PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Preparing for court claim from Gladstones
Louis Balfour
post Mon, 18 May 2020 - 19:40
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 18 May 2020
Member No.: 108,710



Good evening folks. I find myself in a slightly strange situation with Parallel Parking Ltd and Gladstones Solicitors.

No PCN or NTK received by me ever. I wasn't ignoring - they just never came.

LBC arrived from Gladstones in Jan 2020 stating that I had been sent 2x NTK by Parallel Parking Ltd. for a parking violation at Euro Car Parts, Cyan Park Coventry dating back to 13th July 2019.

I replied to the LBC from GS using the restrict data processing template from MSE and sent a SAR to Parallel Parking.

I also called PP and offered to pay the original £60 and complained that I had received nothing until now and had been given no chance to appeal. I did not name driver or accept liability - just offered to pay the £60 and hopefully save the time involved with going to court etc. They refused and said GS have taken over so speak to them.

The SAR came back from PP containing some images of the vehicle parked inside a double yellow line in the business park and 2 NTKs. The date on the first (£60) NTK they allegedly sent was 09/08/19 with the incident dated 13/07/19. There was also a reference made to contacting the DVLA to obtain details but no dates or proof of this. Also in the SAR was a second (£100) NTK final demand dated 04/11/19. Nothing else in the SAR other than that.

I heard nothing for some time and then recieved a reply in April this year to my request to halt proceeding from GS, stating 'unfortunately we cannot process your request because we can demonstrate compelling legitimate grounds for the processing of your data which override the interests, rights and freedoms of you as an individual. We will however extend the Pre Action Protocol period by 30 days to 25th May 2020'.

I replied to GS asking for the missing information from the SAR (signage, whether they are pursuing me as the keeper or driver, contract with the land owner, all evidence, DVLA correspondence). Also restated the request to restrict data processing and threatened to report them to the SRA and ICO if they did not. I have not yet done this because I was waiting in case any more evidence came through, but I intend to and would appreciate any advise.

Then very quickly received this reply from GS:

[i]We believe our Letter before Claim is compliant with the most up to date version of the Pre-Action
Protocol (‘the Protocol’) however and without concession, we would be grateful for clarification as to
your position with respect to non-compliance with the same.
It is noted that you have not provided an account of your version of events as is required by the
Protocol.
Despite the above with a view to expediting matters, please find enclosed evidence our Client may
later rely on should the need for proceedings arise. We also enclose a copy of the Annex 1
Information Sheet, the Reply Form and the Standard Financial Statement.
We trust the above and the enclosed clarifies our Client’s position with respect to the outstanding
debt. In the event you are still unsatisfied with the above, please find below our responses to your
numbered questions below;
1. The motorist entered into a contract to park on the land pursuant to the signs with our Client.
The contract allowed the motorist to park in accordance with the signs or, for a charge of
£100, allowed the motorist the privilege to park outside of the conditions as stated on the
signs. As the driver on the day for the charge of parked otherwise than in accordance with the
signs, they accepted a charge of £100. Payment of the charge has not been forthcoming
within the relevant timeframe and as such, the contract has now been breached and further
costs incurred as a result of the breach in having to facilitate the recovery of the debt. Our
Client’s Accredited Trade Association also states that an additional fee may be applied upon
the matter being referred for enforcement.
2. Your details were provided as the registered keeper of vehicle registration xxxx when a
request was made to the DVLA. On the enclosed Notice to Keeper you were provided with
the opportunity to nominate a driver. As we are yet to receive any nomination; our Client
therefore avers, given your lack of response, that you as the registered keeper of the vehicle
were also the driver on the date of the incident.
3. Our Client is not relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
4. Please refer to the evidence pack attached.

