PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Parking Control Management PCM, driver stopped for 1 min on private road, E11 Leytonstone
WapChimney
post Wed, 24 May 2017 - 23:24
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 166
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,208



I am the registered keeper of a vehicle that was photographed stopped on a private section of Joseph Ray Road, Leytonstone, E11. I have received a Parking Charge from Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd (PCM).

I believe the vehicle was stopped for no more than 60 seconds, before it was then driven away. The photograph was taken during this 1 minute by a man lurking at one end of the road, dressed in casual clothing.

Attached is the letter I received.

Any advice on best course of action would be appreciated. Thanks. smile.gif

This post has been edited by WapChimney: Fri, 26 May 2017 - 23:25
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Wed, 24 May 2017 - 23:24
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 13:04
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,936
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Given them a deadline to respond of 14 days, as they should already have all this info
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WapChimney
post Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 13:16
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 166
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,208



Cool, thanks, will add:

"I look forward to your response within 14 days, after which if no communication is received I will consider this matter closed."

OK?


This post has been edited by WapChimney: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 10:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WapChimney
post Wed, 18 Oct 2017 - 16:07
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 166
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,208



Received what I assume is the new style Claim Form today, from Gladstones. No cover letter, just the form and the response pack with sheets for Admission or Defence and Counterclaim.

I assume I want to be filling out the Defence part? I have 14 days.

What sort of defence do I make? That I couldn't have read and understood their sign in under a minute, and that PCM broke the code of conduct regarding time in issuing a payment request?

Can I counterclaim? Eg for my time wasted over this spurious claim?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Wed, 18 Oct 2017 - 16:20
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,712
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



QUOTE
I assume I want to be filling out the Defence part? I have 14 days.


No, first you need to confirm it is a proper claim form from Northampton, it should not have come from Gladstones.

If it is genuine then you acknowledge online, do not contest jurisdiction unless you are in Scotland or NI, you will be defending in full, leave the defence box completely empty, not a comma or dot.

You then gain another 14 days giving a total of 33 days from the date of issue of the claim.

You best post a copy of the claim form with personal details hidden, the genuine claim form looks amateurish but it would not be the first time a filled in claim form has been sent by a PPC but not yet been lodged at the court as a pressure tactic.

From small claims advice to claimants (ie Gladstones)

QUOTE
The court will stamp the claim form and in most cases, serve it on the defendant. You'll get a 'notice of issue' - a document with the case number on
it.


So if it came from Gladstones it does not smell right.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 00:39
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,936
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



No response to your letter?

Then they’re in breach of the PAP

As part of the defence I would ask for a hearing to strike the claim for failure to follow directions. As this is before allocation, they are NOT protected£ by costs

You cannot counterclaim fir your wasted time. That is costs. Look,up what costs are allowed on the small claims track.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WapChimney
post Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 15:41
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 166
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,208



Thanks kommando and nosferatu1001.

The form does appear to be a proper claim form from Northampton. I have attached the first 3 pages before I ran out of attachment space. Is there somewhere else I can safely host the other 4 pages?

No letter has arrived, nor one included. Is that omission a bit of a grey area for me to use as a strike, because their initial Letter Before Claim came before these new rules applied. I feel I'm in a bit of a no-man's land?

Regarding costs allowed, it seems to be just travel, loss of earnings and accommodation if I go to court?


This post has been edited by WapChimney: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 15:47
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 16:00
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,692
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



That's a valid claim. No need for the rest of the pages. First thing is straight on to the web site given, together with the password and acknowledge the claim. That gives you 33 days from the issue date to submit your defence.

Loss of earnings, max £95 per day, travel and parking. Why accommodation? It will, eventually, be at your local court.

Rubbish particulars of caim. Is it against the keeper or driver? Different defences needed. There are no reason given for the contravention.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WapChimney
post Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 11:20
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 166
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,208



OK, I have acknowledged the claim (I think! - it's called 'Acknowledgement of Service' on the Moneyclaim site?).

@ostell - the Particulars of Claim mention driver and keeper. It says:

QUOTE
The driver of the vehicle registration XXXXXXX (the 'Vehicle') incurred the parking charge(s) on XX/XX/XXXX for breaching the terms on the land at Joseph Ray Road - E11.
The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £160 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £4.11 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgment at £0.04 per day.




This post has been edited by WapChimney: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 11:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 12:18
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,936
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yes of course they mention both. Gladstones do NO diligence at all when filing, so they try to cover all bases. So your defence needs to crib from the 2017 ONLY defences to any GLADSTONES issued claim (parking co is almost irrelevant) and you need to defend AS KEEPER throughout (so never ever ID the driver)

Post here for critique.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WapChimney
post Tue, 24 Oct 2017 - 21:48
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 166
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,208



Thanks nosferatu1001.

