Hi All,

Update regarding the previous posts.

I've received, this letter. See PDF.

Can anyone advise on my approach please?

Parking Charge.pdf

Already have post 46

Understood, ill keep it for the records and await any further letters.

Thanks again

well, the invoice isnt POFA compliant so no-one owes them any money based on this as they havent created any liability. you need to read ther POFA to see why I say this as it will help you understand that there are procedures tht have to be followed.

In the meanwhile where are the promised pictures of the signage. If you dont gather your ammunition now you may struggle laetr, esp if they add new signs or change the existing ones.

Will upload tomorrow. Do you want all signage of the whole development or just surrounding my space/car?

Where can I find the post regarding the POFA Compliant?

read any post about parivate parking and you wont need to ask. We wnat to see the entrance to the land from the public ghighway whether there is a sign there or not, the signs where you were parked and any sign on the site that is different to that sign.

where do you find the post about POFA? you read the act of parliament by googling POFA 2012, that is in about a thousand posts on here as well. Once you have read it carefully you will spot what I am on about.

If you dont read it and you get taken to court how are you going to presuade anyone else that you are righty if you dont know what is right and what isnt. We can tell you most things in detail but we cant do things for you so you should make yourself nowledgeable abouit such things as they will happen again

Will spend some time over the next couple days reading up on the act, thank you for pointing me in the right direction.

Will also get the signage for you.

Thanks again.

Hi all,

as discussed, please see photos of signage and entrance.

Thanks for any further assistance.

Doc2.pdf

so parking only permitted for vehicles displaying a permit and parked in a bay.

That menas you are NOT permitted to park and thus committing trespass, which has nothing to do with the parking management co, only the landowner.

Usual IPC "approved by Will and John" garbage.

So to recap, no contract offered to you and the NTK doesnt creat ANY liability whatsoeer, let alone a keeper liability.

When the time comes (and it will as the IPC members belive the guff they are told by their glorious fuhrers) you cfan let them know they are onto a loser but let them waste their time and money in the meanwhile.

I would also bet that one of your neighbors gets paid £20 for each motorist he snares and that is a breach of the GDPR as they will have no authority to process your personal data. If you keep an eye out for someone taking sneaky snaps of cars make a note of where they come from and go to.

Thanks Ericsbrother, appreciate the feedback.

Hi

I'm not totally convinced on the GDPR angle if it is another resident taking the pictures. The cars are parked in a public area and the taking of pictures cannot be a breach. Where a grey area comes to me is if that resident passes on those images to the parking company as that 'may' be classed as processing the data. Once in the hands of PPM then I don't believe they have the right to be able to obtain the keeper details.

If, on the other hand, it is a parking attendant who works for the company then the processing doesn't really come into play. What does come into the scenario is that PPM are obtaining the details of the keeper when they have no absolute right to. The land in question is Parking Permit Only and as EB has mentioned, a car parked there can only be a trespass as you cannot breach a non existent term. That would need a finer mind than mine to decipher..

The only good thing about those signs is that they have a full address of PPM on them. The 'charge' should be in a larger print than that shown as it is an important 'condition' of parking even though there can be no 'conditions'.

who is going to be driving around at 0400hrs taking pix?

bet it was a resident

passing on the piccies to a parking co is processing personal data, even though the snapper hasnt identified the subject personally the reg no does allow others to do just that. Anyways that this the purpose of collecting the data in the first place

read any post about parivate parking and you wont need to ask. We wnat to see the entrance to the land from the public ghighway whether there is a sign there or not, the signs where you were parked and any sign on the site that is different to that sign.

 

where do you find the post about POFA? you read the act of parliament by googling POFA 2012, that is in about a thousand posts on here as well. Once you have read it carefully you will spot what I am on about.

If you dont read it and you get taken to court how are you going to presuade anyone else that you are righty if you dont know what is right and what isnt. We can tell you most things in detail but we cant do things for you so you should make yourself nowledgeable abouit such things as they will happen again

So, ive read through the act and if i'm completely honest it doesn't make a whole lot of sense but my end analysis is that they haven't used the correct legal terminology or writing/wording on any correspondence be it letters/signage etc. More importantly the fact remains because they don't own the land or have permission from the land owner they have no legal right to charge or issue a charge and are therefore trespassing on said space while issuing the charge.

please tell me if im on the right lines or couldn't be further. I genuinely want to know what I can do to ensure im equipped with the right knowledge, im assuming these peanuts will chase me to court expecting me not to be prepared.

thanks again for all your help

got it!!

Thank you, starting to get a slight idea. I have read a few more of the other threads. Will await any further letters and post here accordingly!!!

thanks again

good, the act is clear on ther phrasing of the NTK and if they get it wrong no liability whatsoever exists.

Now signage and assignment of rights to a third party are more complicated issues but reading things carefully so you understand what is actually sai rather then scanning over the wording and making assumptions about what is meant is the way to go.

a simple example is permit holders only.

that menas that no offer to park is made to anyone else so there cant be a breach of contract because there isnt an offer of terms on the table.

Simply that only permit holders may park and everyone else is prohibited.

The parking co's read this as allowing them to demand £100 because you dont have a permit.

They are wrong and always lose at court when the difference is pointed out.

Now the POFA states that trespass can still be considered in a contract but the intention is that a motorist doesnt park in say a supermarket car park and then claim they werent invited there and must be treated as a trespasser rather than be bound by the terms offered by the parking bandits.- Wrong. With a permit scheme no-one else is invited to enter the land so without a contract that offers genuine terms for parking it is trespass an therefore nowt to do with the parking co or their stupid signs.

If you do get taken to court the lawyers who represent the parking co usually use a templtae clai ad don tsay why the money is actually owed, whether it is as a result of a breach of contract, what that breach was or whether you have agreed to pay them as part of the conditions of parking, like on most of the PE signs for overstaying a free period.

Most parking co's dont bother with planning permission because they are either too lazy to do so or they believe that it isnt a matter that people will raise as a defence and when it is they just lie to the judges and hope no-one has looked it up properly. well, on the Parking pranksters blogspot there is a lnk to a well written piece by a retired lawyer about this so take ther time to read it if planning is going to be an argument

is this the article you're talking about in particular http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-great-private-car-park-planning.html

go to the very bottom of that article and ther is a link to the research. That is what I am pointing you to

Hi all,

I received the attached letter recently, any advice on my next steps would be greatly appreciated.

Parking Ticket (1).pdf

Hi.

Well I certainly wouldn't be ringing them. If you've read other threads here, then the £160 will sound very familiar, it's the normal invented amount. Please wait for the forum regulars to comment, but I would say you don't need to do anything at this stage, certainly not in a hurry. They're hinting at court but not actually saying they 'will' do anything.

HB

Thank you Honeybee, ill await further feedback

Just because they have passed this over to their 'legal team' means nothing. The only time to respond is if a Letter Before Action/Claim arrives.

Understood, is that the next step from here or do they send several letters like the one above first?

Its just another ThreatOgram, time to act is if they issue a LBA, at which point an acidic letter denigrating Wil & John and their failings in evidence will be a good response, ericsbrother is great with wording such things.