5. Yes, this is a claim for contractual breach. Please refer to the evidence attached. We hold that
a valid contract was formed between the driver (you in this instance) and our Client and the
charge owed is outstanding.
6. Our Client is not claiming trespass.
7. We will not provide a copy of our Client’s contract with the landowner at this stage. Our
Client’s position is that the contract entered into is between itself and the motorist to which it
acts as the Principal. Any other contract is therefore superfluous when considering liability. In
the event that a Court Order specifies that a document to this effect must be provided, our
Client will comply.
8. Please see site map copy enclosed in the evidence pack.
9. Signage is prominent throughout the parking area. Signage location, size, content and font
has been audited by the International Parking Community and had this been an issue this
would have been addressed and rectified at this stage. It is the responsibility of a motorist to
check for signage, check the legality and obtain any authorisation for parking before leaving
their vehicle.
10. Prior to our involvement, if the charge had been paid at the time of issuing and/ or within 14
days, the parking charge would have reduced to £60.00. Failing to make the payment within
the time frame would make the motorist liable for the full charge of £100, as no payment was
forthcoming the case was passed to ourselves and the amount increased to £160.
The £100.00 is the parking charge and the £60.00 being claimed is a charge owed to our
Client for their time spent and resource facilitating the recovery of this, as a direct result of
your non-payment.
No interest and no admin charges have been added until if required, we commence legal
proceedings.
We trust the attached explains our Client’s position in relation to why the debt is outstanding and in
view of the evidence itself, it is our Client's position that the sum of £160 remains outstanding within
30 days from the date of this correspondence. In the event that neither a substantive response nor
payment is made within this time-frame our Client may elect to issue legal proceedings without further
notice.
You can pay by one of the following methods;
[/i]

Also with the letter was a slightly more detailed SAR containing images of the signage in the park but still nothing regarding DVLA data access.

I contacted the DVLA to find out when PP accessed my data and replied to GS telling them I had and also stating that I will be defending as keeper and not disclosing driver identity.

Today I received a reply from the DVLA saying that PP had contacted them to obtain data and they processed the request on 06/08/19.

As GS's May 25th deadline creeps closer I am wondering if there is anything else I should do before the claim letter comes through. I'd be so grateful if anyone had any useful tips.

Many thanks for reading!

This post has been edited by Louis Balfour: Tue, 19 May 2020 - 23:29
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Mon, 18 May 2020 - 19:40
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 19 May 2020 - 08:04
Post #2


Member


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



How else ddi they get your address, other than from the DVLA?

Did the NtK - there was only one, the first notice to you - that said £100 discounted to £60 (it was never ever £60 increasing to £100) - comply with POFA2012 to hold the keeper liable?
Your SAR would NEVER contain
- images of the signs - theyre not your personal data
- contract with teh landowner - not your personal data

And so on. Anything you have not got, I can imagine its because..it wasnt your personal data.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 19 May 2020 - 08:27
Post #3


Member


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



Was there a PCN on the windscreen? Probably not by the dates but they have failed to deliver the Notice to Keeper within the relevant period of 14 days so cannot hold the keeper liable.

Perhaps post up the Notice to Keeper they allege to have sent? Suitably redacted but leave dates.

Hope the driver has not been identified in those phone calls.

This post has been edited by ostell: Tue, 19 May 2020 - 08:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Louis Balfour
post Tue, 19 May 2020 - 21:42
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 18 May 2020
Member No.: 108,710



Thanks for the replies.

nosferatu1001,

Makes sense.

I did not receive anything at all until the LBC came so I wanted to find out when they contacted the DVLA. I never had the chance to pay the £100 reduced to £60 or even the £100 not reduced to £60, so my suspicion was that they obtained the details from the DVLA just to send the LBC and never even bothered sending any NTK.

Timeline as follows:

Jan 2020: LBC received.
Feb 2020: SAR received containing NTK dated 09/08/19 for incident on 13/07/19. DVLA processed request on 06/08/19.

The NTK in the SAR is dated 27 days after the alleged violation took place so am I correct to say it is not POFA compliant?

ostell,

There wasn't a PCN on the windshield, only the NTK that I saw for the first time in the SAR. During the phone call I said I was prepared to settle for £60 and did not name driver. I'm assuming it is fine to record a phone call?