OK, here's my first draft. The last two paragraphs I have found from elsewhere, but is pretty much what I want to say and can't think how I could word it better. The point about HMCS identifying 1000 or so spurious claims - does anyone know where that figure came from as I've seen it used many times but can't find the source?

QUOTE
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

It is admitted that the defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

The vehicle was photographed stopped on a private section of Joseph Ray Road, Leytonstone, E11 on XX/XX/XXXX. The vehicle was stationary for less than 60 seconds. As registered keeper of the vehicle the defendant received a 'Parking Charge' for #XXX from Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd (PCM) on XX/XX/XXXX.

The defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:


1. The claimant has breached the directions of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims by issuing only a Claim Form and a Response Pack, and not the required detailed Letter of Claim, thereby making this claim invalid.

2. The claimant has not identified who they are claiming against in their Particulars of Claim, stating it might be either the driver or the registered keeper.

3. The claimant gives no reason for the alleged 'contravention'. The particulars of claim therefore do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached.

4. No contract was formed at the time of the alleged incident because no grace period was given by the claimant. The vehicle was stopped for less than 60 seconds, which isn't enough time for a driver to pull up, get out of the car, read the terms and leave.

This is also against two points of the IPC Code of Conduct which the claimant is bound by:

14. Predatory Tactics
14.1 You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance and will be dealt with under the sanctions system as defined in schedule 2 to the Code.

15. Grace Periods
15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.

5. No contract was formed at the time of the alleged incident as there was no offer of parking made by the claimant. The signage at the site uses forbidding language, with the largest text on the sign saying NO PARKING ON THIS ROADWAY AT ANY TIME. (See attached: Photo 01)

The claimant is well aware that their signage forms no contract as they have had several similar cases rejected in 2016 for this exact point, based on an almost identical sign in High Wycombe (see attached: Photo 02). Namely:

B4GF26K6 PCM (UK) v Bull
B4GF27K3 PCM (UK) v Woolford
B4GF26K2 PCM (UK) v Lindsay

6. The claimant is not the lawful occupier of the land and it is disputed that the claimant has authority to operate on this land and issue charges in its own name. At best the claimant is merely the agent of the lawful occupier and is therefore the wrong claimant. If the claimant believes otherwise then he must produce his full, unredacted contract with the lawful occupier, which authorizes him to so operate in his own name.

The claimant's solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1,000 similar poorly produced claims. This case is another 'roboclaim' which is not only unfair on unrepresented consumers, but also demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court.

Thoughts?


This post has been edited by WapChimney: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 - 21:52
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 08:35
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,936
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Failing to follow the PAP does not make the claim "invalid".

Frankly it is still about half the length of most defences. The preliminary matters section - about the breach of the CPR and PD - is about the length of that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WapChimney
post Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 15:27
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 166
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,208



Thanks for the feedback. Gotcha, so the claim isn't invalid, just in breach of PAP? Should I ask for the claim to be struck out for that reason at the end of that first point, or wait and mention it right at the end?

Is being only half as long as other defences a problem? Ie have I missed stuff out, or are arguments not clear enough/given enough background info? I was deliberately trying to keep it concise as I do often rabble on.

Not quite sure what you mean by CPR? Or what your last sentence is meaning?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 16:23
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,461
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Direction. (Basically the rules and processes for civil action)


--------------------
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

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, 26 Oct 2017 - 06:37
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,936
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



If you havent seen the term CPR before, you are NOT looking at defences as the Gladstones relevant "preliminary matters" section states that repeatedly.

yes, it is a problem because as a start, you have not attacked the construction of the claim well enough. The aim is to show you were disadvantaged massively by the poor PoC. Your defence does NOT do that well enough.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

Newbies thread, post 2 is written by Bargepole (another name you should be familiar with through your research) and gives links to a couple recent defences. Read, UNDERSTAND, and adapt your defence to suit.

As long as you stick to legal arguments, you dont need to be too concise. As you get ONE SHOT at this, verbosity can be more helpful.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WapChimney
post Mon, 6 Nov 2017 - 20:41
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 166
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,208



Ok guys, I've had another go at this, giving reasons for my arguments, borrowing a bit more from a few others' templates.

Gotta say I'm finding this so difficult, I've nearly thrown the towel in a couple of times, hence me being so long replying. I know all the information is out there, but sorting it into something structured, convincing and applicable to my case is an uphill struggle.

