PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN - LDK Security Group Ltd, De Minimus
TMC Towcester
post Sun, 28 Apr 2019 - 07:55
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,074
Joined: 17 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,686



Hello everyone - a regular lurker, but not posted for ages!

A pal of mine has just had a PCN from the above. He stopped on private land to use the toilet and the PCN confirms the time as 1557 - 1602. Does this constitute de Minimus or is there a 'better' approach to be followed?

Never heard of these people - seemingly local with an office in a Lok n Store building!!

Any/all advice welcomed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Sun, 28 Apr 2019 - 07:55
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
TMC Towcester
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 05:25
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,074
Joined: 17 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,686



Any guidance for the next steps please?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 07:35
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (TMC Towcester @ Wed, 29 May 2019 - 18:12) *


Hand delivered to the address used by the RK (not the address on the V5P. Looks like a pile of poo, but all wisdom gratefully received!

TIA

There's no wording for allowing an appeal with the IPC or POPLA whichever they profess to be in.
I'm guessing they have been kicked out. If that's the case then they cannot use PoFA for taking this on as a Keeper Liability claim.
In fact if they even mention IPC on their ticket when in fact they have been kicked out that amounts to misrepresentation, so if they were still a member that would allow a 2nd stage appeal.

You need to contact the IPC and ask if they are still a member.

This post has been edited by Lynnzer: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 07:43


--------------------
The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TMC Towcester
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 07:58
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,074
Joined: 17 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,686



Many thanks. I have asked the question and await a reply...............
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 08:28
Post #24


Member


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



OK it looks as though they have not applied to the DVLA for the RK's details. RK sends an email to the DVLA, SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gov.uk , and asks who has rerquested the details between the date of the alleged parking and today. Give sufficient detail in the email to identify the RK. Let's see what comes back.

Real clever letter that!, Clever car as well, it has violated the terms all on it's own. I've heard of driverless cars but......

Have they not heard that the keeper is not liable for more than the first PCN?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 08:37
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



I tried calling the number shown on a Google search but it just rambles on for ages then cuts you off when it doesn't hear a recorded message being made.
The must be another number that gets to a switchboard. Anyone?

Another thing; the signs also state membership of the IPC.
That would also constitute misrepresentation as (who knows) you may have relied on such membership to provide an alternative dispute resolution in the event of any parking issues such as are evident here.

Now, PLEASE, start a trail of emails, or correspondence to build up their liability to costs when things go badly for them.
Start off by sending emails that says that they have not invoked PoFA so cannot lay liability at the feet of the driver.
You need to get this in as often as you can (unless they can show they have POFA on their side - doubtful)

Tell them that your courteous appeal submission was made as the keeper but didn't state the name of the driver, whose identity you are not obliged to make known. The appeal was made only because any fair minded operator would see sense and allow it. If you have evidence that you were elsewhere then send it too as the furtherance of their demands will only add to their unreasonable and vexatious nature.

State that as far as a continuance of their claim against you is ill founded as they do not know the identity of the driver and cannot make a guess that the RK was the driver.

You have to do this to provide a gateway to a costs claim for damages for them being vexatious and unreasonable.
See my own case on UKCPS and the case on Legal Beagles it refers to. Damages for £2000 was awarded, and hey, it felt good.

For others who find themselves in a similar situation, the previous advice was to add a counterclaim. That worked to some extent but it requires a payment up front to make it, then of course if you aren't successful it's another expense you have to swallow.
By doing it as a costs claim instead takes away the initial cost of having to make a payment. The only problem I see with that is that if you want the claim to go into court they can always back out of it and you lose the opportunity to have your costs claim considered.

It's also imperative that you contact the DVLA to see if they got your details from them, although I guess they didn't have to if you appealed the NTD.

This post has been edited by Lynnzer: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 08:39


--------------------
The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 08:41
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,124
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



QUOTE
Start off by sending emails that says that they have not invoked PoFA so cannot lay liability at the feet of the driver.