Well outside the 14 days I think yes. Here is the NTK in a folder hopefully it shows up clearly enough to be readable. PCN

This post has been edited by Louis Balfour: Tue, 19 May 2020 - 21:47
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 19 May 2020 - 22:14
Post #5


Member


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



As you did not receive a NTK then they are well outside of the relevant time to hold the keeper liable., Your copy of the NTK that you received showed that this was also outside the relevant period to hold you liable, POFA 9 (4), so even if you had received it then they could still not hold you liable.

They have also failed to give the warning of keeper liability required by POFA 9 (2) (f), no period of parking 9 (2) (a)

So a letter to GS pointing out that you have no liability in this matter as their client has failed to comply with the legislation to transfer liability to the keeper from the driver.

Similar letter to PP pointing at that they have failed to comply with POFA and they will incur losses if they continue with this matter in court.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Louis Balfour
post Tue, 19 May 2020 - 23:35
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 18 May 2020
Member No.: 108,710



ostell excellent thanks. I will read POFA 9 tomorrow, draft some letters and post them up before sending.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 20 May 2020 - 08:03
Post #7


Member


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



Brill
It can be email as well, you dont need t opost, unless you dont have an email address of course

You point out to gladstoners that as their client *cannot* use POFA2012 to hold you liable, if they are to continue they need to provide, now, the evidence they will rely on that proves the identity of the driver, OR the relevant case law that allows them to hold a vehicles Keeper liable fo rthe actions of a driver, when they cannot use POFA2012. Any reference to "elliot v loake", which they are well aware has been laughed out of county court every time, will be insufficient.

A failure to cooperate now, under the overriding objective, will result in complaints to the SRA and any court claim will seek full costs at £19 per hour.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Louis Balfour
post Wed, 20 May 2020 - 22:10
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 18 May 2020
Member No.: 108,710



nosferatu1001 fantastic thanks for the wording. I will do just that and report back on progress.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 21 May 2020 - 08:47
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,061
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



I also called PP and offered to pay the original £60

Thereby admitting liability?

So what's all the tooing and froing about?

And what reasons can you think of why 2 NTK should not be delivered? You get some mail, you don't get other mail😏

Anyway, post the first NTK pl.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 21 May 2020 - 10:19
Post #10


Member


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



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 21 May 2020 - 09:47) *
Anyway, post the first NTK pl.


It's at the end of post #4. That's why we know they failed to comply with POFACon the document alone.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Louis Balfour
post Fri, 22 May 2020 - 08:14
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 18 May 2020
Member No.: 108,710



hcandersen

My aim was to research the forum, do some of the preliminary emailing and see if I could make any progress without having to ask for help. Perhaps I should have just asked in the first place.

I didn't receive anything until the LBC, if I had I would have paid the £60 straight away. I called and offered to do that without naming the driver and accepting liability after I got the LBC. An out of court settlement wouldn't always be an admission of guilt or would it?

I can't think of any reasons why I didn't get them except that they were never sent.

ostell thanks for explaining
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 22 May 2020 - 08:28
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,061
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Shall we start with the alleged breach!

As I see it:
Jimmy Hill Way is a public road.

DYL(which in the UK are specified road markings in respect of waiting and have nothing to do with parking, even less stopping) fall to be enforced under the Traffic Management Act by the local authority, any so-called breach therefore falls outside the jurisdiction of owners of adjoining land.

The creditor is therefore unable to demand a charge for parking on public highway and the demand is without merit.

Does this cover matters?

What you've got is what happens when you and their agents lose sight of the primary issue: POFA is process, it does not establish the basis for a parking charge. For this you need to go to the root facts.

Their agents don't know or probably care about facts, they're paid to process, hence you could continue to ping-pong claim and counter-claim under PoFA until the cows come home.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Fri, 22 May 2020 - 08:35
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Louis Balfour
post Fri, 22 May 2020 - 12:46
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 18 May 2020
Member No.: 108,710



hcandersen

Yes I think it does! I had just assumed it was private land but it seems not. I also didn't know the markings relate to waiting and are enforced by the government only. I wonder if I could make a complaint about this situation, seems highly illegal to me although Parallel Parking claim to be an approved PPC, I assumed all this would have been checked as part of them being approved for IPC membership.

