Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Private Parking Tickets & Clamping _ PCN - Correct parking Charge paid!

Posted by: Macapaca Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 19:50
Post #1322400

The driver paid the correct fee of 50p to stay for up to 1 hour. The PCN notice correctly identified that the car was parked for less than half that time. The registration number was correctly entered and checked on the machine display before the Validate button was hit. The machine display confirmed that the fee had been paid. Unfortunately the pay machine did not issue a receipt. The company in question are just using photographic evIdence that the car was parked. They have not supplied any evidence that payment was not made. As the RK I appealed and asked for visibility of the payment machine log to show that the registration and payment was made. They have refused to supply that information.

So I am determined to fight this unjust charge of £100 when in good faith the correct parking fee of 50p was paid and met all the parking contractual requirements stated on the car park notices.

The initial appeal to the PPC has been rejected and I have now received a POPLA code. I would like advice on whether to submit a POPLA appeal or just ignore all letters except for a court case should it come to that. I am determined to fight this unjust PCN and will happily go to court to fight my case.

Any experienced and wise advice is welcome.

Posted by: cabbyman Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 20:02
Post #1322402

Which PPC?

What, verbatim, was your initial appeal?

EDIT your post to avoid identifying the driver. refer only to 'the driver.' This may be crucial.

Posted by: Macapaca Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 09:29
Post #1322477

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 21:02) *
Which PPC?

What, verbatim, was your initial appeal?

EDIT your post to avoid identifying the driver. refer only to 'the driver.' This may be crucial.

The PPC was Premier Park.

The initial appeal is as follows:
Without prejudice, I can confirm that the registration number of the vehicle was entered into the pay machine together with the required fee of 50p for one hour parking. Your reference Parking Charge Notice clearly shows that the duration was xx minutes i.e. less than the one hour paid for. As you have supplied details of the vehicle and identified the duration of xx minutes you should also have a record that the vehicle registration was entered and correct payment made, assuming that the equipment was functioning correctly at the time. This information was not supplied in your letter dated Day/Month 2017.
The reason you cited for issuing the PCN was Parking session expired or Unpaid. The PCN clearly states that the session was xx minutes and so had not expired the one hour paid for.
As the vehicle registration was entered into the machine and the correct fee paid I will not be paying a further £100.


I have edited the OP to refer to the driver.

Posted by: Jlc Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 10:36
Post #1322496

QUOTE (Macapaca @ Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 20:50) *
Unfortunately the pay machine did not issue a receipt.

Malfunctioning meters are not unusual. For example http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/peel-centre-machine-failure-transcript.html and http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/parkingeye-lose-in-court-machine.html

BUT the PPC won't admit any fault and POPLA will likely side with the operator that the 'PCN was correctly issue'. (i.e. the payment log has no corresponding entry) Probably saying its the motorist's responsibility to ensure payment is accepted etc. and the lack of ticket should have resulted in further actions - did the signs have a number to ring for example?

So, a court claim may well be the outcome. A POPLA 'loss' isn't binding but they'll be sure to wave it around.

The alternative could be a robust letter to them why you won't be paying their unreasonable demands - hopefully they'll put it in the 'too hard' pile.

Posted by: Macapaca Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 11:00
Post #1322500

QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 11:36) *
QUOTE (Macapaca @ Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 20:50) *
Unfortunately the pay machine did not issue a receipt.

Malfunctioning meters are not unusual. For example http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/peel-centre-machine-failure-transcript.html and http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/parkingeye-lose-in-court-machine.html

BUT the PPC won't admit any fault and POPLA will likely side with the operator that the 'PCN was correctly issue'. (i.e. the payment log has no corresponding entry) Probably saying its the motorist's responsibility to ensure payment is accepted etc. and the lack of ticket should have resulted in further actions - did the signs have a number to ring for example?

So, a court claim may well be the outcome. A POPLA 'loss' isn't binding but they'll be sure to wave it around.

The alternative could be a robust letter to them why you won't be paying their unreasonable demands - hopefully they'll put it in the 'too hard' pile.

There is no doubt that the coin went into the machine and that the registration number was entered. So surely the PPC needs to provide evidence that the fee was not paid? There must be a log that the 50p was entered into the machine at the stated time if the payment machine was functioning correctly. I agree that there should be an us on the driver to ensure payment was accepted which it was. The only problem is that the machine did not issue a receipt but that is surely the responsibility of the PPC?

Posted by: ManxRed Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 11:39
Post #1322505

They'll try and argue (if a sign exists to that effect) that the driver did not call the emergency number.

Your appeal should contain the term 'frustration of contract' (can be googled). Essentially the fault present in their equipment prevented the driver from complying with the terms and conditions (i.e. displaying a ticket).

Not sure how far that'll go with POPLA, but should be mileage in any court claim defence, although they will try and argue that the driver could have mitigated this by calling any emergency number if one was displayed. Might be worth finding out if one was.

Posted by: Macapaca Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 11:50
Post #1322506

QUOTE (ManxRed @ Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 12:39) *
They'll try and argue (if a sign exists to that effect) that the driver did not call the emergency number.

Your appeal should contain the term 'frustration of contract' (can be googled). Essentially the fault present in their equipment prevented the driver from complying with the terms and conditions (i.e. displaying a ticket).

Not sure how far that'll go with POPLA, but should be mileage in any court claim defence, although they will try and argue that the driver could have mitigated this by calling any emergency number if one was displayed. Might be worth finding out if one was.

There was no telephone number on the payment machine. There was a telephone number in small print on the main car park display which was away from the pay machine. I only found this after I had received the PCN and went back to explore the signs and small print. It wasn't stated as an emergency number. It was just part of the name and address of the company that manages the car park.

Thanks for your advice on 'frustration of contract'. That could be useful!

Posted by: ManxRed Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 11:52
Post #1322508

In that case, make sure you state that (a photo might be useful as backup) on the POPLA appeal. Don't mention the number on the main sign - just state that there was no notice on the pay machine or anywhere else nearby that informed you of what to do in the event of a malfunction of the machine.

Also mention that you requested the payment logs for the machine and they refused. Doesn't paint them in a good light.

Posted by: cabbyman Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 12:03
Post #1322512

IF your initial appeal is exactly as quoted above, appeal to POPLA as keeper.

Check through PoFA sched 4 para 8 and tick off ALL items where the NtK doesn't comply EXACTLY. Put together your appeal based on others on the forum and post on here for checking.

Posted by: Jlc Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 12:36
Post #1322520

The usual line is that the log will show other payments and therefore there was no 'malfunction'. But the elephant in the room is that of course if it wasn't logged then a log won't show it! They can prove the log entry is not there (which in their minds is the say as you not paying at all).

As I already noted, there are documented situations were single payments are 'lost' on the log. Which is why any ticket (or lack thereof) is important. If you had a ticket then that would trump the missing entry. Basically they are calling you a liar and never made a payment and are now saying you did after getting caught. (Indeed, the evidence appears indistinguishable)

QUOTE (Macapaca @ Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 12:00) *
There is no doubt that the coin went into the machine and that the registration number was entered. So surely the PPC needs to provide evidence that the fee was not paid? There must be a log that the 50p was entered into the machine at the stated time if the payment machine was functioning correctly. I agree that there should be an us on the driver to ensure payment was accepted which it was. The only problem is that the machine did not issue a receipt but that is surely the responsibility of the PPC?

How do you prove a negative? If there's a reconciliation between tickets issued and payments there might be a 50p discrepancy - but they aren't going to help you.

POPLA may well form the view when the ticket wasn't issued you could not assume the transaction was confirmed - but if there was no instructions then what could you do?

