Parking Charge Notice –Wembley Options

[Frazzled]

[Edited]

Hi all,

I think I've read all the stickies/'how to' posts but please flag up anything I've missed.

I am not the RK of this vehicle. The signage around this road is very confusing and the driver thought they were parking on a road with no yellow line. Several other cars where also parked. The driver doesn't understand the reason for the ticket – Reason One: aren't all roads access roads of one type or another!? Reason Two: there aren't any marked bays along that stretch of road. The RK is elderly and is now very worried and wants to pay up. Can't let her do this without getting some advice from you all first so please help!










Thanks,
Frazzled

This post has been edited by Frazzled: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 10:34

[Advertisement]

[nosferatu1001]

By "formal demand", is thi sjust a letter with those words at the top?
It was a formal demand before...

You have a ton of resource here. read every thread on the first page, you will gain an understanding of the issues at play.

[Redivi]

UKCPM uses this title when most companies would call the letter a Final Reminder

A simple reply would be appropriate

Dear Sir

Ref ****

I have received your Formal Demand dated ****

I deny any debt to UK Car Park Management Ltd

I was not the driver and you have failed to meet the conditions of the Protection of Freedoms Act to recover payment from the registered keeper
Even if you had met its requirements, the signage at the location is woefully inadequate

If I receive a properly formatted Letter Before Claim in accordance with the Pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims, I will provide a more detailed reply

I will note the content of any other correspondence but will not respond

Yours Faithfully

This post has been edited by Redivi: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 08:06

[Frazzled]

Thanks for the responses and advice, it's much appreciated. Here is the letter with personal details removed although obviously, I can't do much regarding the images and the date stamp, which I needed a magnifying glass to read! Should those be blacked out too??

[Frazzled]

Thanks for the feedback, will read through the threads on page 1 as suggested.

Redivi: appreciate your comments. Before sending the reply you've suggested, does seeing the letter change anything?

Also, I'll get proof of postage unless you think Signed Delivery is required?

[Steve_999]

Thanks for the feedback, will read through the threads on page 1 as suggested.

Redivi: appreciate your comments. Before sending the reply you've suggested, does seeing the letter change anything?

Also, I'll get proof of postage unless you think Signed Delivery is required?

First Class post from a Post Office with certificate of posting. If you go for a signed-for service and they don't sign for it you have nothing but proof of non-delivery. If you have proof of posting the ball is in their court to prove they didn't receive it.

[Frazzled]

Will do, thanks Steve!

[Frazzled]

Hi all,

Just a quick update – we've now received two further letters. The first from a debt recovery company and the second in response to the appeal, which unfortunately was outside the 28 day time frame as we got confused about the dates. It seems that they are calling the formal demand letter a NTK. Thanks in advance for the help!

[nosferatu1001]

Yes, it doesnt have to say NtK to BE a NtK. NtK is descriptive not required.

You can do nothing except
1) Pay. DO NOT PAY
2) Ignore debt collectors (not bin, ignore) and come back if you get a LBA OR a County Court Claim Form.

[Frazzled]

Thanks very much for that, I appreciate it.

[Frazzled]

Hi everyone,

A CCJ has now been received regarding this charge! Did as instructed and kept the letters/claim demands that were sent but didn't reply.

I know I should have done this already but I'm now reading other posts about forbidding signs, and info from PP about PCM-UK signage and trying to get a clearer understanding.

Someone else had the same issue – http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=125556 – and I noticed the signage had changed since the original formal demand was received. That's good for this case, isn't it?

Someone in that thread suggested this post – http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...25996&st=20 – so will read through that too.

Thanks in advance for your help!

[Sheffield Dave]

By "CCJ", do you mean a Claim Form from NCCBC?

[nosferatu1001]

Indeed, IM guessing you actually mean the CLAIM FORM - please use the *actual name* of forms, not your guess.

What is the issue date?
Have you gone ONLINE and acknowledged the claim - nothing else, no disputing jurisdiction, no writing the defence, etc.

[Frazzled]

By "CCJ", do you mean a Claim Form from NCCBC?

Apologies –I do mean a Claim Form from NCCBC. My mistake.

[Frazzled]

Indeed, IM guessing you actually mean the CLAIM FORM - please use the *actual name* of forms, not your guess.

What is the issue date?
Have you gone ONLINE and acknowledged the claim - nothing else, no disputing jurisdiction, no writing the defence, etc.

You are, of course, quite right, it is a Claim Form. The issue date is 18/07 and I haven't been online yet. I was going to return the form by post but won't now.

[Frazzled]

I know; I’m cutting this too fine as the appeal deadline date is fast approaching! I’ve read several threads now and have cribbed together a defence along the lines of ones people have used previously. I found a couple of great appeal statements on CAG but wasn’t sure if using a lot of the points would make this appeal too long.

Are these points valid? Is this enough/anything that's been missed/does it need beefing up? Have I lifted too heavily or plagiarised? Thanks in advance for any advice and suggestions.



1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the XXth XXXXX 20XX.

2. I was not the driver and you are likely to have failed to meet the conditions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to recover payment from the registered keeper. Even if you had met its requirements, the signage at the location is woefully inadequate. Signage has changed since the parking ticket was issued, which further demonstrates its inadequacies.

