PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

£300 ticket for stopping on a retail park
houseallwayswins
post Mon, 13 Jan 2014 - 19:24
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 13 Jan 2014
Member No.: 67,944



Hi, Thanks for any replies in advance. I have been sent here from money saving expert site. I have been sent a charge notice by a local company who think they can charge what they like. It was on a large industrial park where we have an account The unmarked van was half mounted on the path. It was obstructing nothing as the path is about three meters wide and the road like a runway. Nearest car parks were full. I recieved the following letter 26 dayas after the event and it was sent to an address i moved from during this time.
this is the letter they sent
This charge notice has been sent to you as the registered keeper of the above vehicle ("the vehicle"). On the x December 2013 at the location of xxxxxx xxxxxx the vehicle breached the landowners terms and conditions of use, Clearly displayed on the warning signs at the site, By parking/ stopping/ or waiting without due authority or permission. Furthermore, by parking/ stopping/ or waiting on pavement the vehicle committed an unauthorized trespass.
Photographic evidence is enclosed for your attention.
The driver of the vehicle at the relevant time ("the driver") is liable for the charge amount of £300 including vat which constitutes damages suffered by the landowner by way of a pre agreed contractual loss under the terms of an agreement with proserve enforcement solutions. Alternatively, To the extent that the driver was engaged as your agent, You are liable for the same charge/
The landowner does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service of the driver, And invite the keeper to pay the unpaid charge. If you were not the driver of the vehicle, you must notify us of the name of the driver and the current address for service of the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver.
The full charge of £300 is due. The reduced amount of £180 including vat will be accepted if paid within 14 days from the date of this notice.
You have 28 days from service of this notice to pay the amount due, or provide the driver details and their current address for service. failure to provide payment or driver details and their current address for service will result in you becoming legally liable for this charge.
All unpaid charges will be persued via a claim in the county court. This letter will form part of our case for breach of contract or trespass against the keeper of the vehicle; you will also be liable for any administration and out of pocket expenses involved with the recovery of the charge.

This is followed by a payment slip and then bullet points at the bottom say Certified bailiffs-trespass enforcement-parking management-process serving-investigators. There are signs up on the estate stating their penalties but £300 even £180 is taking the piss. I don't like the thought of dvla handing my details to these bullies either

This post has been edited by houseallwayswins: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 - 11:44
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
17 Pages V  « < 9 10 11 12 13 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (200 - 219)
Advertisement
post Mon, 13 Jan 2014 - 19:24
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
dp7
post Tue, 18 Feb 2014 - 13:22
Post #201


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 750
Joined: 1 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,435



QUOTE (Lasty705 @ Mon, 17 Feb 2014 - 22:23) *
I want Valiant to post it, and I notice he still hasn't, go on Valiant chapter 26 proves you are clearly wrong.


What does it matter who posts it? If you've got it, post it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
houseallwayswins
post Thu, 20 Feb 2014 - 21:49
Post #202


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 13 Jan 2014
Member No.: 67,944



Any one know where I should address send a letter to Ransomes?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dandyman
post Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 07:58
Post #203


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,323
Joined: 29 Jun 2013
Member No.: 63,179



Possibly here:

RANSOMES LIMITED
WEST ROAD
RANSOMES EUROPARK
IPSWICH
SUFFOLK
IP3 9TT
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Broadsword
post Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 17:31
Post #204


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,553
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
From: London
Member No.: 3,246



I'm just getting some sketchy details through but it seems that RANSOMES (and Stephen Duff and Proserve) lost a contested hearing this afternoon at Ipswich County Court (case number 3YS16797)

More details will follow in due course.

(I'm posting it here hopefully not to hi-jack the thread but to highlight the case to the OP and those involved in the recent flurry of exchanges)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
houseallwayswins
post Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 17:59
Post #205


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 13 Jan 2014
Member No.: 67,944



thanks dandyman and broadsword that is great news. I was kinda looking forward to fighting them in court as well. Oh well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 18:03
Post #206


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,939
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



Perhaps we could ask Lasty to post up a transcript.