Posted by: Macapaca Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 13:29
Post #1322540

QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 13:36) *
The usual line is that the log will show other payments and therefore there was no 'malfunction'. But the elephant in the room is that of course if it wasn't logged then a log won't show it! They can prove the log entry is not there (which in their minds is the say as you not paying at all).

As I already noted, there are documented situations were single payments are 'lost' on the log. Which is why any ticket (or lack thereof) is important. If you had a ticket then that would trump the missing entry. Basically they are calling you a liar and never made a payment and are now saying you did after getting caught. (Indeed, the evidence appears indistinguishable)

QUOTE (Macapaca @ Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 12:00) *
There is no doubt that the coin went into the machine and that the registration number was entered. So surely the PPC needs to provide evidence that the fee was not paid? There must be a log that the 50p was entered into the machine at the stated time if the payment machine was functioning correctly. I agree that there should be an us on the driver to ensure payment was accepted which it was. The only problem is that the machine did not issue a receipt but that is surely the responsibility of the PPC?

How do you prove a negative? If there's a reconciliation between tickets issued and payments there might be a 50p discrepancy - but they aren't going to help you.

POPLA may well form the view when the ticket wasn't issued you could not assume the transaction was confirmed - but if there was no instructions then what could you do?

In my view the transaction was confirmed on the pay machine display which showed the registration entered and the payment showing 'paid'. The lack of a receipt seemed odd but there is nothing in the T&C's about having one to display in the car etc.

I think there should be an onus on the PPC to prove that a payment wasn't made. I asked to see the logs but they have refused to do so. What are they hiding or not willing to reveal?

Posted by: Macapaca Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 16:23
Post #1322586

QUOTE (ManxRed @ Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 12:39) *
They'll try and argue (if a sign exists to that effect) that the driver did not call the emergency number.

Your appeal should contain the term 'frustration of contract' (can be googled). Essentially the fault present in their equipment prevented the driver from complying with the terms and conditions (i.e. displaying a ticket).

Not sure how far that'll go with POPLA, but should be mileage in any court claim defence, although they will try and argue that the driver could have mitigated this by calling any emergency number if one was displayed. Might be worth finding out if one was.

The T&C's do not state that a ticket has to be displayed! The system is all electronic i.e. ANPR + Vehicle Reg entered into the pay machine + money. All this was done. However the PCN only supplies photos of the car entering and leaving the car park.

Posted by: cabbyman Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 17:00
Post #1322599

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 13:03) *
IF your initial appeal is exactly as quoted above, appeal to POPLA as keeper.

Check through PoFA sched 4 para 8 and tick off ALL items where the NtK doesn't comply EXACTLY. Put together your appeal based on others on the forum and post on here for checking.


Posted by: Macapaca Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 18:47
Post #1322634

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 18:00) *
QUOTE (cabbyman @ Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 13:03) *
IF your initial appeal is exactly as quoted above, appeal to POPLA as keeper.

Check through PoFA sched 4 para 8 and tick off ALL items where the NtK doesn't comply EXACTLY. Put together your appeal based on others on the forum and post on here for checking.


Yes the initial appeal was exactly as quoted, apart from details xx'd out just in case the applicable PPC reads these forums.

Posted by: Macapaca Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 08:50
Post #1322748

I have already asked the PPC to supply the pay machine logs which include details about the car for which I am the RK. They have so far refused to provide this key information that would prove thatci used the machine and payment entered. I have just picked up a tip frof anothe thread on this forum that in my appeal to POPLA I should state that I am entitled to ask for and receive this information under the Data Protection Act 1998. It appears that I can also ask to see the details of the logic applied to any automated decisions. This probably applies here because the system will need to match up the ANPR camera data with the payment machine data. I also intend to ask for visibility of maintenance and software validation records.

I hope full that this will confirm that I did try to use the machine to pay. Also as a minimum it will hopefully move the case into the 'too hard' file!

Posted by: Macapaca Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 09:35
Post #1322758

Whilst the PPC has the name and address of the RK, presumably by paying the DVLA, can they pass it on to a third party debt collection agency or would that constitute a breach of the Data Protection Act?

Posted by: ostell Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 09:50
Post #1322765

As the debt collection company are acting as the agents of the PPC then that is allowed. If the PPC sell the debt to another company then that is a fail.

Posted by: Macapaca Mon, 16 Oct 2017 - 08:06
Post #1323647

QUOTE (ostell @ Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 10:50) *
As the debt collection company are acting as the agents of the PPC then that is allowed. If the PPC sell the debt to another company then that is a fail.

Am I correct in thinking there is legally only debt after a successful court appealing? So if I get hassled by a DCA cannot I tell them to go and whistle until they come back with a successful court appeal?

Posted by: Jlc Mon, 16 Oct 2017 - 08:17
Post #1323652

Yes, but it's a 'claim' and not an appeal. (And you get the chance to defend)

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 16 Oct 2017 - 14:04
Post #1323799

Ignore debt collectors entirely. We don’t need to know anything about them at all.

Posted by: Macapaca Wed, 18 Oct 2017 - 11:19
Post #1324471

 PCN_NtK_14Sept17.pdf ( 1.87MB ) : 162

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 13:03) *
IF your initial appeal is exactly as quoted above, appeal to POPLA as keeper.

Check through PoFA sched 4 para 8 and tick off ALL items where the NtK doesn't comply EXACTLY. Put together your appeal based on others on the forum and post on here for checking.


I attach a copy of the Notice to Keeper which I have checked against POFA schedule para 8 as suggested. Firstly the letter is not explicitly a formal NtK but it's content implies that it what it is. Several of the clauses in the PoFA do not appear to be complied with. For example, 8 (2) (a) is not covered explicitly and is just referred to by reference to the original PCN. Para 8 (2) (f) specifies that 28 days notice should be given but the NtK only covers 14 days! Para (g) requires that the discount offered should be mentioned but it is not explicitly in the NtK. The discount is only mentioned in the original PCN and in the appeal rejection letter which was issued after the NtK. Para 8 (7) requires the evidence to be supplied, but all they provide is a link to the entry and exit photos and nothing of the crucial evidence that payment was alledgedly not made. Para 8 (8) requires mention of the appeal process however the NtK doesn't not mention the POPLA appeal process.

Being very picky I could mention several other paras that the NtK doesn't comply with. I have just quoted what I believe to be the main issues.

I would appreciate some advice from the forum from anyone experienced in POPLA appeals on whether any of these points are likely to be taken seriously by POPLA? Is it worth building a case around these legislation shortfalls?

Posted by: Macapaca Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 21:44
Post #1326604

As RK I have submitted a POPLA appeal online within the 28 days stated. How long does the the PPC have to submit 'Operator Information & Evidence? I can't find any mention of a time limit on the POPLA website.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 26 Oct 2017 - 11:19
Post #1326705

within 28 days i believe
Keep checking the site, you should have a notice telling you (online and email) when you can view their case to make your rebuttal.


Posted by: Macapaca Thu, 26 Oct 2017 - 12:11
Post #1326739

The following text is copied from the POPLA website when I sign in to track the appeal:
We have received your appeal and have requested the parking operator to provide information and evidence about your appeal. Once the operator sends us their evidence it will appear here. We will notify you when we receive this information and evidence so that you can provide your comments.

It doesn't state a time limit implying that it is open ended which seems odd given that the RK is given a limit of 28 days.

Posted by: cabbyman Thu, 26 Oct 2017 - 20:02
Post #1326855

What do you expect from a trade body that represents the interests of the industry?

Keep checking the POPLA portal on a daily basis. When the PPC's evidence is received, you only have 7 days, from receipt of that evidence by POPLA, to rebut any points they make. Unfortunately, POPLA have a habit of not informing you for 4 days!

