just remember DYL's are purely tarmac graffiti on private land

dx

signage prohibitive so they are sunk

as they have lost a claim on this point you can ask for a full costs recovery order under CPR27.4 as they have no chance of success.

They may well discontinue if you do that to save money.

As your case hasnt been allocted time yet you dont need to submit anything but you may well be asked to as a case management order.

This will normally allow the judge to consider the paperwork and then chuck the case out if there is no real prospect of success so any case mentioning the signage being prohibitive will walk through this.

Do I have the opportunity to sue them for breach of the DPA? Would that be separate to CPR27?

I'm really looking to take them to the cleaners on this one only on principle, the money actually has no impact on me.

I think they chose the wrong person to mess with.

I'm happy to put as much money as needed into solicitors in response to this malicious rubbish.

Yes, it is an entirely differnt game and nothing to do with their court action or your defence.

Dont bother with a solicitor,

the amount it will cost will be silly when you can do it yourself for very little.

You just need to follow the correct steps one at a time

Yes, it is an entirely differnt game and nothing to do with their court action or your defence.

Dont bother with a solicitor, the amount it will cost will be silly when you can do it yourself for very little. You just need to follow the correct steps one at a time

Sounds good....

Can I start this now or do I have to wait until the court hearing?

you can do what you want,

read the parking pranksters blog for references to successful claims against the parking co's .

Keep away from harassment, too difficult to prove.

ok so can you provide me with a link on steps to take for legal action on grounds of breaching the DPA?

Thanks

there isnt one, look it up.

there isnt one, look it up.

Have googled quite a lot but there doesn't seem to be any kind of template I could use for breach of DPA to do with parking...

there isnt one,

you need to read up on the law.

We happily advise people on how to defend themselves against these sharks and can tell you some alternative actions but we aren't free to use lawyers.

You will need to read up on the DPA for starters, the look at examples where people have sued for breaches of the DPA and then specifically any that are about motoring matters.

they are out there but you are clearly not even following the most obvious commentaries on these things like the parking pranksters blog.

It will require a goodly amount of knowledge and determination so either bone up on it or drop the thought entirely as you can lose money at this.

I am going to be filing a claim similar to the one found in this post:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/smart-parking-settle-out-of-court-for.html

The basis of the claim will be:

Compensation for distress and harassment

caused by ES Parking Enforcement Ltd misuse of personal

information obtained from the DVLA contrary

to the principles of the Data Protection Act

(DPA) 1998. Specifically, ES Parking Enforcement Ltd's

surveillance equipment and procedures for

gathering and processing data collected are

not fit for purpose as required under the

DPA.

I will be claiming for £750 through MCOL.

At this stage I can keep it this simple or do I need to go into more detail? Advice appreciated.

I guess I could take out the distress and harassment and focus purely on the misuse of the DPA?

If there is no distress and harassment ( pursuing you when they know they have no claim may be both)

then you have not suffered anything and arent entitled to monay to compensate you.

I would still advise caution and wait for them to do their worst

so you have something to say on the matter rather than throwing money at it now.

Prankster has today won a case due to DPA failure, have a look.

saw that,

it reinforces the previous claim from an earlier blog but also has the great advantage of being a stand alone matter as it isnt tied in with other aspects of a claim to do with residents parking where harassment could come into play.

The critical thing here is that not using POFA they have no reason to obtain keeper details despite claiming they do under the RTA. With no POFA reason they have to follow certain protocols to use the electronic access system and basically they lied to gain that access and misused it.

This case can be quoted in other claims as it was accepted by judge as a standard consideration rather than an order of damages based on its own merits. Bit like Broderick v Gale and Ainslie Ltd used a formula but the defendants decided to argue the toss and lost very badly indeed.

Prankster has today won a case due to DPA failure, have a look.

Can you provide link to the case you are talking about please?

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016_12_01_archive.html

scroll down

will be submitting a letter before claim later this week for compensation on grounds of breach of the DPA. If anybdoy would like to do the same then I'd be happy to share the letter template with them once the letter is complete.

that is the way to go

MCOL claim submitted today for the max amount possible for breach of the DPA. Let's see how they like this one....