--------------------
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
houseallwayswins
post Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 18:08
Post #207


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 13 Jan 2014
Member No.: 67,944



I am sure there would be quite a few readers of the local newspaper who would be interested in this decision
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Broadsword
post Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 18:11
Post #208


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,553
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
From: London
Member No.: 3,246



QUOTE (ManxRed @ Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 18:03) *
Perhaps we could ask Lasty to post up a transcript.


laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Valiant
post Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 19:03
Post #209


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 323
Joined: 5 Dec 2012
From: Just outside Ipswich
Member No.: 58,708



Attached File  Hamblion_Case.pdf ( 253K ) Number of downloads: 913


My apologies Mr Lasty705 but I have been rather busy advising a chap on a case between him and Ransomes/Proserve today in the Ipswich County Court. Ransomes case was dismissed as Broadsword has said.

As requested I have posted the Hamblion case and whilst you direct readers of this thread to paragraph 26 can we start with paragraph 22 please?

This states that "The issue firstly is as to whether the warning notice is a contractual obligation and I am satisfied that it is". So, there we have it, the Judge said that the nature of Proserve's operation means that there is a contractual situation and not one of trespass. So I think that that is one nil to me in terms of not misleading readers.

Shall we move to your hallowed paragraph 26. It starts by the Judge saying that she is only considering Trespass in terms of what the quantification of damages would be, if there was a trespass, and not whether any trespass took place. Shall we now move to a rather important set of nine words in paragraph 26? They read "I do find there to have been a contract". I think that that is fairly clear. Two nil and game over.

What has to be recognised is that Hamblion was business suing business such that Hamblion did not have the protection of a whole raft of consumer legislation that my man had this afternoon. Also, in the Hamblion case the judge was not afforded the benefit of considering the following key factors and which were placed before the Judge this afternoon:-

1. You can't add VAT to damages - VCS v Ibbotson. HMRC is investigation. In a skeleton argument submitted by Counsel today it was clear that any VAT collected was kept by Ransomes. HMRC is investigating. I think that is about £20,000 odd which appears to be due to HMRC.

2. Mr Robson of Ramsomes admitted, under a Statement of Truth that they actually receive service charge income from the occupiers on the estate to cover their costs for parking management. What? I hear you say - they get paid for managing parking on the estate and then want to be paid by the motorist as well?

3. Mr Robson of Ransomes admitted, under a Statement of Truth, that if any damge is caused to the roads/footpaths by parked cars then the occupiers will have to pay to have that repaired. What? I hear you say - Ramsomes don't pay for any repairs but the occupiers do? What? I hear you say. Does this mean that Ransomes don't actually suffer any loss? What? I hear again - how can you make a claim in the County Court to recover a loss if you haven't suffered a loss? Back in the day when I litigated in Courts you couldn't - perhaps they have changed the rules? Anyway, my man won.

4. Mr Duff signed an application to Court, under a Statement of Truth, on behalf of Ransomes, to say that Ransomes suffered a loss. I wonder if the Cambridge County Court, which granted Mr Duff his licence to operate as a Bailiff, would be interested?

5. The DVLA is trying to investigate Proserve and, as we know, Mr Duff has not been co-operating. The DVLA say that their understanding is that Proserve do not undertake parking enforcement services so do not have to be in the BPA to get data. The DVLA has now been passed a signed witness statement from Mr Duff in which he states, under a Statement of Truth, that his company is a parking enforcement company but do more than your everyday general parking enforcement company.

7. In the skeleton argument, submitted by Counsel on behalf of Ransomes today, it is clearly said that Proserve are under contract to provide parking enforcement services. OOps. This is on its way to the DVLA. So, as I see it there is no further need for the DVLA to seek to engage Proserve in discussion - Mr Duff's sworn statements, and Counsel's skeleton arguments are enough. Time to step up the plate DVLA

8. Mr Duff signed a declaration to the DVLA to say that he would only use data to pursue claims in trespass. He uses that data to pursue claims in contract and the skeleton argument did spend some time reminding the Court that the Judge in Hamblion had decided that they manage under contractual arrangements with motorists. Obtaining data for one purpose but using it for another incompatible purpose is a contravention of the second data protection principle and which the DVLA is trying to investigate. Do the DVLA need to engage Proserve in an investigation when they have Counsels' arguments before a Court? Probably not but that is up to the DVLA. I wonder if the Cambridge County Court, which granted Mr Duff his licence to operate as a Bailiff, would be interested?