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 27 Oct 2017 - 09:51
Post #1326911

And, if you DONT get a copy of the evidence - they have had issues with teh site previously - you infgorm POPLA and then tell them when you DO get access.

ALso you really have 6 days, theyre pretty quick to work on the file .

Posted by: Macapaca Fri, 27 Oct 2017 - 17:27
Post #1327066

At which point in the POPLA appeal process does the parking company have to pay the £27 fee? Is it when they issue the POPLA code to the RK or when they submit their information & evidence? Given that there is only a 60% success rate through POPLA then the PPC has to decide whether to risk a further £27 for a 60% chance of winning. Of course the real odds depend on the individual case. I am just wondering how often the PPCs cut their losses by not proceeding with the POPLA appeal given that they have to pay the fee.

Posted by: cabbyman Fri, 27 Oct 2017 - 17:55
Post #1327077

I think they pay it quite late in the process. I have had a number of appeals submitted to POPLA but the PPC electing not to contest.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 27 Oct 2017 - 23:35
Post #1327137

My 7nderstanding is they pay when the code is used.

Posted by: FightingFrog Sat, 28 Oct 2017 - 08:38
Post #1327158

These ANPR car parks MUST BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS!!

They are an absolute racketeering poison.

Posted by: cabbyman Sat, 28 Oct 2017 - 11:12
Post #1327177

How does one do that, pray? Particularly if one has no knowledge of such practises until one receives a missive from the parking company, 6 weeks before your words of wisdom.


Posted by: FightingFrog Sat, 28 Oct 2017 - 15:43
Post #1327208

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Sat, 28 Oct 2017 - 12:12) *
How does one do that, pray? Particularly if one has no knowledge of such practises until one receives a missive from the parking company, 6 weeks before your words of wisdom.


Spread the word?

Posted by: Macapaca Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 15:39
Post #1329426

As RK I have now received the operator's POPLA evidence for comment. Part of my evidence was that there was no signage on or adjacent to the pay machines with a phone number to ring given that the machinequipment display not issue a receipt even though payment was made as indicated on the pay machine display. In the latest evideo centre to POPLA PP have shown a new sign erected between the two pay machines! The photo shows that the sign is in pristine condition together with evidence of new concrete around the based of the sign! It has taken nearly three weeks to respond with their POPLA evidence during which time they have been erecting new signs! The photos clearly show that the photos have only been taken in the last three weeks given the colour and quantity of the foliage on the nearby trees! What a cynical attempt to influence POPLA.

Posted by: Jlc Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 16:08
Post #1329432

Then you must refute this. But I'm not surprised.

Posted by: cabbyman Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 16:13
Post #1329433

....And quickly. I believe you only get 7 days from when POPLA receive the PPC's evidence and you have probably already lost 4 days of that under their peculiar rules.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 17:33
Post #1329467

Yes, you only get 7 days. Aim for 6

Simple bullet points. POint out that these signs are clearly new, and were clearly NOT taken at the time but later on. They show the operator AGREES the signage was insufficient and inadequate - they would not erect it otherwise. Your appeal must be upheld.

Posted by: Macapaca Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 17:56
Post #1329477

I have been given 7 days to reply from today. It clearly states so in the email. The PPC evidence was only uploaded at midday today.
The PPC evidence has made a major issue out of having plenty signage. They have shown several photos of signs showing the T&C's and in each case circled the signs in red. However, these signs are only in one half of the car park and in August most of these were hidden or obscured by the trees/shrubs surrounding that half. On the half where the car was parked there are none of these signs and i have photographic evidence to prove it. So despite their claim that they have followed all the BPA guidelines for clear signage I think they are less than clear! Let's see what POPLA think.

I still maintain that the VRN was entered into the machine together with payment. So I demanded to see the payment logs. They previously refused to supply these when I requested to see them but have now included an extract in their POPLA evidence. Not surprisingly the VRN is not listed. They claim that the machine was working because several other cars are listed as having paid. However there were several people queuing to pay just after the driver and there are NO recorded entries for about half an hour afterwards which looks a bit suspicious.

I don't know how POPLA will see this evidence but as the driver entered the VRN and paid I will contest this all the way to court if necessary. There was no attempt by the driver or RK to deny that the car was parked intentionally for the period stated and that the driver was aware that it was a camera enforced car park.

Posted by: ostell Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 19:41
Post #1329514

So you refute all the evidence that you do not agree with. If you have those phots then add them to the POLA notice.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 20:56
Post #1329538

The payment logs - is it accompanied by a statement of truth verifying that this is ALL the logs? Entirely com0lete? Or is it just a random listing that isn’t verifiable in anyway.

Refer popla to your photos that show THEIR photos are not representative.

Posted by: Macapaca Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 21:40
Post #1329551

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 20:56) *
The payment logs - is it accompanied by a statement of truth verifying that this is ALL the logs? Entirely com0lete? Or is it just a random listing that isn’t verifiable in anyway.

Refer popla to your photos that show THEIR photos are not representative.

No the logs are not accompanied by a statement verifying that this is ALL the logs. All the evidence states is as follows: "Log showing no payment for the Appellant’s full and correct vehicle registration"

There is no doubt that the VRN was entered into the machine and the machine progressed to the payment step. Therefore the logs have either been redacted or the system was not working!

Posted by: Macapaca Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 22:16
Post #1329562

The PPC POPLA evidence includes an evidence checklist which looks like it is what POPLA expect from the PPC. Checklist item E requires copies of the original representations and notice of rejection. They have included copies of all of their correspondence but not all of mine! Is this something that is worth stressing to POPLA and what weight would it have? It appears that they are being selective in what they show to POPLA. The letter from me that they have not copied to POPLA is the one where I ask for visibility of the machine payment logs with a reasonable date for reply, which they just ignored. I will try to add it to my POPLA comments in reply to the PPC evidence. The online system restricts me to a 2000 word reply. I am not clear whether I can attach my letter or just highlight the fact that the PPC has left it out.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 09:07
Post #1329622

OK, so in your rebuttal, you state that the supposed list of VRMs has nnothing to indicate anything - you cannto tell what machine this was from (if there is more than one), whether this is a complete etract, who performed the extract and when, and nothing to verify that it has not been tampered with. There is no statement verifying that this is, in fact, anything of note other than an excel spreadsheet of VRMs which could be from anywwshere. THis is NOT reliable evidence of anything. It also does NOT disprove your appeal point - that the machine failed to record the full and correct VRM. It in fact SUPPORTS the contention, as the VRM is not listed!

You add to your POPLA comments that your letter of date X was not incluced, whihc is where you asked for Y. You cannot attach new evidence (hence why you should have included it yourself, ideally) and you dont use the online portal, you email.

Posted by: Macapaca Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 10:30
Post #1329646

Thanks nosferatu1001. You are being most helpful. I really appreciate you taking the trouble to read, understand and respond.

In hindsight it is indeed unfortunate that I didn't send my second letter which has been ignored in the PPC evidence other than listing it with date in a table of actions. I wasn't aware that I could email separate from the online response. That's just my lack of experience in dealing with this but hopefully others will read this and learn from it.

I do agree with your point that the VRN list indicates a problem in that my VRN is not listed even though it was entered and was acknowledged by the machine at the time! That is exactly my assertion.

The PPC POPLA evidence includes a Parking Services Agreement with the land owner. It is interesting that they have volunteered this additional information even though I didn't request but perhaps should have. Anyway what it reveals is that the agreement start date is valid for 12 months from March 2016. So the submitted PSA has expired!! It does state that there is a rolling contract extension option but they have not supplied any evidence that it has been taken up! What will POPLA make of that?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 11:17
Post #1329659

Nothing if you dont bring it to their attention!