3. It is also within your own knowledge that your client is unlikely to have met the requirements for 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and the prescribed Notice to Keeper format and deadline, in order to hold the Registered Keeper of the vehicle liable, pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. [Lifted but think it applies and can reword.]

4. The signage is ‘forbidding’ in nature and does not making an offer of a contract to park so the Claimant cannot state a contract was offered for doing something that was forbidden. The signage stated no parking at any time – as there was no offer of parking, there could be no contract.

5. Without a contract capable of agreement, the vehicle can only be held to be trespassing (which is denied) and the Beavis case Judges at the Supreme Court in 2015 confirmed that ParkingEye could not pursue a charge that was a penalty nor one that fell under the tort of trespass, as they were not in possession of the land.

Trespass remains a matter only for a landowner; a third party parking firm cannot claim a ‘contract’ – this is merely a penalty and as a result, is unenforceable. [Lifted but think it applies and can reword.]

6. There are double yellow lines on the opposite side of the road but not on the side the car was parked, therefore leading people to conclude that parking along that side of the road is permissible. [Leaving this in but pretty sure people will say it’s not relevant and to lose it.]

7. Signage on road clearly says, ‘customers of the Atlip Centre must log their registration into the permit system inside’. This was done; therefore we met the conditions of the signage. The first point on the sign was applicable to the situation so didn’t read any further. [I feel like there may be some value in this point but not entirely sure]

8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £49, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. The sum then jumps to £160.00 once DRP Plus Ltd got involved. Which of these sums are genuine? The Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss cannot be these figures. [Tweaked – I think I’ve got my figures right for this but happy to clarify.]

9. The Defendant denies the Claim in its entirety, asserts that he is not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount.


I would therefor ask that this appeal should be allowed for these reasons.


Name
Signature
Date

This post has been edited by Frazzled: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 - 23:54

[Redivi]

Going back to your earlier posts, you appear to be posting on behalf of somebody else

Who has received the claim ?
Is that person the registered keeper ?
Was that person the driver ?

[Frazzled]

Going back to your earlier posts, you appear to be posting on behalf of somebody else

Who has received the claim ?
Is that person the registered keeper ?
Was that person the driver ?

Hi Redivi,

Thanks for the reply. You're quite right. The RK received the claim and they were not the driver and the driver has not been named.

This post has been edited by Frazzled: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 - 00:17

[Redivi]

Defences have quite a formal style.

Try this

If the Particulars of Claim just quote a PCN reference without any description of what the driver did , include the text in bold

The Defendant denies the Claim in its entirety and asserts for the following reasons that he is not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount.
The Defendant invites the court to strike out or dismiss the claim under Rule 3.4(2)(a) of PRACTICE DIRECTION 3A as having not set out a concise statement of the nature of the claim or disclosed reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim (Part 16.4(1)(a) and PRACTICE DIRECTION 16 paragraphs 3.1-3.8).

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the XXth XXXXX 20XX.

2. The Defendant denies that he was the driver and the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to recover payment from the keeper.

3. Even if the Claimant had met the conditions of POFA, the maximum amount that can be recovered is the original parking charge on the day before the Notice to Keeper was sent. Notwithstanding that the Defendant is incredulous that the Claimant paid the debt collection charges, whether or not the collector was successful, they cannot be recovered from the keeper.
4. The Claimant is not the Landowner and has no capacity to take legal action. The Claimant’s Code of Practice states that the Claimant can only recover charges on its own behalf if it has sufficient right to occupy the land in question. The Claimant is put to proof that it does have occupational rights by, for example, paying rent to occupy the site.

5. The signage at the location was, at the time of the alleged parking event, woefully inadequate and did not comply with the Claimant’s Code of Practice. The signage on road said, ‘customers of the Atlip Centre must log their registration into the permit system inside’. The driver did so in accordance with the instructions. The road was also marked with double yellow signs on the opposite side but not on the side where the car was parked. The driver had every reason to believe that parking on that sidewas permitted. The Defendant is aware that the Claimant has, since this date, changed the signage and submits that the reason was that the Claimant knew it was inadequate.
6. The signage is ‘forbidding’ in nature and does not making an offer of a contract to park. The Claimant’s assertion on its signage that a motorist can agree a contract to perform an action that is forbidden is nonsense.

7. Notwithstanding that the Defendant denies that the driver did anything wrong, a driver that has parked a vehicle without permission has not agreed a contract but would be trespassing. Only the land-owner, not the Claimant, has the capacity to take legal action for trespass. Even if the Claimant did have occupational rights, the damages for trespass are limited to the actual loss or, if none, the benefit gained by the action.

The Defendant invites the Court to use its case management powers to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success.

This post has been edited by Redivi: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 - 01:49

[Frazzled]

Redivi, thank you so much for your guidance and for firming up my appeal.

The PCN gives two reasons: 1. No Parking on Access Roads/Roadways and 2. No Parking Outside of a Marked Bay. I'd call that a description of what the driver did, do you agree?

[nosferatu1001]

DEFENCE. NOT an appeal" youre not appealing anything. Youre defending a county court claim against you. Dont lose sight of that.

Youve misunderstood

The CLAIM FORM must *specify* the supposed claim
Did the claim for say the above two reasons? If not, tehn thats reason to include the above.