Ransomes asked for the right to appeal todays decision and that was granted. It will be interesting to see what their grounds are. Could it be that the decision today has provided the Court with substantial evidence that it can refer to in the other 700 odd cases Ransomes/Proserve have in the pipeline such that they may also lose those cases? So the grounds of appeal are "we are going to lose well in excess of £100,000 if this decision stands and all our other cases are shot to pieces so we have to fight. It's not about the legals. As Jessie J said "it's about the money, money, money.".............But didn't they say that they had been paid service charges by occupier so nthe estate for parking enforcement? Oh yes that's right....I nearly forgot.

Now shall I post on here all the defence papers used so far, for this community to use? Should I post those witness statements as well? It's a connundrum.

I anticipate that by the time we get to an appeal hearing the DVLA should have terminated Proserve's rights to use the data already obtained, and suspended its right to access the DVLA data base, so all those cases should not be heard anyway. So the money money money may be lost. Ah well just have to rely on the service charge income.......

Mr Duff may wish to take advice on whether he can lawfully further process my chap's data, and everyone else's data in order to pursue litigation. Is it time for Ransomes to stop digging and to actaully manage the estate according to appropriate legal protocols. We commented in court today that Ransomes approach to parking enforcement was legally dysfunctional. It's time to get it right. Is that too much to ask for?

According to today's decision the demands for money my chap received were not valid. You can form your own view on what demanding money you are not entitled to means in law. Lasty705 you sent me a personal message in which you commented that Ransomes/Proserve acted lawfully. You also indicated something that only, in my view, my chap and Mr Duff were aware of. Are you Mr Duff? If so, perhaps you would be kind enough to consider a review of the manner in which parking is dealt with on the estate so that this kind of mess does not arise again. Sometimes you just have shrug your shoulders, accpet what has happened and get on with life -cut your cloth and all that. Sleep tight



Valiant





This post has been edited by Valiant: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 19:16
Attached File(s)
Attached File  Hamblion_Case.pdf ( 253K ) Number of downloads: 131
 


--------------------
Remember, when your Solicitor provides advice he always charges more to dig you out of a hole than he does to stop you falling into it
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 19:09
Post #210


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,089
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Home alone
Member No.: 13,324



It won't be the lasty we'll here of this.

Hat off to you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kirkbyinfurnessl...
post Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 19:31
Post #211


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,413
Joined: 14 May 2013
From: Sheffield
Member No.: 61,888



Will you will be helping the respondent at the appeal?

I assume the will be no delay in getting the information to the top honcy at the dvla?

Oh Lasty (aka Duff) are you going to reveal your true self or are you still going to pretend to be someone in manchester?

This post has been edited by kirkbyinfurnesslad: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 19:35


--------------------
www.parkingticketappeals.org.uk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 19:37
Post #212


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,929
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



Outstanding.
t-shirt
sweat-shirt
Hall of Fame run not enough today.
Will have to order special badges now ! (super shiny nice ones)
How many days do they gave to lodge their appeal ?
am not taking e-bets that they actually lodge an appeal. time will tell.

speaking personally I would love to see all the papers and PMs etc
but I guess they are best not published pending the 'appeal'

Point of interest (to me anyway)
Did the private bailiff capacity come up ?


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kirkbyinfurnessl...
post Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 19:53
Post #213


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,413
Joined: 14 May 2013
From: Sheffield
Member No.: 61,888



Pm from "lasty" aka "duff"
QUOTE
Poor Ransomes Park, 1 win 1 loss, never mind you win some you loose some time for a proper decision to be made.