Posted by: Macapaca Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 11:38
Post #1329669

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 11:17) *
Nothing if you dont bring it to their attention!

I will certainly include this point in my comments to POPLA against the PPC evidence. I was just wondering whether this is likely to be an ace card in the opinion of those on here who have experience of POPLA appeals.

Posted by: Jlc Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 12:18
Post #1329678

If they cannot prove they have the authority then POPLA should rule for you.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 13:21
Post #1329689

Except POPLA will likely say this wasnt an original appeal point. they bend over backwards for the operator.

Posted by: Macapaca Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 13:48
Post #1329695

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 13:21) *
Except POPLA will likely say this wasnt an original appeal point. they bend over backwards for the operator.

I was also concerned about that. However I merely highlighting this fact in my comments to POPLA to lead them to look at this technicality. They should see it themselves but may miss it in the fog of arguments if I don't highlight it.

Posted by: Macapaca Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 14:03
Post #1329707

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 13:21) *
Except POPLA will likely say this wasnt an original appeal point. they bend over backwards for the operator.

That is my concern also. However I am merely highlighting this point to the POPLA assessors.

Posted by: Macapaca Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 14:40
Post #1334142

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 7 Nov 2017 - 13:21) *
Except POPLA will likely say this wasnt an original appeal point. they bend over backwards for the operator.

Just received notification from POPLA that my appeal is rejected. I think that I put together some good evidence but none of it was mentioned in the assessors comments! So it does appear that POPLA have 'bent over backwards for the operator' on this occasion. As correct payment was made I am determined to fight this injustice and so the PPC will have to win a successful court appeal before I will reluctantly pay up.

I guess the next step is another letter from the PPC requesting paymenthe followed by letters from their debt collectors. I would appreciate advice on whether I should just ignore all of these now? I clearly won't ignore any letters relating to a court case.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 14:47
Post #1334147

You could write to the PPC, setting out the failures of the POPLA adjudication (we havent seen it yet) and why you will not be paying. State you do not consent to your data being passed to any third party, and will under no circumstances ever make payment to a third party. AS such, passing your data to a debt collector will be a breach of the DPA1998, and will be the PPCs costs to bear. You require they send a fully compliant LBA, that meets the requirements of the new PAP for Debt Action, within 14 days. If they do not do so you will consider the matter closed.

Posted by: Macapaca Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 16:47
Post #1334189

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 14:47) *
You could write to the PPC, setting out the failures of the POPLA adjudication (we havent seen it yet) and why you will not be paying. State you do not consent to your data being passed to any third party, and will under no circumstances ever make payment to a third party. AS such, passing your data to a debt collector will be a breach of the DPA1998, and will be the PPCs costs to bear. You require they send a fully compliant LBA, that meets the requirements of the new PAP for Debt Action, within 14 days. If they do not do so you will consider the matter closed.

Are you asking me to post a copy of the assessor's report on here? I can do that if it will help but it is quite long and basically just says that they agree with the PPC that they claim I didn't pay the original 50p parking charge whilst I maintain that the driver did.

Thanks for the info about the new PAP for debt action which only came in on 1 Oct 2017. I wasn't aware of that. Is it not better to wait and see what action/letters that Premier Park now issue? I don't feel inclined to help them. Surely it is better to see if they trip themselves up? The only reference to 14 days in the PAP for DA that I could findo was that they should give 14 days notice for court action.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 22:10
Post #1334323

No they have to give 30 days
They can’t “trip up”. This isn’t a council,ticket, this is a mere invoice.
You can be passive or take charge. Your choice. I ‘now which I’d do.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 22:43
Post #1334339

QUOTE
Are you asking me to post a copy of the assessor's report on here? I can do that if it will help but it is quite long and basically just says that they agree with the PPC that they claim I didn't pay the original 50p parking charge whilst I maintain that the driver did


Yes, that's normal in these forums, there is an entire thread on MSE showing POPLA decisions for example:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4488337&page=94

Just please don't state the Assessor's name, and PLEASE PLEASE break up POPLA's wall of words into short paragraphs first!

Posted by: Macapaca Fri, 24 Nov 2017 - 10:17
Post #1334395

Assessor summary of operator case
The driver’s parking session was expired or unpaid.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states the driver complied with the car park requirements. He says the driver entered the registration number of the vehicle and paid for one hour parking time. The appellant advised the stay on site was 29 minutes and the payment machine did not issue a ticket. He states there was no signage on site stating that a ticket must be displayed. The appellant says he is entitled to receive payment machine records under the Data Protection Act 1998.

He advised that the notice to keeper only gave him 14 days to reply instead of 28 days as stated in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant has provided POPLA with images of the signage on site and the payment machine.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider PoFA 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. As such, the operator has successfully transferred liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle.

The terms and conditions of the site state “Please pay for your stay. Please enter the full correct registration of your vehicle at the payment terminals. Up to 1 hour £0.50. If you enter or park on the land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100”. The operator has issued a £100 PCN due to the driver’s parking session was expired or unpaid.

The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras, the operator has provided photographic images of the appellant’s vehicle, RO12 XGH, entering the site at 14:06, exiting at 14:36; the period of stay was 30 minutes. The appellant states the driver complied with the car park requirements. He says the driver entered the registration number of the vehicle and paid for one hour parking time. The appellant advised the stay on site was 29 minutes and the payment machine did not issue a ticket. He states there was no signage on site stating that a ticket must be displayed. I note the appellant’s comments however, the operator has provided a system print out showing payments made throughout the day in question. The evidence provided shows that there were no payments made against the appellant’s vehicle in question. This implies that the driver did not make a payment for parking time.

Furthermore, it is not a requirement to have to display a valid ticket in a vehicle, and the operator has not stated this.

The appellant says he is entitled to receive payment machine records under the Data Protection Act 1998. I note the appellant’s comments however, as previously stated the operator has provided a full system print out which shows payments made throughout the day in question. The operator only needs to provide evidence in the evidence pack that fully rebuts an appellant’s claims.

He advised that the notice to keeper only gave him 14 days to reply instead of 28 days as stated in the PoFA 2012. I note the appellant’s comments however, as previously stated the notice to keeper complies with the requirements set out in PoFA 2012. This means that the operator gave the appellant the correct timescales to give driver details, make a payment or appeal the PCN.

Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that when they enter a site they have understood and complied with the terms and conditions. The operator has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the driver did not make a payment for parking time. The appellant has not provided POPLA with any evidence to show the driver made a payment, and POPLA assess appeals based upon the evidence provided. Based upon the evidence provided, I can see that the driver remained on site therefore, agreeing to comply with the terms and conditions. I am satisfied that the signage clearly informs motorists that an appropriate payment for parking must be made. As the driver remained on site without making a payment for parking, they failed to comply with the terms and conditions. As such, the PCN was issued correctly.



Here are the comoments I sent to PORLANDO, most of which seems to have been ignored. I thought point 1 was very significant but hasn't even been acknowledged!

MOTORIST COMMENTS AGAINST PARKING COMPANY’S SUBMITTED EVIDENCE

1. The Premier Park (PP) evidence includes, under Other Evidence, a Parking Services Agreement (PSA) with a start date of 15 March 2016. Para 1.1 states that it is valid for a period of 12 months and so expired before the claimed PCN date. Para 1.2 does state that there is a rolling contract option but the submitted evidence doesn’t show that this option was taken up. Consequently I refute the claim that PP had any authority to issue a PCN on 7/8/17.

