Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: County Court Action from PPC
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
manfred77
In september last year my daughter received a letter from a well known PPC demanding £75 for an unspecified parking notice charge issued in a local retail park. On her behalf i replied asking why this charge was being made as she had no knowledge of it. They just sent a further demand. She wrote back asking again for details. Again just a standard response asking for m more money. After receiving a notice of legal action in december she wrote back and said please produce evidence that i owe you this money and received no reply.
After 7 months of silence she has today received a Money Claim Online form from these people claiming £300 in acrued charges.
Help would be appreciated.
uknational
More details needed.

What PPC was it? Scan in the paperwork they sent you, especially the Money Claim Online paperwork. Remove all identifying personal info first.
manfred77
One of the problems we have is that as we last heard from them over 7 months ago i destroyed all the paperwork during a clean out last week! Is it ok to name the ppc as i understand they trawl these sites. They appear to have ignored us for 7 months so that they can claim £3 per day in the meantime!
uknational
scan the money claim online form, whatever you have got, cleaned up. We need to know exactly whats been sent. More details needed - what retail park?
I am Weasel
Please also give an account of exactly what has occured including dates etc
Glacier2
The £3 a day leaves only 2 suspects.
quickboy
QUOTE (Glacier2 @ Fri, 10 Jul 2009 - 20:59) *
The £3 a day leaves only 2 suspects.

Come on Steve, own up to it! laugh.gif
manfred77
When the first demands arrived they did not say exactly what the charge was for which is why we queried it. My daughter has no recollection of any ticket placed on her car plus the fact i had used her car that day to go to the same park. They ignored all requests to expand on the reason and to supply any proof. When the Court papers arrived today they said for the first time that it was for parking in one of their disabled bays. I cant scan until tomorrow as i have issues with my scanner.
Ihate Clampers
well the PPC would be entitiled to try and claim 8% interest from the date of the "offence" ... there is no way a judge is going to agree to £3 per day .. interest or "admin charge" or whatever!!!
ianagarrison
Doesn't it strike you all as odd that there have been several court claims all in the space of a week?
Glacier2
It does. I suspect this is UKCPS again.
ianagarrison
I sense a concerted effort on behalf of the PPC's to make a point, and hopefully make something stick.

Feeble nethertheless.
bama
takings are down for sure.
spending time in court also hits their profits so desperation has set in.
could be a feeble attempt to 'make stats'
Some common impetus or strategy is self evident.

I wonder of one of this flurry of cases will result in a win for the PPC that then gets appealed all the way to a court of record ?
andy_foster
Shhhhh!
Teufel
interetsing high court action over foxtons estate agents

AGREED AND SIGNED contract terms were invalidated as unfair - a 'trap'

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2009/83-09

important case over the application of

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999
Alexis
You should have received some help by now for your court case.
bama
QUOTE (Teufel @ Sat, 11 Jul 2009 - 16:15) *
interetsing high court action over foxtons estate agents

AGREED AND SIGNED contract terms were invalidated as unfair - a 'trap'

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2009/83-09

important case over the application of

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999


Interesting they went via UTCCR and not S.8 Enterprise Act (and the Estate Agents Act).

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031594.htm leads me to believe that the more that complain to TS about PPCs the better - PPCs for sure are caught by the Enterprise Act IMV. This meshes nicely with CPUTR I believe.
seagull09
QUOTE (bama @ Sat, 11 Jul 2009 - 18:10) *
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031594.htm leads me to believe that the more that complain to TS about PPCs the better - PPCs for sure are caught by the Enterprise Act IMV. This meshes nicely with CPUTR I believe.


Which part of the actual Enterprise Act should I look at to tie in with the above, please? Interested to learn more.

EDIT: I've found the part referring to the SI in 234 (6) and (7) but not sure how this is used by the Act. Been a long day... wink.gif
manfred77
I have scanned and washed and posted below,i hope

Alexis
Hard to see! £3 'late payment fees' are utterly laughable - they cannot make up figures: they have to prove actual loss.
bama
QUOTE (seagull09 @ Sat, 11 Jul 2009 - 18:24) *
QUOTE (bama @ Sat, 11 Jul 2009 - 18:10) *
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031594.htm leads me to believe that the more that complain to TS about PPCs the better - PPCs for sure are caught by the Enterprise Act IMV. This meshes nicely with CPUTR I believe.


Which part of the actual Enterprise Act should I look at to tie in with the above, please? Interested to learn more.

EDIT: I've found the part referring to the SI in 234 (6) and (7) but not sure how this is used by the Act. Been a long day... wink.gif

S.8

Enforcement of consumer protection legislation

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_..._act/oft512.pdf
seagull09
Thanks bama!

All makes sense now. Let's hope these enforcers bring a few court actions against the PPCs in due course... but I won't be holding my breath! As you say, it needs as many as possible to go to TS.
I am Weasel
Your defence should be along the lines of:-

the claim should be dismissed as it imposes an unfair penalty. Private Parking Companies have no statutory authority to levy fines & penalty charges, but rely on the law of contract as the basis for claiming and enforcing penalty notices. This differs from notices issued by police or local authorities that are issued pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 1991.

