Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Letter AFTER LBCCC from Parking Eye
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
Videoman
Hi Everybody!
I have received two LBCCC from PE for two different alleged infringements.

I followed Gans ( I think ) advice and sent them this letter for both......

[i]'' This is the first that I have heard of this matter.
Without more information, I cannot possibly know whether or not the driver owes any payment to your company.

Please send me a copy of the original Parking Notice that you had sent to a previous address.

I dispute your statement that referring the matter to POPLA is impossible.
It is only your own company policy that prevents you allowing a longer appeal period than the minimum mandated by the BPA Code of Practice.

The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015 expect that it should be available for 12 months. Furthermore, the Practice Direction that you claim to follow is clear that litigation is a last resort. Refusing access to ADR for a trivial reason when I have no idea what this is about is unreasonable.

Regarding your comments regarding amended defences and that new points must not be introduced in witness statements, I will hold your company to the same conditions and request that your own statement is excluded if they are breached.

I will provide a more detailed reply when I receive the Parking Notice.


Yours Faithfully,''


PE have sent me two duplicate letters in response, containing photographs of cars and number plates etc. thanking me for my correspondence. Click to view attachment

One of these letters explaining where and the date the vehicle was supposed to have parked OVERNIGHT is erroneous ... No possible way would the vehicle have been there overnight.......what do I do about this please ?
And as for the second letter, how do I respond to that please?

Thank you in anticipation for your replies .
Videoman
peterguk
Press "report" and ask a mod to move your post to the correct forum.
Videoman
will do huh.gif .... my buttons are very sensitive and must have pressed the wrong box. Cheers for the heads-up.
Jlc
QUOTE (Videoman @ Tue, 28 Feb 2017 - 15:16) *
One of these letters explaining where and the date the vehicle was supposed to have parked OVERNIGHT is erroneous ... No possible way would the vehicle have been there overnight.......what do I do about this please ?

Was it your vehicle?

It if was, is it a possible 'double dip' where multiple entries and exits have been conflated to a long single visit?
ostell
Little bit naughty of PE stating that it is you are responsible for informing them of the driver details. There is no requirement to name the driver.
Jlc
QUOTE (ostell @ Tue, 28 Feb 2017 - 17:13) *
Little bit naughty of PE stating that it is you are responsible for informing them of the driver details. There is no requirement to name the driver.

Well, they can invite the keeper to name the driver. (And warn them of the consequences if they don't, assuming they have met the necessary conditions to pursue the keeper)
ostell
QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 28 Feb 2017 - 17:17) *
Well, they can invite the keeper to name the driver. (And warn them of the consequences if they don't, assuming they have met the necessary conditions to pursue the keeper)


They did quote the POFA requirement but then went on further to say that it was the keepers responsibility to provide the drivers details, implying a requirement.
peterguk
QUOTE (Videoman @ Tue, 28 Feb 2017 - 15:16) *
I have received two LBCCC from PE for two different alleged infringements.

Please send me a copy of the original Parking Notice that you had sent to a previous address.


So you moved after the alleged infringments, and the LBCCCs have been sent to you at your new address?
Videoman
Not moved house or anything. Seriously, I had no idea what the first alleged infringement was about until I received the letter AFTER the LBCCC which detailed pics and times etc. The possibility of a 'double dip' is definitely on track. The camera, I presume, is on the gateway in and out and at the time WAS used a few times a week. But how do I address either of the responses please?
peterguk
QUOTE (Videoman @ Tue, 28 Feb 2017 - 18:03) *
Not moved house or anything.


So why write this "Please send me a copy of the original Parking Notice that you had sent to a previous address."?
Videoman
Thank you Peterguk,
I had not properly read the default letter that Gan had suggested that I write and I took the 'previous address' meaning an address that PE had previously sent their letter to, and that was the reason that I hadnt received it.

I have saved a response as a default for a reply to their ' letter after LBCCC ' and wondered what you think...

Dear Sir

Ref ****

Thank You for your letter dated * February 2017 refusing my request to resolve the dispute by your trade association's standard ADR.

If I understand your position correctly, the reason that ADR is not available is that you are not prepared to consider an internal appeal more than 28 days after the parking notice was served.
The internal appeal is a pre-requisite before you will issue the validation code to refer the matter to POPLA, your ADR provider.
Your justification for this position is that it is in line with Para 22.7 of the BPA Code of Practice that you have quoted :

We consider it a reasonable timescale to allow 28 days from the issue of the parking notice (in whatever format you send it) to allow the driver, keeper or hirer to challenge the enforcement action

The implication of Para 22.7 is that 28 days represents a minimum period and nothing other than the minor inconvenience prevents you considering an appeal at any later time.

I have referred to the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct, as you have suggested and your reason, in my view, falls well short of its requirement

8. Litigation should be a last resort. As part of a relevant pre-action protocol or this Practice Direction, the parties should consider whether negotiation or some other form of ADR might enable them to settle their dispute without commencing proceedings.

I am therefore requesting for a second time that you provide access to the normal appeal process or an explanation why it is in practice impossible rather than merely inconvenient.
I refer you to Para 11 of the Practice Direction regarding the consequences for costs of a refusal to participate in ADR.

Regarding the other points in your letter, I will address these at the appropriate time according to the eventual forum in which our dispute is to be decided.