2. The PPC evidence includes photos of signs alleging compliance with BPA guidelines. This evidence is selective and misleading. The photos were taken at a time of year when there is no foliage surrounding the main car park. In August the foliage obscures several of these signs. Also there are NO SIGNS at all in the overflow car park where the vehicle was parked. These points can be seen clearly by looking at the following 360° photo in street view https://www.instantstreetview.com/@53.385934,-2.592539,205.5h,-0.85p,2.06z. The vehicle was parked where the red car is on the overflow car park i.e. two cars to the right of the CCP ALL DAY PARKING sign on the street view image. I also highlight that this overflow car park constitutes the largest area of the entire car park. There are no signs at all between the overflow car park and the pedestrian exit/entry gate from the car park to the main highway. I therefore refute the claim that the BPA guidelines for signage have been complied with.

3. Checklist point E requires PP to supply the original representations. They have specifically excluded my letter to them dated 14 September (but acknowledged its existance in the PCN History table under Checklist D) which, significantly, requested information on the payment logs. They failed to supply this information at the date requested.

4. The PSA paragraph 2 states that the service is to include a ‘pay by phone system’ (RingGo) for payment. However this facility is not provided at this car park! This would have made paying and receipting much simpler, more reliable and more transparent. I regularly pay by credit card or pay by phone in car parks for this very reason. I recently used RingGo which worked well and provided me with adequate assurance and traceability that payment was successfully made and fully acknowledged. Therefore I refute the claim that the car park was being run in accordance with the PSA.

5. The driver was aware that the car park had camera enforcement and so discussion of grace periods in the PP evidence is irrelevant in this case. The car was parked deliberately in the overflow car park for 29 mins and the VRN entered into the pay machine together with a 50p coin soon after entering the car park. The machine display provided feedback that the VRN was entered and would not have proceeded to request payment otherwise. The fact that the VRN does not appear at all in the PP log submitted under Other Evidence is an indication that the system was not reporting correctly. Also the evidence does not include logs of the coin money collected that day to tally with the system electronic logs. The driver inserted a 50p coin into the machine in which case, under PP’s assertion that payment was not made, they should have had 50p more in the machine than was indicated by the logs. Therefore I maintain that payment of 50p was inserted into the coin machine and that given that the machine display indicated that the VRN was correctly validated and payment inserted then the driver could reasonably assume that payment was indeed accepted. I therefore firmly and strongly refute the assertion that the driver parked without payment of 50p to cover the 29 minute stay.

6. The submitted logs do not have any verifiable evidence of where this is from, who performed the extract and when, whether it is a complete list, whether any other filters have been applied and nothing to verify that it has not been tampered with. It does not disprove my appeal point that the VRN was entered correctly and correct payment made. In fact it shows that the system did not properly record or reveal the VRN and payment as it is not listed!

7. In my POPLA appeal I requested that the logic of the machine automated decisions be supplied and that I am entitled to see this under the Data Protection Act 1998. I note that this information has not been supplied in the PP submitted evidence.

8. There were several people waiting to pay behind the driver and it is interesting that the submitted log has no entries for 20 minutes valid from 14.07. As the ANPR camera records the vehicle entering at 14.06 then there should be entries during this 20 minute period allowing time for the driver to park up and walk to the pay machine. This therefore calls into question the validity of the submitted logs.

9. I request that the Appellant’s appeal is upheld.

Posted by: Macapaca Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 20:06
Post #1336048

The following is a redacted version of the letter I have received from Premier Park following the POPLA assessment. I would appreciate any thoughts on how best to respond.

You chose to use the independent alternative dispute resolution service, POPLA, to adjudicate on this PCN and after reviewing all the evidence submitted, they decided to deny your appeal.
Should you consider not making payment now due of £100 we draw your attention to the recent landmark decision in the Supreme Court of the UK, dated 4th November 2015, Parking Eye Ltd v Mr Barry Beavis. This case was seen as an important ‘test case’ due to the complex legal arguments used by both sides. The ruling sets a legally binding precedent on all similar cases for the whole of the UK.
If payment is not received by the due date we will seek to recover theories owed to us via our Debt Recovery Service and may then commence court action to recover what you owe. This will include additional charges to include legal and court costs. Should judgement be awarded in our favour, this may affect your ability to obtain credit in the future. The decision of the independent adjudicator will form part of our case in these proceedings.


Posted by: Jlc Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 20:23
Post #1336051

Nothing really to respond - unless you want to reiterate why POPLA got it wrong. POPLA's 'decision' isn't likely to make much difference to the Judge.

Otherwise, it's sit back and see if they issue a claim - However, they are litigious so a claim is possible. (The amount will be around £180-250 should you lose)

Posted by: Macapaca Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 21:05
Post #1336065

QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 20:23) *
Nothing really to respond - unless you want to reiterate why POPLA got it wrong. POPLA's 'decision' isn't likely to make much difference to the Judge.

Otherwise, it's sit back and see if they issue a claim - However, they are litigious so a claim is possible. (The amount will be around £180-250 should you lose)

Is that likely to be Small Claims Court or County Court? My understanding was that it wouldn't cost me anything other than the £100 'penalty charge' if it went to Small Claims which I understoodles from this forum was the most likely route. What is the additional £150 covering?

Also in their letter they are saying a loss for me would affect my credit rating. My understanding from this forum is that it wouldn't unless I refused to pay following a court case loss. Therefore does this constitute unreasonable pressure on me to try to influence me to give and pay (which I won't in case they follow these forums!).

They quote the landmark Beavis case as though that will convince me to just give up. Having read the Beavis case summaries and commentaries I think my case is sufficiently different. I also believe that I have some compelling evidence that POPLA did not take into account.

Posted by: Jlc Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 21:34
Post #1336074

Small Claims Court. (Which would be at County Court instead of Magistrate's Court)

The usual routine is to claim 'collection/debt' costs of around £50/60, then there's allowed court costs such as solicitor (£50), claim fee and hearing fee.

No, it says may affect your credit. It won't affect your credit as long as you pay within 1 month of any judgment.

'Beavis' doesn't guarantee them a win. (Nor the POPLA opinion - and I'd call it that...)

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 10:08
Post #1336184

Small Claims TRACK of the County Court.

£25 filing fee, £25 hearing fee are allowed, as is UP TO £50 for solicitor costs - you always challenge teh latter, as their solicitors DO NOT spend £50 worth of time.

Posted by: Macapaca Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 10:33
Post #1336188

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 10:08) *
Small Claims TRACK of the County Court.

£25 filing fee, £25 hearing fee are allowed, as is UP TO £50 for solicitor costs - you always challenge teh latter, as their solicitors DO NOT spend £50 worth of time.

Can they also claim debt collection costs I.e. the costs they claim to have incurred by their debt collection agency? If not then my maximum exposure if they take it to Court appear to be £200.

Looking at the landmark Beavis case it appears that the Cark park in question was free for the first hour. So part of the argument was that the 'penalty' of £85 in that case was justified as part of the means to 'efficiently manage the car park for the benefit of the generality of users'. Beavis overstayed for an hour and so it was argued that the penalty was reasonable in order to deter such behaviour. In my case the stay was less than the hour payed for and so is a different case. I would be interested in your view on whether the situation is sufficiently different that the Beavis ruling is not appropriate and so whether the penalty of £100 could still be challenged under the 'Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999'?

Posted by: Jlc Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 10:49
Post #1336195

'Debt collection' costs may depend on what the signs said.

