PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

727 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 16:21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
What is the strategy to appeal these PCN's then?

Individually, using the MSE appeal template from the NEWBIES thread on that forum (not from an MSE article) or by using the template appeal posted on loads of threads here by ostell.

Please show both sides of one of the NTKs here (Dropbox link) and tell us what you think about whether it complies with the wording in para 9 of the POFA schedule 4?
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1441474 · Replies: 11 · Views: 104

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 16:18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
SECOND POINT: I have reviewed the PoFa Act 2012 and it clearly states in Schedule 4 paragraph 9 (1) and (2) (a) (b) that "a notice that is to be relied on as a notice to keeper....." has to state a "specified period of parking". The PCN issued does not state an entry time or an actual period of parking. It, in fact, states "From 00/00/0000 at 0:00;00 To (then the actual time PCN was issued)". Nowhere on the PCN does it actually state a period of parking as required by the PoFA 2012.

Would the above make a good case to BW legal that the PCN is actually invalid?


No.

Why not read the other BW Legal PPS defence threads on here and on MSE forum (the latter had 15 PPS cases at the last count, easiest to Google & read both forum results in one place - 2018 only).
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1441472 · Replies: 7 · Views: 93

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 16:16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Why not just do what everyone else does on all the other WING cases?

1. Appeal as keeper (stage 1, on DAY 26 - not sooner and NOT waiting for the NTK - using the MSE forum template appeal that doesn't give away who was driving and needs nothing added to it)

2. Appeal as keeper (stage 2, to Greenwich, again using the MSE template)

3. Win easily at POPLA (go and read some Wing threads to see the grounds used).

DO NOT talk to the Council. No saying who was driving!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1441471 · Replies: 6 · Views: 65

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 16:09


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
They keep reiterating point 18.1 which does say the following for anyone who has not read:

To comply with and observe the regulations which the Lessor may reasonably and consistently with provisions of this Lease make to govern the use of the Apartments the Reserved Property and the Development and for the good management the same

Am I (the other half as its her name) over a barrel here?


No. This has already been covered in the previous replies, weeks back.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1441464 · Replies: 125 · Views: 10,493

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 16:07


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE (lyfu @ Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 11:53) *
QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 11:38) *
...



Hey, i have around 3 hours to do this now.

This is my draft

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to “Parking Charge(s)” incurred on 25/10/2017 . However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state “The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle”, which indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

3. The Particulars refer to the material location as ‘xxx’. The Defendant has, since 01/09/2017, held legal title under the terms of a lease, to Flat No.1 at that location.

4. The car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to some residents who paid an extra fee and have a valid permit. On the day, 3 out of the 4 spaces were available. The defendant only stopped outside of his rented flat for less than 15 mins to unload groceries and other items, therefore this didn’t affect any other resident.

5. The driver was allowed the right to load/unload by a leasehold resident. This permission created the prevailing and overriding contract - the only contract - and the business was concluded as agreed, at no cost or penalty.

6. Loading or unloading with the permission of the landholder is not 'parking' and signs cannot override existing rights enjoyed by landowners and their visitors, as was found in the Appeal case decided by His Honour Judge Harris QC at Oxford County Court, in case number B9GF0A9E: 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES’.

7. In the Jopson appeal it was also held as a finding of fact, that stopping to unload was not 'parking'.

8. The reason for this parking company's presence on this site can only be for the sole purpose of deterring parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of drivers authorised by the leaseholder businesses and residents. Instead, contrary to various consumer laws, this Claimant carries out a predatory operation on those very people whose interests they are purportedly there to uphold.

9. The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant’s signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

10. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant’s position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the ‘legitimate interest’ in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

11. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

12. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.


Much better than Eljayjay's template that is generic, too long & includes stuff not needed in a defence. However adding this would be OK, I agree:

QUOTE
Parking at the location is governed by a set of leases which are the documents of paramount importance in this case. The Defendant is protected against the Claimant’s unauthorised use of the land for the purposes of its business and its predatory parking scheme by (1) the legal principle of privity of contract which is implied in all leases in the absence of any overriding clause under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, (2) the legal principle of non-derogation from grant implied in all leases, and (3) the legal principle of the right to quiet enjoyment also implied in all leases.


And add this which seems to be missing from bargepole's residential template:
QUOTE
The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation against residents, and that it was in the contemplation of the landowner and expressly allowed in the contract, that the Claimant could disregard the usual (implied or express) rights and easements when merely accessing their home property to load/unload.



I hope you were not persuaded into a counter claim by Eljayjay...
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1441462 · Replies: 29 · Views: 960

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 19:21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


No, a POPLA appeal is longer & more detailed - and you can use the templates from the 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread on MSE forum.

Land that is first come first served shared parking, is not demised/owned by you. And none of that goes into a POPLA appeal anyway as POPLA Assessors aren't trained in land ownership law (or any law...).

Here's one where it's just worked:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=124061

A lot simpler than you think.