The long established remedy for breach of contract is damages and the measure of the same is to put the injured party in the same position had the breach not occurred. Clearly, therefore in this instance the loss sustained is nowhere near the figure claimed. It is trite law (Wilson v Love 1896, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v New Garage Motor 1915 et al) that a penalty cannot be imposed for breach of contract, i.e. where the sum bears no relation to the potential loss.

The carpark in which I parked was free therefore there can be no loss sustained by the landowner, let alone any by the claimant acting as the agent of the landowner. Therefore the claim clearly represents an unreasonable and disproportionate penalty and thus must be dismissed.



I'm sure there is a further argument in contract law regarding the offering and acceptance of the original contract wen the car was actually parked, but its Sunday morning and the grey matter ain't up to constructing one at the moment. Do you have the demands from the PPC - they often shoot themselves in the foot in the wording of these
manfred77
One of the problems we have is that as it had been 6 months since we sent them a "put up or shut up" letter demanding proof, my daughter destroyed all their letters oin a spring clean. Surely any calculation for interest should stop as soon as it disputed, not left ticking away in the background whilst everyone thinks it is resolved. They have as yet not provided a breakdown of the costs nor offered any proof that she was in fact the driver. The original demand claimed that as the registered keeper she was responsible.
i am having trouble with my scanner so i have copied the details off the claim form

Money claim for the payment of Parking Notice Charge plus late payment fees owed by the defendant …..to the claimant …. in respect of vehicle xxxx which was parked on private land, namely xxx retail park on xxx at xxx hours in a disabled bay without a valid permit on display. XXX entered into a contract with xxx by parking her vehicle on the said land and thereby agreed to pay the parking charge of £75 plus £3 per day late payment fees if payment was not received within 10 days. Xx have photographic evidence of vehicle xxx parked and obstructing private land. To date the defendant has made no attempt to pay the amount due, despite having been sent five reminder letters. Notice of intended legal action was sent on xx12/2008 to which we relieved no response.

They have also spelt her name wrong i.e. Beker not Baker. Is that relevant?
emanresu
Correct me if I am wrong but by using the Moneyclaim system, the PPC has ADDED to his costs.

If you go back and refute the claim i.e. cut and paste IaW's response then the PPC has to wait 28 days and them pay HMCS again to bring the claim into the "human" version of small claims. MCOL is just a pre-court system.

Seems to me the PPC has thrown away £30 just to see if they can get a bite here. Either that or they are too stupid for words....


Edit: On further thought, I've seen this tactic before. Wait until the driver has binned the info and then send the MCOL claim. Must work or they wouldn't try it on.

Just enter a defence - anything - as it puts the ball back in their court (no pun intended) for them to fork out more money to bring it into HMCS.

By the way who are these astute legal experts / scum.
Glacier2
How do they know the defendant parked the car?

PPCs are not known for their intelligence.
manfred77
Once it goes outside MCOL does that increase the costs for the defendant?
emanresu
The simple answer is yes in that they will add the second £30 - if it goes that far.

If it does the PPC will nominate a court local to them. You can apply for it to be moved to your local court. (Their tactic will be to use this to add travelling costs - upping the ante).

On the other hand, the MCOL system is to prevent small claims getting to the Small Claims court!! Anything at this stage the PPC adds, you can counter claim for your expenses in defending what is a vexatious claim. Courts will not look too kindly at PPC with a stream of claims like this with an obvious track record of close-to-fraud actions.

It may be your are merely been chosen for a quick and easy win. As far as you know is there any reason why this PPC has picked on you?

Edit: I have assumed that there is enough in this thread for the PPC to identify you. That being the case, you may want to consider putting in your response and waiting. If it does go to the next stage. I would recommend moving to PM's so that any further reponses are off-board.
andy_foster
QUOTE (I am Weasel @ Sun, 12 Jul 2009 - 08:32) *
The carpark in which I parked was free therefore there can be no loss sustained by the landowner, let alone any by the claimant acting as the agent of the landowner. Therefore the claim clearly represents an unreasonable and disproportionate penalty and thus must be dismissed.


When did the PPC become an agent? If they are, how are they able to sue solely under their own name?
Glacier2
UKCPS pick their court battles very carefully. There must be an admission of driving on a thread on CAG or elsewhere.
bama
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sun, 12 Jul 2009 - 12:48) *
QUOTE (I am Weasel @ Sun, 12 Jul 2009 - 08:32) *
The carpark in which I parked was free therefore there can be no loss sustained by the landowner, let alone any by the claimant acting as the agent of the landowner. Therefore the claim clearly represents an unreasonable and disproportionate penalty and thus must be dismissed.


When did the PPC become an agent? If they are, how are they able to sue solely under their own name?


Indeedydoody !
Alexis
QUOTE
One of the problems we have is that as it had been 6 months since we sent them a "put up or shut up" letter demanding proof, my daughter destroyed all their letters oin a spring clean.


I was under the impression you found the first couple of threatening letters from the company in question?
manfred77
Yes,that's right and thanks to a free download i have recovered the letters to them that she had deleted on the computer. Isn.t technology a wonderful thing.
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 © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.