Hi all, this is my first post.

if a parking company who is a member of the IPC took court action over an unpaid PCN, with evidence of who the driver is, would there be other grounds to build up a good defence against the PCN? or is it a lost cause?


Many thanks in advance :-)

Just a heads up that any request for "further and betters" should have two options. You ask under the CPR to narrow the issues but add that if they consider the CPR irrelevant [and get that phrase in], you'd like the information under GDPR. They can't refuse both.

GDPR now makes access to personal information (pics and paperwork) free whereas it used to be £10.

This post has been edited by emanresu: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 - 05:53

I didn’t think GDPR came into effect until may?

Many of them are working to it already with any £10 being returned if sent.

Op - there is no regulator. It’s a mere trade body. A regulator has powers.

Reply received


Thank you for your email.
In response to your further points raised:

You already have in your possession ALL of the evidence required to make an informed decision about the merits of our
invoice. However, upon receipt of your defence, we may wish to submit further evidence to rebut any points raised;
therefore it is impossible nor is it a requirement for us to provide all of the documents that we intend to submit to the court
at this time.

Having said the above, if there is something specific that you require; please advise accordingly.

We have already narrowed the issues via previous communications, as we see it there are two: Signage and the late
payment fee.

Signage: You have stated that you feel that the signage is inadequate, we disagree. It is clear that there is nothing that
we can state that will change your mind on this, therefore, a judgement is required.

Late Payment Fee: You have stated that we are not entitled to the late payment fee, we disagree. It is clear that there is
nothing that we can state that will change your mind on this, therefore, a judgement is required. We would also AGAIN
bring to your attention, the opportunity for you to complete Box B on the reply form.

The term 'Valid' is self-explanatory, and we are confident that you know only too well what a Valid Ticket is. However, to
humour you.. It is the opposite of 'Invalid'. In the Pay & Display Car Park in question, a valid ticket is a ticket that was
purchased at the car park where the vehicle was parked, and the time/date of expiry printed on the ticket is in the future.
To reiterate, a ticket that is NOT valid is a ticket that either was not purchased in the car park where the vehicle was
parked or where the printed time/date of expiry is in the past.
In your case, no ticket was displayed whatsoever, valid or otherwise; therefore it is unclear as to the purpose of this line of
questioning.

As stated in our previous communication, we are mindful of the stalling tactics used by forumites. We should make you aware that
we are logging the time taken to respond to these numerous communications, as we reserve the right to apply for costs in the event
of a) a judgement in our favour and b) a judgement that you have acted unreasonably by defending a claim with no reasonable
chance of success.

You have not provided all documents you will rely upon now. Given your right to ticket requires a contract to be produced and you have not done so, this would be an obvious document that you currently know you would need to produce,a don is not a hypothetical given I’ve already requested you provide this. Your increasingly desperate attempts o justify not releasing documents you surely already possess is quite amusing, and further reinforces the obvious conclusion that can be drawn about your diligence to date.

I notice you again have failed to explain how a late processing fee is due to a Keeper when pofa makes it clear that only the amount on the NtK can be owed. Please provide an explanation of this, citing how you can ignore not only pofa but the BEAVIS ruling, where only the amount on the NtK was held to be payable to Parking eye.

Your facetious response has been noted. I too am logging my time, and when I prevail - as you have failed to show a cause of action against a keeper where you haven’t complied with pofa, and you know I am not the driver , making your action entirely vexatious and without merit, as well as harassment easily meeting the bar set out in her fusion vs British Gas (something you may not be familiar with - citing a case that not only is on all fours with these circumstances, but that hasn’t been ruled as inapplicable) - I will push for full costs, as well as professional sanctions against your firm.

To counter yet another unfounded assertion of yours: there is no stalling. Im just insisting you meet your obligations and don’t rush into yet another roboclaim that your industry is known for.

there has never been any pictures provided of the apparent lack of a ticket on the dashboard, I'm guessing i should be asking for this as its the basis of the NTK in the first place?

Because you didn't ask for it from the data controller at the PPC. If they refuse they are not only in breach of the DPA, they could have their ICO registration taken away. No ICO - no access.

Technically you could have asked Gladstones under the DPA and they may claim exemption but the ICO says "The fact that legal proceedings are contemplated or ongoing is not an automatic exemption from subject access". No one has tested them so far but it is only a question of time.