I await your response

Yours Faithfully


I must admit that I do not understand a lot of the legal terminology that you lads use.
I would also like to respond to the 'charge' that I received from PE the one that I vehemently deny could ever have happened, if you do not mind.
Many Thanks.
Videoman
Jlc
QUOTE (Videoman @ Wed, 1 Mar 2017 - 20:47) *
I must admit that I do not understand a lot of the legal terminology that you lads use.

Rule 1 is that you should never write anything yourself that you do not understand. Check here first - someone will answer...

QUOTE (Videoman @ Wed, 1 Mar 2017 - 20:47) *
I would also like to respond to the 'charge' that I received from PE the one that I vehemently deny could ever have happened, if you do not mind.

Yes, if it's a double dip then there's potentially an argument that your personal information is being processed 'unlawfully'. But at the moment there is not a prima facie case for that - but there's no harm in 'warning' them that there's clearly an error with their ANPR as the car did not stay for the duration claimed. You can add 'I reserve my position regarding legal action against ParkingEye for unlawfully retaining and misusing my personal information'.
Videoman
Thank you, Jlc.
I understand the 1st Rule.
As for the 'double dip' possibility, I will write and post a reply on here for PE tomorrow or Friday before sending it off.
Would the proposed 'default' letter about the other alleged infringement be acceptable, do you think?
Than you
Videoman
Videoman
What do people think of my reply to the letter AFTER the LBCCC, does it make sense to send it after their reply?
Thank you
Videoman
Hi Everybody, as promised here is the letter that I propose to send to PE about the potential 'double dip' and replying to their letter which stated their 'facts' ( with photos etc ) again...

Dear Sir
Thank you for your letter dated ** February 2017.
As I explained to you in my letter dated * January 2017, your letter dated * January 2017 was the first time that I had been notified of the alleged infringement of your rules.

I have noted that your reply of ** February has not made any mention of the POPLA appeal that my reply asked for or comment regarding the Practise Direction, which you claim to follow, whereby litigation is a last resort.

Notwithstanding those points, I must convey to you the distinct possibility that your ANPR apparatus at the Service Station in question and at the date and time of your allegation is clearly at fault as there is no possibility whatsoever that the vehicle reg no ***** would have stayed for the duration claimed at this location. There may be an occurrence of a ‘double dip’ situation whereby the vehicle that you have photographed has passed-by the camera many times during the dates that you mention causing an erroneous reading.
Of course, if your ANPR apparatus is at fault, then there is the potential that my personal information is being processed unlawfully and I must add that I reserve my position regarding legal action against ParkingEye for unlawfully retaining and misusing my personal information
.

How does that sound, please?
Thank you.

HOWEVER, I have found a fellow in a very similar situation to me in 2015 and Gans advice for a reply to him then was this....

Dear Sir

Ref ****

I am challenging this parking notice

The vehicle was not present for nine hours

It made two visits that included the use of a side entrance
On neither occasion was it parked
Your ANPR system is therefore in error

Your own photographs appear to show two entries and no exit

I require that the parking notice is cancelled

Thank You

Yours Faithfully


Your opinions are well received,
Thank you.
Videoman
... and this is interesting regarding 'double dipping' too ... :-)
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...protection.html
SchoolRunMum
Use Gan's version as your base. Says it like it is, assertive but concise as usual.

You could also add a short paragraph telling them it is ludicrous to suggest a car would have parked overnight at this location and it was not. Therefore, they must treat this contact as a Section 10 Notice under the DPA as it is a formal request to 'cease processing' your data because it is causing significant distress and worry about the threat of being dragged to court and PE had no reasonable cause to obtain the registered keeper data at all in a double-visit case, which emanates purely from a fault in their system and alleged (but often seen to fail) '19 point check' (maybe they need a 20th check?!).

BTW you can sort this by email. Avoid sending postal letters to ParkingEye as they appear to lose them far too often & it causes delay:

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

Reply and repeat your stance EVERY time, be a thorn in their side.

HTH
Videoman
Thank you School Run Mum, how does this sound?

Dear Sir

Ref ****

I am challenging this parking notice

The vehicle was not present for over twelve hours and it is ludicrous to suggest a car would have parked overnight at this location and it was not!

The vehicle in your photograph had made two or more visits that included the use of a side entrance.
On neither occasion was it parked.
Your ANPR system is therefore in error as you well know, due to the fact that many people have had to suffer similar instances of your company sending out upsetting letters that have no credence.
Therefore, you must treat this contact as a Section 10 Notice under the DPA as it is a formal request to cease processing my data because it is causing significant distress and worry about the threat of being dragged to court where Parking Eye had no reasonable cause to obtain the registered keeper data at all in a double-visit case, which emanates purely from a fault in your system and your alleged '19 point check' .

Your own photographs appear to show two entries and no exit

I require that the parking notice is cancelled

Thank You

Yours Faithfully

I will send this as an email as soon as you give it the all-clear, Mum :-) . Thank you again
** I am sending it off now... as I want PE to have it when they arrive today.
Videoman
As to regards to the other alleged infringement at a Morrisons Supermarket , I have sent Morrisons an email and had a reply to say that they were looking into the situation. :-)
customerservice@morrisonsplc.co.uk

** UPDATE... Morrisons have cancelled the PCN of this vehicle :-)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.