PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Was I in breach of the parking rules?
HenryHippo
post Fri, 17 Mar 2017 - 10:23
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 187
Joined: 17 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,917



Hi Everyone,

Dec 2016 the driver opted to park in the road outside a chargeable car park (no double yellows or anything).

There was a sign saying anyone who parks on the verge will be fined. There was plenty of space in the road, so the driver parked in the road.

Only for the owner to get a ticket through the post from District Enforcement (A PCN)

The owner ignored them for a while and now got the threatening "Notice of impending court action" by recorded delivery

Does the owner and driver have a leg to stand on if this goes to court? The driver maintains that they are parked in the road and not on the (grass) verge







EDIT: In January the owner sent them an email explaining that the driver was parked on the layby not the verge, with pictures supporting this. The owner got the below letter from them on 10th Feb



This post has been edited by HenryHippo: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 - 14:05
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
10 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Fri, 17 Mar 2017 - 10:23
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
unicorn47
post Fri, 17 Mar 2017 - 16:33
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 126
Joined: 24 May 2015
Member No.: 77,413



Byelaws apply to Burnham Beeches.

Not sure if this area is covered by byelaws or not.

https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/things-to-d...hes-byelaws.pdf

The max. fine for breaching byelaws is £10.00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 17 Mar 2017 - 16:57
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,940
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Nice find - wonder if they are the latest?


--------------------
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
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 17 Mar 2017 - 17:29
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Yes good find. Certainly seems that parking is under statutory control if they are still current:

The doing or attempting to do any of the following acts in Burnham Beeches is prohibited and
shall be deemed to be an offence against the Corporation of London (Open Spaces) Act, 1878.
.
(i) Drawing or driving or allowing to be drawn or driven any vehicle on, through or across
the turf, woods, copses, underwood or footpaths of Burnham Beeches or allowing any
vehicle to remain on such turf, woods, copses, underwood or footpaths, or on any road
other than a highway,
in Burnham Beeches.



The car wasn't on turf, woods, copse, underwood or footpath. Looks like DE are making the 'law' up as they go and will be well aware they can't hold a keeper liable at this location (it seems).

Bet they are reading this thread.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HenryHippo
post Fri, 17 Mar 2017 - 23:32
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 187
Joined: 17 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,917



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Fri, 17 Mar 2017 - 17:29) *
Yes good find. Certainly seems that parking is under statutory control if they are still current:

The doing or attempting to do any of the following acts in Burnham Beeches is prohibited and
shall be deemed to be an offence against the Corporation of London (Open Spaces) Act, 1878.
.
(i) Drawing or driving or allowing to be drawn or driven any vehicle on, through or across
the turf, woods, copses, underwood or footpaths of Burnham Beeches or allowing any
vehicle to remain on such turf, woods, copses, underwood or footpaths, or on any road
other than a highway,
in Burnham Beeches.



The car wasn't on turf, woods, copse, underwood or footpath. Looks like DE are making the 'law' up as they go and will be well aware they can't hold a keeper liable at this location (it seems).

Bet they are reading this thread.


Cheers. They will be sent a letter on Monday
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HenryHippo
post Sun, 16 Apr 2017 - 19:58
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 187
Joined: 17 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,917



Update:

The owner contacted DE to state that the car was not on the verge and that any legal action would be defended.

This letter has come through the post last week. The owner intends to ignore it and let them take it to court as they do not have a leg to stand on

What do you guys think?
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sun, 16 Apr 2017 - 20:05
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,940
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



I would reply to the LBC.

It can be stated that the appeal was not properly considered (it's a template response!) and things like 'applying the law' will be presented to the court.

I would decline their kind offer to name the driver!

...but remember this is all part of the roboclaim and they are digging for information to be used against the defendant.


--------------------
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
HenryHippo
post Mon, 17 Apr 2017 - 14:09
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 187
Joined: 17 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,917



QUOTE (Jlc @ Sun, 16 Apr 2017 - 21:05) *
I would reply to the LBC.

It can be stated that the appeal was not properly considered (it's a template response!) and things like 'applying the law' will be presented to the court.

I would decline their kind offer to name the driver!

...but remember this is all part of the roboclaim and they are digging for information to be used against the defendant.


You think they just saw the response, rolled their eyes and continued as per their usual course of action?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Mon, 17 Apr 2017 - 14:59
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,191
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



They offer you the alternative of a full response to that letter.
So just make the same points once more but decline to name the driver.