This post has been edited by emanresu: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 - 14:01

I have replied, and requested the picture. there has been nothing from gladstone's this is all direct from the parking company

response from the parking company


In response to the salient points in your email dated *****

Please find attached images of your vehicle, the issuing officer will also submit a sworn witness statement confirming that
no ticket was present (and will attend the hearing if necessary).


The only contract of relevance is the contract between yourself and 'A S Parking', which is also attached.

This is by no means a 'robo claim', your case has come about as a direct result of your husbands online bragging; which
is why we are 110% committed to pursuing this matter.


Please be advised that, in the event of non-payment, a claim will be submitted to MCOL on Friday the * April 2018




So looks like they have a personal vendetta!


I would say no ticket present is a direct result of absolutely no lighting or adequate signage in a very large car park

This post has been edited by eggybread1922: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 - 15:54

No he won't attend the hearing.

So would I.


So they just admitted that this has nothing to do with contract law and is a case aiming to penalise you. Strange that, the Beavis case reiterated that the purpose of recovering a charge CANNOT be to penalise. Instead it must have a rare (Beavis case circs were rare) commercial justification.

Yes, the industry is rotten to the core and personal vendettas like this are the stuff of sociopaths, IMHO.

This is so nasty - a really horrendous threat and admission that they are pursuing someone for something their husband wrote online - I would send a copy of that letter to your MP, Trading Standards and to Sir Greg Knight, and a copy to the Parking Prankster and to their landowner client, as this threat needs exposing.

The industry needs crushing into the ground and gone. People like that should not be running a company that writes to consumers, IMHO.


And we are mindful of the DESPICABLE, MONEYGRABBING ''BLOODSUCKER'' (Hansard) tactics of PPC World, and so are Parliament:

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f038...918?in=12:49:41

This is HORRENDOUS, IMHO:


What a complete and utter xxxxxxx

Wow, talk about shooting the selves in the foot there

They’ve admitted they’re doing this to harass someone. Nothing more. Certainly no beavis justification. No commercial I teret at all.

Charming man.

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/kevin-mcmanus-92874634

Recommendations 1 person has recommended Kevin McManus

Only 1 despite "I get inundated with 'connection requests' "

This post has been edited by emanresu: Sun, 1 Apr 2018 - 06:18

Schoolrunmum,

I will forward the email to all of the people you suggested, regarding the landowner I can’t find anything about who owns it anywhere.

Is there anything else specific I should write (apart from the obvious) about the despute? Should I include all correspondence from AS Parking?

Should I let AS Parking know that these people have been made aware?

Nosfetstu1001

Clearly they have no sense, would this admission aid the defence at all? I’m more than happy to go to court - is there any realistic AS parking can be successful with this claim?

You don't really have much choice in the matter if they intend to continue.

Since you were not driving - posts #18 and #25, then it comes down to whether they met KL or they intend to prove you were driving.

It may be useful to put in a costs schedule under CPR 27.14.2.g on the basis that Kevin has clearly read #18 and #25 and intends to continue without the necessary evidence of KL/driving - an abuse of the court process in itself.


Edit: I must express some sympathy for the PPC's here. The CPR clearly says "narrow the issues" which prompts the question do the OP's try to narrow them in the first place or do they use the "spray and pray" templates to be found on Another Site. These S&P's appear to be designed to frustrate the CPR and to bore the PPC to death. No wonder they react as they can get wins further down the line at the WS stage as the OP's are clueless on the relevant issues.

This post has been edited by emanresu: Sun, 1 Apr 2018 - 08:02

The issues have been narrowed by AS Parking, signage and the late payment fee. The signage is very inadequate, completely unlit and small in a large car park. There is only one sign and clearly fails to meet the IPC code of practice

Then only a judge can decide and that's not unreasonable behaviour!

And that is an opinion of someone that wasn't there according to 7 witnesses.

Photographs of the signage and car park have been collected after the infringement took place at the day time and the night time when the infringement occurred. Would it be any advantage to name the driver and let that person contest the invoice on the signage.

You are completely missing the point and wandering all over the place.

The driver could have seen the signs, parked under Kevin's nose and told him to put the ticket where the sun don't shine. It is all irrelevant to the non-driving keeper who wasn't there IF the paperwork doesn't meet the Keeper Liability provisions.

As a judge said the other day to a hapless UKCPM victim "I apply the law as it is, not as I want it to be"