Yes, you must distance circumstances from Beavis.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 10:49
Post #1336196

They can try to claim whatever the hell they want to. Its your job to object to anything you feel they CANNOT claim
Uunder POFA, the maximum a Keeper can be charged is the amount on the NtK. Nothing more. Further, in teh BEAVIS case against a KNOWN DRIVER ONLY the amount on the sign was allowed - nothing more. (plus court etc fees - they have to be allowed)

Thesituation is different enough. Pay and Display car park, so a "simple contract" as opposed to the complicated licence envisgaed in Beavis.

How on earth can you use UTCCR 1999, when they were removed in 2015? CRA2015. Youre reading old threads again. 2017 threads ONLY.

Posted by: Macapaca Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 11:17
Post #1336205

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 10:49) *
They can try to claim whatever the hell they want to. Its your job to object to anything you feel they CANNOT claim
Uunder POFA, the maximum a Keeper can be charged is the amount on the NtK. Nothing more. Further, in teh BEAVIS case against a KNOWN DRIVER ONLY the amount on the sign was allowed - nothing more. (plus court etc fees - they have to be allowed)

Thesituation is different enough. Pay and Display car park, so a "simple contract" as opposed to the complicated licence envisgaed in Beavis.

How on earth can you use UTCCR 1999, when they were removed in 2015? CRA2015. Youre reading old threads again. 2017 threads ONLY.

Thanks for pointing out the validity of the relevant Acts. There is a lot to read and it does get a bit confusing at times when all this is new. Anyway my understanding is that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 is current and incorporates the UTCCR 1999. So my underlying question remains in that is the case sufficiently different from Beavis, which think it is and others are chiming in seem to agree, then would the CRA15 have some legs in a defence?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 12:08
Post #1336216

It has some legs. However youre missing the main point of Beavis

The amount WAS a penalty, but was an allowable one because of the commercial justification that lifted the penalty rule. Without all the same conditions being met, it is a penalty. You cannot charge a penalty in teh UK - only the courts can.

Posted by: Macapaca Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 17:48
Post #1344905

I wrote a letter to Premier Park outlining in some detail the flaws in the POPLA appeal. This included a response to their reference to Beavis as a landmark case and why it does not apply in my case. I made it very clear that I will challenge a Court case should they decide to take that route. They have now sent a letter which does not even acknowledge my letter! It is just another deadline of 1 week to settle before they pass it to their Debt Recovery Agency. They then say that they MAY then pass it to their solicitor to start Court proceedings. The letter is headed ' OFFER TO SETTLE TO AVOID COURT PROCEEDINGS'. They don't appear to be offering anything!

The letter also refers to the letter following the PAP however it isn't clear whether this constitutes a formal Letter before Claim. My understanding of the PAP is that they have to issue a formal Letter before Claim and then allow a response within 30 days before starting Court Proceedings.

In not responding to my detailed letter to them they are clearly just going to ignore any reasonable discussion and press on towards Court action. One of my points was that their POPLA evidence showed that their contract with the landowner expired before the date of the PCN! This would appear to be pretty fundamental but was also ignored by POPLA! However they seem to think the POPLA decision is key to winning in Court.

So my approach now is to ignore all further letters except ones relating to formal Court proceedings. I would appreciate any advice on this if anybody thinks that I have misunderstood something and that I should be taking a different approach.

Thank you in advance of any replies.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 22:59
Post #1344972

Yes, I thin’ you should be prudent and treat it as a lba. It contains the threat of court action and mentions the pap so this is reasonable. So send the looooong request for a compliant pap

Posted by: Macapaca Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 08:15
Post #1345010

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 22:59) *
Yes, I thin’ you should be prudent and treat it as a lba. It contains the threat of court action and mentions the pap so this is reasonable. So send the looooong request for a compliant pap

I am not clear what you are suggesting here. What do you mean by a 'looooong request for a compliant PAP'?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 09:19
Post #1345029

Exatly what I said, barring the typo - i meant "LBA" when I said "PAP" at the end.

there is a long lresponse to a rubbish LBA around, which essewtnaily says:
1) your LBA does not meet the requirements of the PPA
2) You should have known this as this is your job
3) send me all the documents you should have said PLUS these specific documents

Have a wander over to the MSE Forum, into the newbies thread I believe there is a link there. Research is good smile.gif

Posted by: Macapaca Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 09:27
Post #1345033

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 09:19) *
Exatly what I said, barring the typo - i meant "LBA" when I said "PAP" at the end.

there is a long lresponse to a rubbish LBA around, which essewtnaily says:
1) your LBA does not meet the requirements of the PPA
2) You should have known this as this is your job
3) send me all the documents you should have said PLUS these specific documents

Have a wander over to the MSE Forum, into the newbies thread I believe there is a link there. Research is good smile.gif

Other than pointing out a poor LBA (if indeed that is what they meant it to be) what is the purpose and benefit of sending this? All the indications are that they will simply ignore it and press on wits debt recovery and then maybe Court action?

Thanks for the pointer to the MSE Forum. I will look that up.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 09:34
Post #1345036

Debt recovery - yawn. Ignore. no powers

The intended audience for a letter is not always the person youre sending the letter to. In this case, youre writing for the beenfit of the court. You can include their awful letter, and your REASONABLE response, which if they then ignore doesnt look good for them.

Posted by: ManxRed Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 09:35
Post #1345037

If they do not comply with the pre-action protocols, then it doesn't reflect well on them in court (should it get that far), and provides you with ammunition to claim costs due to their unreasonable behaviour if they decide to disregard the pre-action protocols (which are in place for a reason).

Posted by: Macapaca Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 10:25
Post #1345057

Having read the long thread on the MSE Forum on LBA's I now understand much better what advice you are all giving me! I was initially and incorrectly assuming that a letter from me to the PPC was for them and I am pretty confident that they will ignore it as they have done with all my previous letters. The key point, if I have now understood, is that it is effectively for the judge should it go that far!

My only concern is that their latest letter entitled 'OFFER TO SETTLE TO AVOID COURT PROCEEDINGS' is not actually the formal LBA/C? It is not from a solicitor and says that the next step is debt recovery. However I think that nosferatu's point is that I should treat it as a very poor and non-compliant LBA. This seems to be good advice and should at least put them on the back foot if only temporarily if they are determined to follow through. I suspect that they might because they seem very confident now that that have POPLA assessment in their favour.

In their previous letter which was the one immediately after the POPLA decision they tried to use Beavis as a landmark judgement in their favour. I rebuffed that strongly pointing out the difference with this case and why Beavis did not apply. I note that they have not mentioned Beavis in their most recent letter!

Thanks for your ongoing tips guys. It really helps when all this stuff is new and I am having to learn quickly.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 11:19
Post #1345080

yes, thats entirely the point. It paints the picture that you are being reasonable, and are communicating with them on a rational level. Theyre not.

It doesnt have to be a solicitor sending it. As I already told you it is REASONABLE TO TREAT IT AS A LBA. You have the wrong words "determined" isnt the right word - youre in a roboclaim process, with zero thought applied.

Youre assuming anyone has read or understood your letter> They havent. That costs time, which is money.

Posted by: Macapaca Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 11:49
Post #1345094

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 11:19) *
yes, thats entirely the point. It paints the picture that you are being reasonable, and are communicating with them on a rational level. Theyre not.

It doesnt have to be a solicitor sending it. As I already told you it is REASONABLE TO TREAT IT AS A LBA. You have the wrong words "determined" isnt the right word - youre in a roboclaim process, with zero thought applied.

Youre assuming anyone has read or understood your letter> They havent. That costs time, which is money.

You are right that as a rational person myself I have I incorrectly assumed that the PPC is acting rationally. I had assumed that they had read my letter and chosen to ignore it. However it would have taken considerable effort and time on their part. Instead they have issued a simple robo response.