I'm really gonna take them to the cleaners for this and get every single penny I can out of them. One thing I don't get is why I can't claim my daily rate as a professional as well as other costs? If they are wasting my time thus costing me £X00 which I would get from working, why on earth can't I put that before the judge?

because being self employed you can choose whether to go to work or spend a day in court, people who are employed dont get that choice and they still have trouble getting loss of earnings.

Now, have you got a date for your hearing and is it the same day as ginger or the other person who posted here.

Just putting together my witness statement for submission. Special thanks to Ginger for putting together the template that helped me put this together.

Any suggestions welcome:

1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration [Car Registration], which the claimants allege was parked at Spinningfields Estate, Manchester on [specified Date]. The claim is disputed in its entirety for the following reasons:

2. The signage says "No Stopping at all" (Figure 1) and as such the signage is prohibitive in nature and not the offer of a contract. This interpretation has been confirmed by the decision of DJ Iyah at Manchester on the 29/11/16 in ES v Ms A case ref C8GF4C12 relating to the same location and signs. Therefore, there can never be a claim for monies arising from a breach of contract.

3. When Initial PCN was received a CCPR 18 was requested to establish whether or not ESPEL had an adequate contract with the landowner demonstrating authority to issue and litigate on their behalf. No response was received.

4. There is no signage on the entrance to Gartside Road stating that it is a private road, and all the road markings and street furniture are consistent with a public highway (Figures 2 &3 ). According to Manchester City Councils Highways Service, Gartside street is an adopted highway, maintained at public expense (Attachment 4), meaning ESPEL have no authority to issue PCNs.

5. If, in fact, they did have authority, the signs are too small to be read from the driver’s seat of a vehicle and their position makes them impossible to read and consider without stopping to do so (Figures 4 and 5). This makes then unenforceable and unfair, contrary to the Consumer Contracts Regulations of 2014. The largest font on the sign being for the payment number. The signage also fails to meet the standards set in the BPA code of practice and unless the Claimant can show how any method they use to determine the suitability of their signage matches or exceeds the minimum requirements of that CoP they cannot be said to be adequate notice of a contract. Some signage has been changed at this location following the initial PCN being received; proving ESPEL know the initial signage did not meet the required standard. (Figure 6)

6. Setting down does not constitute parking.

7. As ESPEL know that their claim has no merit and they have failed to show a cause for action against the defendant a request for recovery of full costs is requested under CPR 27.14.2.g

£95 research costs

£9.90 mileage costs

£3 Parking

Total = £107.90

This is a statement of truth to the best of my knowledge and belief.

dated

signed

for point 2 add thus the claimant has failed to show a cause for action against the defendant.

I would also add the point that they also have failed to identfiy the debtor

if any contract was ever formed as they have not followed the protocols of the POFA 2012 and thus no keeper liability can be claimed. It is put to strict proof that they show the identity of the driver at the time.

If you are confident that by accepting you were the driver the other points will prevail

( they should, they have in other cases inc the one you quote- dig out some more)

You can also have a search of the PATAS important cases files and use any that cover the parking v stopping argument

as these have been decided at a suitable tribunal and thus carry some weight as far as precedent goes.

It is a lottery as to whether the chap from ES will turn up,

depends on how much money he thinks he is going to win or lose that day.

If for example 4 cases are allocated as a block and yours is the only one with a decent defence

it will be worth his while to attend and win the other 3 and pay out minimal expenses on yours. He will still amke a profit because of the unlawful add ons that go unchallenged. Good reason to use the LiP costs angle, it cuts into his margings considerably.

More ES/Gladstone claims re: Spinningfields dismissed (and costs awarded) in court yesterday, as reported on the Prankster's blog

I just realised I have the right to claim for loss of earnings as claimant has acted completely unreasonably!

Please view this

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/gladstones-discontinue-another-case-at.html

My car was parked in exactly the same spot where the yellow lines end!

I have already submitted my witness statement, is there anyway I can add to it and make a claim for my lost day rate because of the stupidity and vileness of ES Parking?

Also please respond to my post regarding the DPA violation I am claiming against them:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?474614-Glastones-ES-Parking-DPA-violation-claim