--------------------
www.parkingticketappeals.org.uk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Valiant
post Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 20:30
Post #214


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 323
Joined: 5 Dec 2012
From: Just outside Ipswich
Member No.: 58,708



speaking personally I would love to see all the papers and PMs etc
but I guess they are best not published pending the 'appeal'



From my last post you will see that an olive branch has been held out to Mr Duff/Ransomes, if in fact we are engaging with Mr Duff. It would seem sensible to me for that to be taken up and there will be no need to post all the defence documents on line. A sensible constructive way forward is always prefered. If that is not favoured then I may just post anyway. The appeal timetable is irrelevant. If they wish to appeal they have to firstly decide whether they are legally permited to further process my man's data, and the data of the other 700 or so people they wish to sue. It is a criminal offence to unlawfully process data and in recent cases the fine has been upwards of £250,000. In one case £500,000. Its just a finacial headache isn't it?

Valiant


--------------------
Remember, when your Solicitor provides advice he always charges more to dig you out of a hole than he does to stop you falling into it
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kirkbyinfurnessl...
post Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 20:37
Post #215


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,413
Joined: 14 May 2013
From: Sheffield
Member No.: 61,888



You will get no joy from the likes of McDuff,
You owe them no favours, if they owe money to the public purse they should pay every penny owed

I wouldnt trust that company as far as i could throw throw them and they should have the proverbial book thrown at themOur

As our friend David Cameron said we are all in it together and if they owe large amounts of money to the public purse then every penny helps. They can they be in it together more then others!

This post has been edited by kirkbyinfurnesslad: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 20:39


--------------------
www.parkingticketappeals.org.uk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Valiant
post Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 20:58
Post #216


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 323
Joined: 5 Dec 2012
From: Just outside Ipswich
Member No.: 58,708



On the 18th November Mr Watts of the DVLA wrote to my man and said "ProServe has claimed very strongly that their operations do not involve parking management, and therefore they are not required to obtain membership of an appropriate ATA."

In a skeleton argument given to the Ipswich County Court today, Counsel for Ransomes said

3. In September 2012, C entered into an agreement with Proserve Enforcement Solutions ("Proserve") to provide parking enforcement services ("the Proserve Contract") [NB/§10]. C also caused around 120 warning signs to put up at the Site ("the Signs") [NB/§12 + SD/§8].

So Proserve does provide parking enforcement services.

On the 28th July 2009 the Sec of State issued guidelines to the DVLA as follows:-

"Requiring all car parking enforcement companies to become members of an ATA will also require
them to adhere to an enforceable code of practice. Failure to comply could result in suspension and
expulsion from the ATA, and this would mean that they could no longer apply for information from the
DVLA vehicle record. "

So in court it has been admitted that Proserve undertakes parking enforcement services and the Sec of State requires that no data shall be made available to any parking enforcement company unless they are members of the BPA.

I think that "parking enforcement" in the Secretary of State's direction and "parking enforcement" in Proserve's skeleton argument are the same words don't you?

Proserve must now be suspended from accessing personal data. If it is fofund that they have improperly accessed personal data then their further processing of data to sue folk appears to be unlawful.

Any commes Lasty?


--------------------
Remember, when your Solicitor provides advice he always charges more to dig you out of a hole than he does to stop you falling into it
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lochen
post Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 23:00
Post #217


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 24 Jan 2014
Member No.: 68,242



Congratulations Valliant and your man. Let the floodgates open!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SevenTowers
post Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 23:18
Post #218


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 360
Joined: 9 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,870



QUOTE (Lochen @ Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 23:00) *
Congratulations Valliant and your man. Let the floodgates open!

+1
I haven't followed this thread closely, but read it from start to finish tonight, all I can say is well done to HAW, and to Valiant - I am in awe of you!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dp7
post Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 23:29
Post #219


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 750
Joined: 1 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,435



Absolutely superb stuff Valiant!

Lasty/Duff - another PPC clown with a serious divergence between how smart they think they are, and how smart they actually are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EDW
post Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 23:37
Post #220


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



I'm a bit late to this, sorry, could I see the main pleadings please? If necessary please use a Private Message.

What roll has the ICO played in this thus far?


Has any court commented on the sign wording which I find impossible to comprehend?


'are exposing the owner of the property to a pre-agreed contractual loss............'




This post has been edited by EDW: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 - 23:54
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

17 Pages V  « < 9 10 11 12 13 > » 
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: Friday, 24th September 2021 - 09:31
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.