Keeper.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TMC Towcester
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 11:10
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,074
Joined: 17 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,686



Am I correct that POPLA has applied a consistent 10 minutes 'grace period' for parking time between entry and 'penalty'?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TMC Towcester
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 11:24
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,074
Joined: 17 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,686



A starter for 10, any/all comments gratefully received:

It is clear that you have failed to properly recognise the circumstances and thus that your rejection of the appeal is baseless for the following reasons:

1. Your response is addressed to the vehicle 'owner' - the relevance of which is challenged and status unknown to you.

2. As you have not cited PoFA, you are not able to move any perceived liability to the registered keeper - whose identity has not be established by you.

3. You are incorrect in your assertion that anyone has formed a contract with yourselves as only someone with sufficient rights over the land (freeholder or leaseholder) can form a such a contract and it is extremely unlikely (nor claimed by you) to be LDK Group.

4. As already opined, a stay of seven minutes will certainly fall under the definition of de Minimus in terms of parking.

5. You claim to have membership of the IPC and therefore the escalated appeal will go to them. Oddly, there is no listing on the IPC website for yourselves, therefore to avoid ANY suggestion of misrepresentation, please confirm your membership status and acceptance of their process.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 12:38
Post #29


Member


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



QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 09:37) *
It's also imperative that you contact the DVLA to see if they got your details from them, although I guess they didn't have to if you appealed the NTD.


Not true. POFA para 11 requires that the creditor makes an application for the keepers details as a condition of holding the keeper liable. So no access to the DVLA then there cannot be keeper liability.

DVLA: SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gov.uk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 13:21
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (ostell @ Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 13:38) *
QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 09:37) *
It's also imperative that you contact the DVLA to see if they got your details from them, although I guess they didn't have to if you appealed the NTD.


Not true. POFA para 11 requires that the creditor makes an application for the keepers details as a condition of holding the keeper liable. So no access to the DVLA then there cannot be keeper liability.

DVLA: SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gov.uk

But they don't even pretend to invoke PoFA.
In that case they can just bumble through with details give by the RK who is the self declared keeper and responded to the windscreen ticket. Can't see any benefit though as they still can't (shouldn't) take court action against the RK without evidence that he/she was the driver at the time.


--------------------
The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TMC Towcester
post Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 06:41
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,074
Joined: 17 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,686



Interesting I can't yet share the source etc but have it 'on good authority' that the LDK Security Group have been suspended by the IPC..........yet have the logo on their letters and every page of their website (I have taken screenshots).

They also make reference to the use of POPLA yet don't have any other trade association membership that I can identify.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 08:33
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,985
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



Bloody Hell, it must take some going to be suspended by the IPC. What on earth have they done? Burned down an orphanage?


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 09:00
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (TMC Towcester @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 07:41) *
Interesting I can't yet share the source etc but have it 'on good authority' that the LDK Security Group have been suspended by the IPC..........yet have the logo on their letters and every page of their website (I have taken screenshots).

They also make reference to the use of POPLA yet don't have any other trade association membership that I can identify.

And their signs.
I would guess that is an unlawful misrepresentation


--------------------
The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 09:56
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (ManxRed @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 09:33) *
Bloody Hell, it must take some going to be suspended by the IPC. What on earth have they done? Burned down an orphanage?

One very easy way to be suspended by the IPC is not paying membership fee's, THAT they do care about very very much.

Your letter contains errors in
1. The owner never has any liability, only the keeper, your reply hasn't pointed out the irrelevance of being the owner (whether you are or not).
2. That's transfer of liability to the Keeper, the RK may or may not be the keeper.
3. I'd leave off, they may well have a contract with the landholder that allows them to form a contract with a driver. Don't create points they can argue with.
5. The appeal would go to the IAS not the IPC


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TMC Towcester
post Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 10:49
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,074
Joined: 17 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,686



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 10:56) *
QUOTE (ManxRed @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 09:33) *
Bloody Hell, it must take some going to be suspended by the IPC. What on earth have they done? Burned down an orphanage?

One very easy way to be suspended by the IPC is not paying membership fee's, THAT they do care about very very much.

Your letter contains errors in
1. The owner never has any liability, only the keeper, your reply hasn't pointed out the irrelevance of being the owner (whether you are or not).
2. That's transfer of liability to the Keeper, the RK may or may not be the keeper.
3. I'd leave off, they may well have a contract with the landholder that allows them to form a contract with a driver. Don't create points they can argue with.
5. The appeal would go to the IAS not the IPC


I understood an IAS appeal is predicated upon membership of the IPC?..............
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Mon, 10 Jun 2019 - 11:47
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (TMC Towcester @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 11:49) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 10:56) *
QUOTE (ManxRed @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 09:33) *
Bloody Hell, it must take some going to be suspended by the IPC. What on earth have they done? Burned down an orphanage?