Perhaps this: ......and although you ask me to identify the driver you must already believe you have sufficient evidence to put to a court to uphold your current position, otherwise a claim against me as the registered keeper would be futile as well as vexatious.

It's more to put in front of a judge. I mean, if they can't be sure who the driver is without you naming him/her, then what reason do they have to try and invoke keeper liability?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HenryHippo
post Mon, 1 May 2017 - 08:35
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 187
Joined: 17 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,917



QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Mon, 17 Apr 2017 - 15:59) *
They offer you the alternative of a full response to that letter.
So just make the same points once more but decline to name the driver.

Perhaps this: ......and although you ask me to identify the driver you must already believe you have sufficient evidence to put to a court to uphold your current position, otherwise a claim against me as the registered keeper would be futile as well as vexatious.

It's more to put in front of a judge. I mean, if they can't be sure who the driver is without you naming him/her, then what reason do they have to try and invoke keeper liability?


Thanks. I emailed them the above but they just ignored it. I probably should have make the trip to the post office. They've just sent me the below actually

Seems they want to fight this all the way.

Should I print pictures of the car, clearly not off the road and a strongly worded defence and send it to the solicitor's so that they drop the case and neither party is cost any money?

Or should I just send my dispute formally on the form attached?

and the defence form

defence form added
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Mon, 1 May 2017 - 08:57
Post #30


Member


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



Defend the claim formally using points that have already been raised plus a few extras
Include that the claim provides no details of the parking charge that would enable a defence to be written, or any cause of action - not even a parking notice number.
Ask the court to strike out the claim for failure to follow Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 Paras 7.3 to 7.5

This is because Gladstones hasn't even seen any District documents yet

You don't have to provide any photographs or other evidence until a week before a hearing

As things stand, having put you to all the inconvenience, District can simply cancel the claim
All they've lost is the £25 they've paid Gladstones (not the £50 claimed) - another point you can make in the defence

What you could do is issue a counter-claim for the misuse of your personal information under the Data Protection Act
This would leave District unable to withdraw without conceding your claim

Gladstones defence to a DPA counter-claim is amateurish
There is also the possibility that they would fail to reply to it handing you a default judgement
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HenryHippo
post Mon, 1 May 2017 - 17:41
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 187
Joined: 17 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,917



QUOTE (Gan @ Mon, 1 May 2017 - 09:57) *
Defend the claim formally using points that have already been raised plus a few extras
Include that the claim provides no details of the parking charge that would enable a defence to be written, or any cause of action - not even a parking notice number.
Ask the court to strike out the claim for failure to follow Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 Paras 7.3 to 7.5

This is because Gladstones hasn't even seen any District documents yet

You don't have to provide any photographs or other evidence until a week before a hearing

As things stand, having put you to all the inconvenience, District can simply cancel the claim
All they've lost is the £25 they've paid Gladstones (not the £50 claimed) - another point you can make in the defence

What you could do is issue a counter-claim for the misuse of your personal information under the Data Protection Act
This would leave District unable to withdraw without conceding your claim

Gladstones defence to a DPA counter-claim is amateurish
There is also the possibility that they would fail to reply to it handing you a default judgement


Thanks for the detailed reply. When you say "defend formally" you mean send the second form back right?

It would be great if I could issue a counter claim though. Is there any guideline how much can be claimed for? Would I have to pay to make said claim?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 1 May 2017 - 21:12
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,296
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



The first thing you do is acknowledge the claim by using the details and password on the form. DO NOT PUT ANYTHING IN THE DEFENCE. This gives you 33 days from the date of issue to submit your defence, helped by the forum.

A counter claim will cost you to enter it. I believe the counterclaim is entered when you respond to th directions questionaire.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Mon, 1 May 2017 - 22:28
Post #33


Member


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



My understanding is that the counterclaim is tacked onto the end of the defence statement
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 2 May 2017 - 06:26
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,296
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



I stand corrected.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Tue, 2 May 2017 - 09:17
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,191
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/data-protection-act/


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 2 May 2017 - 10:45
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Confirm you have acknowledged the calim. DO NOT contest jurisdiction UNLESS you live outside England and Wales
Do that now and TELL US you have done it.

You DO NOT use the form to send your defence in. You will do this as either a printed document OR as an email with PDF of your document. This is so YOU have a copy of your defence to hand.

If you file a counterclaim, it costs you to file it (look online, easy to find) and give a statement as to why. If Gladstones - who are pretty rubbish - dont file a response to your counterclaim, by the deadline, you can claim a default judgement in your favour, so you win.

