number of 'ordinary' charges at £6 a time visiting another terminally ill relative, and tend to think that such charges are ethically questionable, but this sympathy is irrelevant as to the question of whether the charges are legally enforceable, and, on the face of it, they probably are.

It can't hurt to see a picture of the signage (one hopes it might be 'forbidding'), although, with 36 invoices, judges are unlikely to be particularly sympathetic to arguments based on signage deficiency, and may suspect that the OP was driving on each and every occasion even if he/ she denies it (he/ she may wish to call relatives who also drove to give evidence on this point- edit- if and only if there is a reasonable prospect of prevailing on the 'RK liability not established' point; otherwise it is futile as RK liability would apply regardless).

For what it's worth, the 'dropping-off' invoice referred to might not necessarily be enforceable on the grounds that the car was not parked, depending on various factors, although an unsympathetic judge will likely find a way of ruling that it is, and in any case it is only one of 36 invoices.

The OP says that the £100 is itself an escalated amount. If, as at Cardiff in the Indigo case, the "core" amount for each invoice was, say £20, and the other £80 was inflated, it might be possible to argue based on case law from PE vs Somerfield and PE vs Beavis that the additional charge remains an unenforceable penalty.

We don't normally advise the use of solicitors (since they are not normally cost-effective), but, with £3.5k at stake, it might be worth consulting one to:
1) advise on possible defences (perhaps signage, unclear permit conditions, the weak PoC (albeit that this is most unlikely to be an outright winner), or proven PoFA non-compliance combined with 'there were lots of different visits by different drivers and it is not remembered whether the defendant was driving for each invoice' (if and only if true- although it would not be true for the 'dropping-off' invoice') so it is asserted that the question of driver identity is for the PPC to prove for each invoice'*);
2) to negotiate with the PPC on a settlement and/ or;
3) to present a defence in court

*but see second paragraph

This post has been edited by anon45: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 20:25
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oasis786
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 20:08
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 6 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,828



QUOTE (anon45 @ Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 19:43) *
I have a degree of sympathy with OP, especially as he/ she was apparently unable to use his/ her permit when it was in use by other relatives- my relatives incurred a large number of 'ordinary' charges at £6 a time visiting another terminally ill relative, and tend to think that such charges are ethically questionable, but this sympathy is irrelevant as to the question of whether the charges are legally enforceable, and, on the face of it, they probably are.

It can't hurt to see a picture of the signage (one hopes it might be 'forbidding'), although, with 36 invoices, judges are unlikely to be particularly sympathetic to arguments based on signage deficiency, and may suspect that the OP was driving on each and every occasion even if he/ she denies it (he/ she may wish to call relatives who also drove to give evidence on this point).

For what it's worth, the 'dropping-off' invoice referred to might not necessarily be enforceable on the grounds that the car was not parked, depending on various factors, although an unsympathetic judge will likely find a way of ruling that it is, and in any case it is only one of 36 invoices.

The OP says that the £100 is itself an escalated amount. If, as at Cardiff in the Indigo case, the "core" amount for each invoice was, say £20, and the other £80 was inflated, it might be possible to argue based on case law from PE vs Somerfield and PE vs Beavis that the additional charge remains an unenforceable penalty.

We don't normally advise the use of solicitors (since they are not normally cost-effective), but, with £3.5k at stake, it might be worth consulting one to:
1) advise on possible defences (perhaps signage, unclear permit conditions, the weak PoC (albeit that this is most unlikely to be an outright winner), or PoFA non-compliance combined with 'there were lots of different visits by different drivers and it is not remembered whether the defendant was driving for each invoice' (if and only if true- although it would not be true for the 'dropping-off' invoice') so it is asserted that the question of driver identity is for the PPC to prove for each invoice'*);
2) to negotiate with the PPC on a settlement and/ or;
3) to present a defence in court

*but see second paragraph


Thank you.

I wonder if they would settle at £35 for every ticket. Which is the initial rate.