Show us your draft based on that sort of POPLA appeal.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1441191 · Replies: 65 · Views: 2,723

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 19:20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Great - easy when you know how!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1441193 · Replies: 17 · Views: 524

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 19:14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
You use everything from an Elijayjay defence that can possibly apply


No, you really do NOT want to be steered by that poster, whose defences are templates, too long and wordy and his perceived as pushy attempt at domination of all the residential cases has concerned regulars on here and on MSE for months. Those defences are overly complicated and cite case law which is not needed at that stage.

Instead, use this one from MSE, which needs very little adjustment to make the facts suitable for each case:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...04#post75146304

No-one needs steering by one poster with his own agenda. We advise here as a team of volunteers like the regulars do on MSE - the link above shows you a defence to ADAPT. All you nee to do is change the details that make no sense for your own facts and replace it with some lines that make sense, and then show us. EASY!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1441189 · Replies: 29 · Views: 960

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 16:46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Same as other residential cases on here - where we always tell people to look at their lease rights.

You need to read some but avoid being steered by one poster - no relying on someone's overly-long template defence they keep throwing at every residential thread. You will see what I mean when you sit down and click on all the other current residential cases you can see, which show you a concise defence to use instead, if they sue.

The advice will NOT be to pay the scam.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1440821 · Replies: 4 · Views: 141

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 16:40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE (scotsmac @ Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 14:21) *
I also tried sending email to CEO of Lidl, <Ronny.Gottschlich@lidl.co.uk>,
This email is no more. Does anyone have new address for him ? Or is it some other person in management ?


Yes, as stated on every other Athena thread from 2018 on here and on MSE, it's Mr Hartnaegel - you only had to look for other threads and you can do that just as quick as we can!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1440819 · Replies: 6 · Views: 161

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 16:38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE (cabbyman @ Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 17:13) *
Which PPC?


As above, which PPC? You say they are BPA AOS members, are you sure? Who?

You can read any other residential thread to see what to do when you get a court claim

QUOTE
it's a residential visitors car park and my deeds say I can park there.

Good, but don't allow yourself to get steered by Eljayjay who pops up on every residential case, trying to steer people to rely on him and his template (overly long) defence. I am really uncomfortable with the sudden appearance of that poster trying to do the same again as he tried a few months ago and making people wait when he says ''I shall do it'' (errr, no, there are more posters here and better, less steering advice is available...).

A better more concise defence is that by bargepole, as linked only today on Tom Cahill's thread. Remember that when you need it.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1440817 · Replies: 20 · Views: 465

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 16:33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


OK, so read any other threads on here and on MSE about their court claims.

They use Gladstones and we almost always see defended cases won by forum posters (no risk).
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1440816 · Replies: 10 · Views: 96

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 15:26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


I'd wait for your landlord's letter/email and then attach that and a few relevant pages from the lease, to tell the parking firm not only to ''do one'' but never to darken your parking bay ever again or to ask the DVLA for any data of any vehicle parked in that bay, or they will be sued for misuse of data and harassment.

You must show your hand, it's part of the pre-action protocol for 'debt claims' (do Google & read it, so you know).

A SAR should go only to the Data Protection Officer, and this email is normally available on their privacy page.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1440798 · Replies: 53 · Views: 2,182

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 15:20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
What is the reason for waiting till day 26?

That only relates to BPA member windscreen PCNs (if IPC, also delay but send it online on day 19) and the reason for the delay is explained here on MSE:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...d.php?t=4816822

NEVER POST LETTERS to a PPC unless the PCN gives you no other appeal option. ALWAYS online, and take a screenshot of the appeal and the 'acknowledged' page if there is one.

If it's a BPA member you will be proceeding to POPLA stage. If it's an IPC member you will NOT be trying the kangaroo court of IAS (again as explained in that llnk in the 3rd post).

Which private parking company (PPC)?
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1440795 · Replies: 4 · Views: 83

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 15:14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


If it's only Indigo at a Railway, issuing a 'PENALTY' Charge, then you can ignore the letters from ZZPS and QDR 'solicitors' and sit it out, albeit you need to contact Indigo's Data Protection Officer online (see their PRIVACY page) to tell them your correct address, to make sure you do not miss any letters.

The charge times out after six months and we know that Indigo's contract only allows them to issue pre-court letters. Not any claim in any court at all.

Nothing happens. Google Indigo railway Penalty and read ANY thread on here or on MSE from 2018.

If the first ZZPS letter is within 28 days, you can string it out and waste their time by appealing as keeper (NOT 'OWNER' AND NOT 'DRIVER'!) and then POPLA, like all the other byelaws POPLA threads.

Sounds like your car is registered to the wrong address at the DVLA. You need to check that because parking firms do get the data from the DVLA and haven't made it up, so the DVLA address MUST be wrong.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1440792 · Replies: 7 · Views: 131

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 15:06


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
PoFA is a fairly impenetrable document to the layman, so I have likely had some misunderstanding,
No it's not, it's a simple schedule in layman's words and you have not misunderstood it. You are right that this is a non-POFA PCN.