This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Tue, 2 May 2017 - 10:49
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HenryHippo
post Tue, 2 May 2017 - 12:02
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 187
Joined: 17 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,917



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 2 May 2017 - 11:45) *
Confirm you have acknowledged the calim. DO NOT contest jurisdiction UNLESS you live outside England and Wales
Do that now and TELL US you have done it.

You DO NOT use the form to send your defence in. You will do this as either a printed document OR as an email with PDF of your document. This is so YOU have a copy of your defence to hand.

If you file a counterclaim, it costs you to file it (look online, easy to find) and give a statement as to why. If Gladstones - who are pretty rubbish - dont file a response to your counterclaim, by the deadline, you can claim a default judgement in your favour, so you win.


I have completed the "Acknowledgment of Service", I have not contested jurisdiction and I have registered my intention as to defend the whole amount.

I'd like to file a counterclaim as I feel thoroughly harassed by this whole affair when the parking rules have not been breached. That said I don't want to be hugely out of pocket if I lose.

So, what next please?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Tue, 2 May 2017 - 15:13
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,191
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (HenryHippo @ Tue, 2 May 2017 - 13:02) *
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 2 May 2017 - 11:45) *
Confirm you have acknowledged the calim. DO NOT contest jurisdiction UNLESS you live outside England and Wales
Do that now and TELL US you have done it.

You DO NOT use the form to send your defence in. You will do this as either a printed document OR as an email with PDF of your document. This is so YOU have a copy of your defence to hand.

If you file a counterclaim, it costs you to file it (look online, easy to find) and give a statement as to why. If Gladstones - who are pretty rubbish - dont file a response to your counterclaim, by the deadline, you can claim a default judgement in your favour, so you win.


I have completed the "Acknowledgment of Service", I have not contested jurisdiction and I have registered my intention as to defend the whole amount.

I'd like to file a counterclaim as I feel thoroughly harassed by this whole affair when the parking rules have not been breached. That said I don't want to be hugely out of pocket if I lose.

So, what next please?

Read the link I gave. It sets out the basis of a counter-claim. You register it at MCOL online for a mere few quid, depending on the amount of the claim, and send a copy of the claim to the claimant and their agent, Gladstones.

Andy Foster has a really useful template in the Flame pit. Or you can download it here.


Just ask for help if you need it. We'd love to see them bitten in the bum


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 2 May 2017 - 15:14
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Fairly obviuously, you need to write your defence

Do that first. Post it here for critique.

THEN write your counterclaim. It doesnt have to be too long, as you can use their own documetns against them. Work out how much youre claiming (£500 isnt a bad amount, the Google vs Vidal case came up with £750, there is no fixed number) and make sure you know what youre dealing with.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HenryHippo
post Tue, 2 May 2017 - 15:39
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 187
Joined: 17 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,917



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 2 May 2017 - 16:14) *
Fairly obviuously, you need to write your defence

Do that first. Post it here for critique.

THEN write your counterclaim. It doesnt have to be too long, as you can use their own documetns against them. Work out how much youre claiming (£500 isnt a bad amount, the Google vs Vidal case came up with £750, there is no fixed number) and make sure you know what youre dealing with.



Initial draft defense written. Critique welcomed!






On 11/12/2016 NUMBERPLATE (the ‘Vehicle’) was parked on the road of Hawthorn Lane, Burnham, Slough, Buckinghamshire SL2.
The sign next to the Vehicle did state that “A charge of £70 will be payable by the driver of any vehicle parked either wholly or partially on the verge on either side of the road in this area”, as shown below.


**Picture of parking sign in first post here**

As shown in the below picture, the Vehicle was parked with all four wheels on either the tarmacked road or the asphalt layby. No part of the Vehicle was on the verge, which is delineated by the wooden posts, which are aligned to follow the verge.


**Picture of car in first post here**

Additionally, as outlined in the Burnham Beeches Byelaws:
The doing or attempting to do any of the following acts in Burnham Beeches is prohibited and
shall be deemed to be an offence against the Corporation of London (Open Spaces) Act, 1878.
.
(i) Drawing or driving or allowing to be drawn or driven any vehicle on, through or across
the turf, woods, copses, underwood or footpaths of Burnham Beeches or allowing any
vehicle to remain on such turf, woods, copses, underwood or footpaths, or on any road
other than a highway, in Burnham Beeches.
The Vehicle was not on turf, woods, copses, underwood or a footbath and therefore this Byelaw has not been breached.

This post has been edited by HenryHippo: Tue, 2 May 2017 - 15:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 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, 23rd February 2018 - 12:26
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.