Regarding point no.1, if they use video evidence and see someone else was driving the vehicle and got the tickets, do I need to provide their contact information?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 20:12
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,279
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



I’ve said it already - if they have complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (schedule 4) then they can pursue you regardless of who was driving. Discharging of this liability can only occur prior to proceedings.


--------------------
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 Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 23:09
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,421
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



No, you don’t need to tell them who drove

However, you MUST answer this: did you as registered keeper , with a v5 in your name in your address, get 36 notices to keeper through the post? Yes or no. If the assumptions I made are wrong, correct. Concisely and simply. We need facts.

Acknowledge the claim online now. Today. Do NOT start the defence. Do not contest jurisdiction. No, you won’t be seeing court in Northampton, the form is just a processing centre.

This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 23:11
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 23:21
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



QUOTE (oasis786 @ Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 20:08) *
QUOTE (anon45 @ Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 19:43) *
I have a degree of sympathy with OP, especially as he/ she was apparently unable to use his/ her permit when it was in use by other relatives- my relatives incurred a large number of 'ordinary' charges at £6 a time visiting another terminally ill relative, and tend to think that such charges are ethically questionable, but this sympathy is irrelevant as to the question of whether the charges are legally enforceable, and, on the face of it, they probably are.

It can't hurt to see a picture of the signage (one hopes it might be 'forbidding'), although, with 36 invoices, judges are unlikely to be particularly sympathetic to arguments based on signage deficiency, and may suspect that the OP was driving on each and every occasion even if he/ she denies it (he/ she may wish to call relatives who also drove to give evidence on this point).

For what it's worth, the 'dropping-off' invoice referred to might not necessarily be enforceable on the grounds that the car was not parked, depending on various factors, although an unsympathetic judge will likely find a way of ruling that it is, and in any case it is only one of 36 invoices.

The OP says that the £100 is itself an escalated amount. If, as at Cardiff in the Indigo case, the "core" amount for each invoice was, say £20, and the other £80 was inflated, it might be possible to argue based on case law from PE vs Somerfield and PE vs Beavis that the additional charge remains an unenforceable penalty.

We don't normally advise the use of solicitors (since they are not normally cost-effective), but, with £3.5k at stake, it might be worth consulting one to:
1) advise on possible defences (perhaps signage, unclear permit conditions, the weak PoC (albeit that this is most unlikely to be an outright winner), or PoFA non-compliance combined with 'there were lots of different visits by different drivers and it is not remembered whether the defendant was driving for each invoice' (if and only if true- although it would not be true for the 'dropping-off' invoice') so it is asserted that the question of driver identity is for the PPC to prove for each invoice'*);
2) to negotiate with the PPC on a settlement and/ or;
3) to present a defence in court

*but see second paragraph


Thank you.

I wonder if they would settle at £35 for every ticket. Which is the initial rate.

Regarding point no.1, if they use video evidence and see someone else was driving the vehicle and got the tickets, do I need to provide their contact information?



It must be £100 per PCN with 50% discount for early payment, they are asking for 36 tickets @ £3,600.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oasis786
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 23:56
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 6 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,828



QUOTE (ostell @ Sat, 6 Jan 2018 - 19:01) *
There is no photographic evidence, it is ANPR cameras. It's now too late to name the driver and gain any advantage.


There were no ANPR cameras, as it was the normal bays outside the hospital and not in the multi storey car park.

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 23:09) *
No, you don’t need to tell them who drove

However, you MUST answer this: did you as registered keeper , with a v5 in your name in your address, get 36 notices to keeper through the post? Yes or no. If the assumptions I made are wrong, correct. Concisely and simply. We need facts.

Acknowledge the claim online now. Today. Do NOT start the defence. Do not contest jurisdiction. No, you won’t be seeing court in Northampton, the form is just a processing centre.


I received some NTKs, but not 36 of them. Maybe a batch were never sent or lost in the post.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 00:01
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



be useful to see:

specimen pcn (remove personals)
signs on hosp
specimen charge notice (sent in post)

This post has been edited by 4101: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 00:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 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: Friday, 16th November 2018 - 06:31
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.