One very easy way to be suspended by the IPC is not paying membership fee's, THAT they do care about very very much.

Your letter contains errors in
1. The owner never has any liability, only the keeper, your reply hasn't pointed out the irrelevance of being the owner (whether you are or not).
2. That's transfer of liability to the Keeper, the RK may or may not be the keeper.
3. I'd leave off, they may well have a contract with the landholder that allows them to form a contract with a driver. Don't create points they can argue with.
5. The appeal would go to the IAS not the IPC


I understood an IAS appeal is predicated upon membership of the IPC?..............

It does indeed BUT they aren't in it at present.
However their signs and paperwork say they are still a member so that's a fraudulent misrepresentation.
They would be nuts taking this to court.

I'd start an email trail asking them for the right to appeal as is required by virtue of their membership of the IPC.
That'll do for now but we'll see what happens from then and build up their unconscionable conduct afterwards depending on what they say.

Emails are always best cc'd to someone else for external validation in case they say you didn't send any.


--------------------
The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TMC Towcester
post Wed, 12 Jun 2019 - 10:32
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,074
Joined: 17 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,686



OK - I appealed via IPC based upon:

Their response to my original repost was:

Addressed to 'The Owner' - to whom no liability ever befalls
No application was made under PoFA so keeper liability cannot apply
No contract was formed as only the freeholder or leaseholder can do so
A seven minute stay is de Minimus
(Plus their refusal to involve POPLA despite their website saying it's available and a question about their membership of IAS)

Their response, received just now (my comments in brackets)

The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper. (they don't know!)
ANPR/CCTV was used. (I will check, but pretty sure there isn't any and a manual ticket was issued)
A manual ticket was placed on the vehicle. (err......we know!)
The ticket was issued on 27/04/2019. (Ditto)
The charge is based in Contract. (Don't know what that means in English)

The operator made the following comments...
The PCN was issued for no permit. (We know)

There are a number of signs in the area that explain the T&C of parking. (There are signs, but see below)

The vehicle was first seen at 15:57 and the PCN was issued at 16:02 giving 5 minutes grace. 5 minutes grace is to either read the T&C of parking and/or collect a permit. The vehicle was still seen at the location at 16:04. (Nowhere on the signs is 5 mins mentioned, nor is there any information about how to secure a permit)

Due to the location of the site - being near town the car park is frequently abused. Please see contract where 5 minutes grace has been agreed with the client. (I've no idea where this contract is visible, but that's irrelevant to the claimed contract with the driver!)

We received an appeal that was later rejected. (We agree entirely!!)

My bracket comments are the core of my next step - any thoughts please?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Wed, 12 Jun 2019 - 11:04
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,124
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



QUOTE
My bracket comments are the core of my next step - any thoughts please?

What next step are you proposing?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TMC Towcester
post Wed, 12 Jun 2019 - 11:48
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,074
Joined: 17 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,686



QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Wed, 12 Jun 2019 - 12:04) *
QUOTE
My bracket comments are the core of my next step - any thoughts please?

What next step are you proposing?


IAS allows submitting a response or redirect to an adjudicator.

Just visited site - no CCTV/ANPR or any sort of camera/recording device whatsoever............

This post has been edited by TMC Towcester: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 - 11:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Wed, 12 Jun 2019 - 12:01
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (TMC Towcester @ Wed, 12 Jun 2019 - 12:48) *
QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Wed, 12 Jun 2019 - 12:04) *
QUOTE
My bracket comments are the core of my next step - any thoughts please?

What next step are you proposing?


IAS allows submitting a response or redirect to an adjudicator.

Just visited site - no CCTV/ANPR or any sort of camera/recording device whatsoever............

So they're telling porkies.
Tell them to sod off if they are unwilling to pass an appeal over to the adjudication service that their signs and paperwork say they are a member of.
Do it nicely though, and by email so that their complete correspondence trail is available in court on a claim for vexatious and unreasonable behaviour, and for telling porkies to misrepresent their status.


--------------------
The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
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 - 20:59
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