Posted by: Macapaca Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 14:07
Post #1345874

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 11:19) *
yes, thats entirely the point. It paints the picture that you are being reasonable, and are communicating with them on a rational level. Theyre not.

It doesnt have to be a solicitor sending it. As I already told you it is REASONABLE TO TREAT IT AS A LBA. You have the wrong words "determined" isnt the right word - youre in a roboclaim process, with zero thought applied.

Youre assuming anyone has read or understood your letter> They havent. That costs time, which is money.

Following your recommendations I have just sent the PPC a six page looooong letter in response to their LBA. I have included lots of quotes from the PAP and so it will be interesting to see how they respond. I fully expect them to ignore it or at least cherry pick what they answer and plough ahead with DRA letters, which I have told them that I will ignore and so not to bother wasting their money as DRA's have no authority.

Thanks again nosferatu and others for your assistance so far. I will no doubt be back within the next few weeks as things progress.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 14:11
Post #1345876

No theyll just carry on regardless. Your letter wont be read, you may even get a "as you didnt respond..." template.

We never want to see debt recovery letters. A proper LBA or a claim form...

Posted by: Macapaca Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 18:09
Post #1345952

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 14:11) *
No theyll just carry on regardless. Your letter wont be read, you may even get a "as you didnt respond..." template.

We never want to see debt recovery letters. A proper LBA or a claim form...

Well if they take that approach it will not look good in Court and so they will surely be increasing my chances of success.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 18:13
Post #1345953

Again: you’d think so
But lying in court or not bothering to turn up hasn’t always resulted in “unreasonable “ costs against the ppc, so don’t presume anything here. There is ALWAYS litigation risk. Always.

Posted by: Macapaca Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 18:51
Post #1345962

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 18:13) *
Again: you’d think so
But lying in court or not bothering to turn up hasn’t always resulted in “unreasonable “ costs against the ppc, so don’t presume anything here. There is ALWAYS litigation risk. Always.

From my perspective it just needs to be unreasonable enough to maximise my chances of winning should it go to Court. Additional costs for unreasonable behaviour would be a bonus. Given the litigation risks then the PPC ought to factor that into their decision to proceed to litigationidentify that they pay up front however maybe they work on the basis of statistics i.e. maybe they win enough to make it worth their while?

Posted by: kommando Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 19:31
Post #1345974

Its a number game, provided enough people fold and pay after seeing a claim then losing a few to properly motivated and prepared defendants is acceptable. Its just a way of applying pressure and a type of debt collection.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 08:49
Post #1346090

As above
Behaving unreasonably doesnt mean they wont win, either.
It's literally a numbers game...

Posted by: Macapaca Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 17:54
Post #1357855

So after sending a long letter to the PPC in response to their letter, which I assumed to be a letter before action (LBA), I have now received a solicitors letter. It is now five weeks since i sent my letter to the PPC giving them 14 days to reply in full otherwise I would assume that they did not wish to proceed on accordance with the PAP. My letter has not even been acknowledged. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. The solicitors letter now gives me 14 days to pay £100 to the PPC with the threat of potential court action if I don't.

The letter does not have a title so it is not clear if this is just a standard debt recovery letter or effectively a more formal LBA. If it is meant to be a more formal LBA then it does not state so and certain lyndsey doesn't contain all the detail required by the PAP.

I am certainly not going to respond by sending £100 to the PPC!

Any thoughts or advice on how I should treat this letter?

Posted by: ostell Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:31
Post #1357975

If you are unsure of the letter then post it up for comment.

Posted by: Macapaca Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:31
Post #1358009

The letter only states debt recovery on behalf of Premier Park and does not say anything explicitly about being a LBA or following the PAP. It is identical to ones I have seen in various places from SCS Law. It appears to be just a standard brief letter. I am not familiar with how to post a redacted version but I will do so if I can work out how to do so.

Posted by: Redivi Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:56
Post #1358014

My personal view is that letters from solicitors should receive a reply

In the event of a claim, a court could regard failure to reply as unreasonable and won't make a distinction between a debt collector style letter and a Letter Before Claim

I would keep the reply very simple

Dear Sir

Ref ****

I have received your letter dated ***

I deny any debt to Premier Park and refer you to my previous correspondence with your client

Yours Faithfully


SCS can't complain about the reply
If it was genuinely acting as a solicitor, it would already have a copy of the correspondence

I wouldn't waste time with Companies House
It doesn't take any action for failures to include legally required information

You can use it to advantage later to justify your brief response
SCS didn't identify itself and, as you had already adequately explained why you disputed the debt, you provided no more information than a genuine solicitor would already possess

Posted by: Macapaca Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 09:51
Post #1358080

The letter is titled Re: Debt owed to Premier Park Ltd

The letter also states 'At this stage please contact Premier Park Ltd on tel. no or pcnpayments.com'.

So it appears that it is a plain debt recovery letter. All they have done is change the name address on a standard template letter. PP appear to have paid the minimum amount to send a vanilla threatening solicitors letter presumably hoping that will do the trick and I will cave in and pay, which I won't.

My previous letter to PP did make it clear that I wouldn't respond to letters from their DRA. I haven't received any to ignore so maybe they took that onboard but thought that I may be spooked by a solicitors letter instead?

Posted by: ostell Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:41
Post #1358108

Premier have probably "borrowed" the letterhead from the solicitor and the solicitor knows nothing about it.

You could write to them and require a response within 14 days

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:55
Post #1358117

Write to the sol, and require a response within 14 days, asking if the letter was issued by them
State that lack of a response will be taken as confirmaiton that the letter was counterfeit, and can be ignored OR reported to trading standards as an attempt to fraudulently obtain money.

Posted by: Macapaca Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 12:25
Post #1358145

Great advice ostell and nosferatu! Thanks guys. I was unsure whether to respond directly or ignore but you have given me good amunition to reply. I thought it was suspicious that the letter said to reply to PP rather than the solicitors. If the solicitor was really dealing with it now then surely they would expect any response. I also thought that if I send a letter to the solicitors and they are genuinely dealing with it then it will incur additional charges for PP further reducing their appetite to continue.

Posted by: Macapaca Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 16:37
Post #1358904

I should have added that I actually received two almost identical letters four days apart. The second letter stated that I should disregard the first one. The only difference was that the first one had the wrong car park! I think it just emphasises that the letter was just a copy and paste from a well used template.

Anyway I have now sent a letter to SCS Law as per the advice in this thread. The PPC now needs to get off the potty and decide if they are going to proceed to Court action or not.

Posted by: Macapaca Fri, 23 Mar 2018 - 18:41
Post #1369508

It is now 5 weeks since I sent a letter to SCS Law giving them 14 days to reply. The silence has so far been deafening. As per the advice I included the following;

The lack of a response will be taken as confirmation that the letter was counterfeit and can be ignored and reported to trading standards as an attempt to fraudulently obtain money.


I would appreciate advice on whether I should just be pleased that the PPC is seemingly not taking this further or should I take action to follow this up as a potential fraud case?

Posted by: Umkomaas Sat, 24 Mar 2018 - 06:23
Post #1369560

QUOTE (Macapaca @ Fri, 23 Mar 2018 - 19:41) *
It is now 5 weeks since I sent a letter to SCS Law giving them 14 days to reply. The silence has so far been deafening. As per the advice I included the following;

The lack of a response will be taken as confirmation that the letter was counterfeit and can be ignored and reported to trading standards as an attempt to fraudulently obtain money.


I would appreciate advice on whether I should just be pleased that the PPC is seemingly not taking this further or should I take action to follow this up as a potential fraud case?

You shouldn't threaten anything unless you are prepared to see it through. No harm in reporting this to TS - copy PP and SCS in. It's another sign to them both that you are not low-hanging fruit, ripe for picking.