(The parking outside Euro Car Parts Coventry for anyone reading who's not familiar)


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 22 May 2020 - 12:58
Post #14


Member


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



So check with the local council about the status of the road. It's often on a web page.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 22 May 2020 - 14:40
Post #15


Member


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



Check the council and confirm its public highway

A private firm cannot operate on public roads like that, not under their own steam. Of course the IPC woudlnt check every single contract the company has....also, you assume the IPC oweuld care.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Louis Balfour
post Fri, 22 May 2020 - 17:22
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 18 May 2020
Member No.: 108,710



ostell & nosferatu1001 thanks.

I found this https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/list_of_roads_91

But was a bit dubious about opening the PDFs.

I will give the council a ring on Monday and see if they can confirm. I found a news paper article explaining the section of the a444 that runs past Cyan Park was renamed after Jimmy Hill when he died but nothing on the section that enters the park itself.

This post has been edited by Louis Balfour: Fri, 22 May 2020 - 17:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 26 May 2020 - 08:07
Post #17


Member


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



No issue opening off that site. Ifs a well known site.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Louis Balfour
post Thu, 25 Jun 2020 - 12:17
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 18 May 2020
Member No.: 108,710



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 26 May 2020 - 09:07) *
No issue opening off that site. Ifs a well known site.
thanks, I had a look and could not find the road on there but a useful document for others i'm sure.


Just to update, I spoke to Coventry city council who were very helpful and suggested I ask Gladstones for a copy of the traffic regulation order for the site. They also explained that they would observe a vehicle on a double yellow and only issue a PCN if there was no evidence of loading taking place duruing a 5 minute grace period. It seems like the car park is private but the road is public highway - the other side of the road directly opposite Euro Car Parts has Coventry city council's own double yellows painted.

I got a rather confusing response from Gladstones responding to the last letter I sent to them, where I asked them to provide evidence of driver and pointed out they were non POFA compliant with their NTK. At no point did I 'allege not to be the driver'.

'You allege not to be the driver yet have provided no evidence to the contrary or the full name and serviceable address of the driver. As our Client provided with 8 of Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 it has the right to pursue the registered keeper for the charge, this is further supported by 5(1) of Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, it is however in your best interest to supply the driver details.

The DVLA request is done online and our Client is therefore unable to provide you with a physical copy of the information provided.'


This post has been edited by Louis Balfour: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 - 12:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 25 Jun 2020 - 12:56
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Louis Balfour @ Thu, 25 Jun 2020 - 13:17) *
Just to update, I spoke to Coventry city council who were very helpful and suggested I ask Gladstones for a copy of the traffic regulation order for the site. They also explained that they would observe a vehicle on a double yellow and only issue a PCN if there was no evidence of loading taking place duruing a 5 minute grace period. It seems like the car park is private but the road is public highway - the other side of the road directly opposite Euro Car Parts has Coventry city council's own double yellows painted.

So are they attempting to enforce on land they don't have the rights to do so?

GS (or the parking company) won't have the TRO - if they did then it's likely they shouldn't be enforcing there! It's only the council that can supply these...

QUOTE (Louis Balfour @ Thu, 25 Jun 2020 - 13:17) *
"it is however in your our best interest to supply the driver details."

Corrected it for them...


--------------------
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, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 25 Jun 2020 - 13:01
Post #20


Member


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



I would write back and point out that as this is public highway and NOT private land, their client cannot have complied with POFA2012 as this land is not "relevant land".
So you ask whether they have used this clear template in an attempt to deliberately mislead, or is this just more evidence of incompotence in their handling of legal cases, wihch are well documented on multiple sites?
You require a clear answer within 7 days, so it can be added to the SRA complaint you will be making about their breach of the code of conduct.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 18:16
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here