QUOTE
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

It is admitted that the defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

The vehicle was photographed stopped on a private section of Joseph Ray Road, Leytonstone, E11 on XX/XX/XXXX. The vehicle was stationary for less than 60 seconds. As registered keeper of the vehicle the defendant received a 'Parking Charge' for #XXX from Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd (PCM) on XX/XX/XXXX.

The defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:


1. The claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017) by failing to issue the required detailed Letter of Claim. A Claim Form (with the sparsest of detail) and a Response Pack were the only documents received by the defendant after a request was specifically made by the defendant for a detailed Letter of Claim and supporting Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims pack.

As an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the defendant.


2. The Particulars of Claim is vague and gives no reason for the alleged 'contravention', no cause of action to give rise to any debt, nor a copy of any alleged contract; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.

The claim fails to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 and merely provides a date and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. The claim also states "parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable" which gives no indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. This has denied the defendant a fair chance to prepare a specific defence, or defend this claim in any informed way.


3. The defendant disputes that any contract was ever formed at the time of the alleged incident because no grace period was given by the claimant in order for a contract to be considered. The vehicle was stopped for less than 60 seconds, which isn't enough time for a driver to pull up, get out of the car, read the terms and leave.

As well as being unreasonable, this is also against two points of the IPC Code of Conduct which the claimant is bound by:

14. Predatory Tactics
14.1 You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance and will be dealt with under the sanctions system as defined in schedule 2 to the Code.

15. Grace Periods
15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.


4. The defendant disputes that any contract was ever formed at the time of the alleged incident as there was no offer of parking made by the claimant. The signage at the site uses forbidding language, with the largest text on the sign saying NO PARKING ON THIS ROADWAY AT ANY TIME. (See attached: Photo 01)

The claimant is well aware that their signage forms no contract as they have had several similar cases rejected in 2016 for this exact point, based on an almost identical sign in High Wycombe (see attached: Photo 02). Namely:

B4GF26K6 PCM (UK) v Bull
B4GF27K3 PCM (UK) v Woolford
B4GF26K2 PCM (UK) v Lindsay


5. The claimant is not the lawful occupier of the land and it is disputed that the claimant has authority to operate on this land and issue charges in its own name. At best the claimant is merely the agent of the lawful occupier and is therefore the wrong claimant. If the claimant believes otherwise then he must produce his full, unredacted contract with the lawful occupier, which authorizes him to so operate in his own name.


6. The claimant's solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1,000 similar poorly produced claims. This case is another 'roboclaim' which is not only unfair on unrepresented consumers, but also demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court.


7. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the Courts should be seen to support.


8. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4 and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

Reactions please...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WapChimney
post Thu, 9 Nov 2017 - 09:44
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 166
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,208



Anyone... anyone..?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 9 Nov 2017 - 10:04
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,936
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



It has the main points. You can see that. It is similar enough that you can expand those points in the witness statement

You need to dispute the £50 filing fee; that is only a max, not a set amount, and you put them to strict proof it was invoiced AND PAID, and you dispute that £50 worth of time was taken given the PoC are sparse at only X characters of the 1080 allowed by MCOL, and are identical bar one or two words to the othe rgladstones claims.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WapChimney
post Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 19:53
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 166
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,208



Thanks for that point nosferatu1001.

Would something like this be acceptable at the end of my defence?:

QUOTE
9. The defendant disputes that the claimant incurred the maximum £50 filing fee, as demonstrated by the extremely vague particulars of claim, which is only 2 sentences long (388 characters in total). From a quick search on the internet it can be seen as almost identical in wording to many similar claims the claimant has filed in the last 12 months and the defendeant suggests it is merely a copy and pasted stock claim, requiring minimum time and effort. The defendent requests strict proof from the claimant that this fee was both invoiced and paid for in order for it to be accepted as a legitimate cost.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 09:27
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,936
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



The defandant puts the claimant to strict proof that this fee was ...., delete the bit about "legitimate cost", thats not your decision to make. You put them to strict proof that the time spent justifies the £50 fee as well - think of it as 2 elemtns

1) did they really spend enough time to justify £50?
2) even if they did, was this actually paid?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 09:56
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,461
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



CPR allows these as 'fixed costs' (See 45.1)

The only caveat is '(1) This Section sets out the amounts which, unless the court orders otherwise, are to be allowed in respect of legal representatives’ charges.'

Of course worth a challenge - it's a nice little earner for the PPC's... Ironically, I'd hazard a guess more profit is made from those paying up to avoid court than simply paying at the discount. Which is why some firms issue these like confetti.


--------------------
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

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

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
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: Tuesday, 24th April 2018 - 01:09
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.