Posted by: Redivi Sat, 24 Mar 2018 - 07:19
Post #1369563

Much too soon to assume that Premier has dropped the case

Delays of four months or even years are common

I would personally not send copies of a Trading Standards complaint to PP and SCS

At the moment they probably think you're bluffing so any contact from TS will come as a surprise

Reporting without warning still enables you to use a "Trading Standards is investigating you" response to any further demands
It also leaves the possibility to report PP and SCS to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority if TS won't get involved

Posted by: Macapaca Sat, 24 Mar 2018 - 08:45
Post #1369566

I am certainly not bluffing. On a completely separate issue I am underway with a formal complaint to the Financial Ombudsman, which they have followed up with the company concerned. So I am certainly prepared to take whatever action is necessary or appropriate. My question was really just seeking some wise advice on tactics and timing.

Posted by: Umkomaas Sat, 24 Mar 2018 - 14:52
Post #1369673

QUOTE
I would personally not send copies of a Trading Standards complaint to PP and SCS

At the moment they probably think you're bluffing so any contact from TS will come as a surprise

Having read and understood Redivi's reasoning above, please follow that. Keep some of your powder dry.

Posted by: Macapaca Sat, 11 May 2019 - 15:34
Post #1484347

The brief history is that the PCN was issued for an ANPR car park run by Premier Park. The correct parking fee was paid and there was no overstay. The issue was that the pay machine did not issue a receipt. It went to POPLA but the appeal was not upheld. It went to LBA stage and PP used SCS Law. The LBA was completely inadequate and I refused to proceed until they sent a fully compliant LBA. They went quite for over 15 months until today when I received a new letter from BW Legal who have not been involved until now.

It appears like PP/ SCS Law may have given up and sold the alleged debt to BW Legal? The letter from them indicates that they have not read any of the previous correspondence! They are also throwing in a claim for £60 initial legal costs for good measure.

My question really is whether anybody has any recent experience of dealing with BW Legal? On the one hand I am inclined to ignore the letter as it is essentially a debt collection speculative letter. On the other hand I am thinking thay I should respond pointing out the errors in the letter e.g. it states that the original PCN was never appealed which is incorrect. If I did respond then I would make it clear that I would not enter into any further correspondence short of a formal LBA.

Posted by: Umkomaas Sun, 12 May 2019 - 20:27
Post #1484606

QUOTE
It appears like PP/ SCS Law may have given up and sold the alleged debt to BW Legal?

BWL don’t buy any debt (alleged or otherwise). They have taken over a portfolio of unpaid parking charges from the likes of NCP, Britannia and Premier Parking. I offer this information over on MSE.

QUOTE
Read the following thread. Your can learn how to bat off their advances and work to get them to capitulate.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5999048

BRITANNIA or NCP or PREMIER PARKING / BW LEGAL CASES

As you will see from the first few pages of the forum, there is an onslaught by BWL on behalf of Britannia or NCP (and a few other hitherto court-shy PPCs) which is being conducted on an industrial scale - roboclaims.

You are caught in a one-way traffic flow where you must fight or pay - there is no longer a safe 'do nothing' option.

1. Pay now, it costs you exactly what they are currently demanding.
2. Ignore it, a 'judgment in default' will inevitably follow for at least what they want - maybe with even more costs added; continue to ignore that, you're getting a CCJ with credit crushing consequences for 6 years.
3. Defend, yet lose in court, the cost award is likely to be noticeably less than their current demand ~£175.
4. Defend, and win in court, you owe them nothing and you could claim up to £95 for half a day's pay/loss of annual leave, plus travel costs @45p per mile, plus your parking cost for the day.

Your least costly option has to be 3, with hopefully a win as per 4.

But BWL/Britannia or NCP cannot physically take everyone to court, and there is evidence to show that with a well constructed defence, BWL can come along with a reduced 'offer to settle', which if refused, becomes a discontinuation. We can't give you guarantees on that, but as you have little choice other than to defend (if you don't want to pay), you need to give this your very best shot.

Whether you have a good defendable case to argue, you will need to read other similar cases at the defence (or beyond) stage and learn from those.

ROBOCLAIMS - HOW BWL OPERATE

You might find it useful to understand how BWL operate - as I have surmised from the hundreds of different threads I've read involving BWL.

Other than the auto acknowledgements and template letters, you will get nothing sensible from BWL - they are dealing with literally hundreds of thousands of unpaid parking charges and are spewing out various threatening letters, using a conveyor belt approach to go through a computer controlled process towards a LBC, and a MCOL Claim - and it is really only at the final stages, as a court hearing becomes a possibility, that there's any real human intervention.

You need to understand that you're not dealing with an old fashioned firm of solicitors, just progressing from a quill and ink operation, BWL are industrial harvesters of debt, using the equivalent of massive farming machinery to do their work. This is what their website tells you:

A multi-award winning law firm specialising in volume collections, across both regulated and unregulated sectors, who are dual regulated through the FCA and SRA.

We employ around 265 people at our Leeds based office which in turn makes us the largest privately owned debt collection law firm in the UK.

Posted by: Macapaca Sun, 26 May 2019 - 10:27
Post #1487877

Just a quick update on this case for anyone interested in Premier Park PCNs and their debt collectors BW Legal. I sent a firm reply to BWL to make it clear that they had clearly not read any of the previous correspondence. The implication was that they probably didn't even have it. I specifically pointed out that PP did not respond to my last letter to them in Jan 18 and to their alleged solicitors SCS Law in Feb 18. Those letters included a request for a fully compliant LBA.

To my surprise my letter to BWL appears to have been read by a human being. BWL's response is actually a fairly polite letter saying that my points have been noted and that they have put the case on hold whilst they seek advice from their client PP. Interesting given that the first letter from from BWL included a letter from PP saying that the case has been passed to their legal team, BWL, and that all future correspondence will be with them. That PP letter looked a bit suspicious as it was on what appeared to be PP photo-copied letter headed paper. So in conclusion this doesn't appear to be locked in a robo-process as suggested by a previous post. I await their next move with interest.

Posted by: ostell Sun, 26 May 2019 - 11:28
Post #1487890

If they can they leave it in the roboclaim process. If they get a rejection that forces them out of roboclaim then they have to respond.

Posted by: Umkomaas Sun, 26 May 2019 - 11:42
Post #1487891

QUOTE
BWL's response is actually a fairly polite letter saying that my points have been noted and that they have put the case on hold whilst they seek advice from their client

Template response seen many times.

Posted by: Macapaca Sun, 26 May 2019 - 12:06
Post #1487896

QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Sun, 26 May 2019 - 12:42) *
QUOTE
BWL's response is actually a fairly polite letter saying that my points have been noted and that they have put the case on hold whilst they seek advice from their client

Template response seen many times.

Ok, so what is their next template response likely to be?

Posted by: Redivi Sun, 26 May 2019 - 13:25
Post #1487915

Usually a Letter Before Claim

This will give you an opportunity to not only refer BWL to previous correspondence but give them a list of documents, photographs and information that you want

Posted by: Macapaca Sun, 26 May 2019 - 16:18
Post #1487955

QUOTE (Redivi @ Sun, 26 May 2019 - 14:25) *
Usually a Letter Before Claim

This will give you an opportunity to not only refer BWL to previous correspondence but give them a list of documents, photographs and information that you want

I have already had a LBC from PP in Jan 18. They didn't follow it up after I asked for a fully compliant one!

Posted by: Redivi Sun, 26 May 2019 - 16:29
Post #1487958

Doesn't matter

BWL will send its own

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)