But your wife has blabbed about who was driving do has thrown that in the bin:

QUOTE
as, following a further appeal through IAS, again using the 14 day rule as defence, ESP have sent the following response:

"The operator made their response on 07/12/2018 19:56:13.
We only need to issue within 14 days if we are seeking Keeper liability as we now know the identity of the driver we can pursue on that basis . With a time scale of up to 6 years..... "



QUOTE
Their rebuttal seems fairly watertight, but I would appreciate an informed opinion on this.
Informed opinion would have told your wife NEVER EVER to try IAS because she will feel on the back foot when she loses (would have been so much better to ignore until court claim stage, because we KNOW she will wobble and want to pay now). Wrong, wrong, wrong, but that's what will happen and should not have been tried.

IAS is considered a kangaroo court and - short of a miracle or brain fart at their end - she has no chance whatsoever of any appeal being accepted by that bunch:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014...e-kangaroo.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016...e-kangaroo.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017...ikes-again.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2015...government.html


So, when she loses, ignore that guff, and wait for court claim stage in 2019.

No it's not scary, no high costs can be added, no CCJ happens (unless she ignores a claim, which she wouldn't), there is no need for any solicitor and there is no effect on credit rating even if a rare case is lost, and we see consistent wins reported on both forums - on here and MSE - that deal with these all the time. It's simply the way to win/fight against the 'outrageous scam' of private parking tickets.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1440791 · Replies: 5 · Views: 83

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 14:49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Yes, stop writing 'the driver' in public on this forum. Th appellant is the 'keeper'.

Ostell did say:

QUOTE
Edit so that the identity of the driver cannot be inferred. The driver parked, the keeper received the letter and will be appealing. Euro parking do not know the identity of the driver so keep it that way.
...including if they are reading this forum.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1440788 · Replies: 10 · Views: 96

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 14:47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


You need to get your threads merged, you already have a thread about this case, Tom.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1440787 · Replies: 3 · Views: 61

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 14:46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


When it comes to a defence, you can use as a base, this one from MSE, which needs very little adjustment to make the facts suitable for each case:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...04#post75146304

That was written by bargepole who is legally qualified. The only point I'd say is missing from that one is the point that the Claimant does not own the land and has not shown that they have the standing or landowner authority, enabling them to form contracts with residents and override their rights and easements as if they did not exist.

No-one needs steering by one poster. There is no need for Eljayjay's long rambling template defences and pushing people into counter-claims, which has made some regulars on both forums question his agenda. We advise here as a team of volunteers like the regulars do on MSE too.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1440786 · Replies: 53 · Views: 2,182

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 14:39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


He has, this one from MSE, which needs very little adjustment to make the facts suitable for each case:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...04#post75146304

No-one needs steering by one poster with his own agenda. We advise here as a team of volunteers like the regulars do on MSE and there is no need for Eljayjay's long rambling template defences and pushing people into counter-claims, which has made some regulars on both forums question his agenda.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1440783 · Replies: 40 · Views: 1,363

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 14:34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
post the lease as a nicely legible pdf document, I shall be able to make it searchable electronically

I think we can all manage Control & F to search a PDF!

No poster needs to rely on one poster who is clearly intent on steering all the residential cases his way. Why is it, Eljayjay, that you post to steer people to rely on you?

The example defence you posted is far to long and the same template you keep trotting out, despite the fact we have perfectly usable bargepole (concise) residential defences that are better.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1440781 · Replies: 36 · Views: 953

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 14:21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


This is a bit like Tom Cahill's case on MSE and this forum right now although he has his landlord's lease and the space is owned.

QUOTE
Elijayjay has written a number of residential defences

He may have done but @Mikeg123, other, far better (and less steering towards reliance on one poster) defences are available from more established regulars, like bargepole.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1440778 · Replies: 40 · Views: 1,363

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 14:17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


On MSE you posted this:

QUOTE
I have a copy for the lease and the lease is specifically for the parking space that my Landlord bought several years ago.

The lease states that:

'The company covenants with the purchaser:
Quiet Enjoyment:
(1) To allow the purchaser (subject to compliance with the Terms of this Lease) to hold and enjoy The Property throughout the Term without any interruption by the Company or any person lawfully claiming under or in trust for it"

The Property referred to is the car parking space itself.

How does that look?
Looks great. Send a copy with a request for a SAR and tell VCS to do one.

I'd also tell the *new* poster 'Pirate Parker' on MSE to do one too, if I were you. Look how he is steering residential cases towards relying on him and doing counter claims (again, like another poster). You won't be aware but we've seen this before and people who post like that are not new posters (ignore him on MSE, please).

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...d.php?t=5935831
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1440777 · Replies: 53 · Views: 2,182

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 22:21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


You have two x #2.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1440493 · Replies: 50 · Views: 1,777

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 22:09


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


What's with the dots, is it Morse Code, or have VCS sent you a reply with a copy of this forum posting and you were upset by that scare tactic (which means nowt)?
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1440490 · Replies: 10 · Views: 275

727 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 12th December 2018 - 17:46
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.