Jump to content

bosun69

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bosun69

  1. Thanks for that. Sorry, its such a long time ago, I'd forgotten that post and it hadn't come up in my searches.
  2. I am having fun. In February last year went to Hoddesdon for my wife to buy (an expensive!) dress for our daughters wedding. We parked in Sainsbury's but went over the 3 hours as we were a bit of a while in the shop and when finished we had lunch and did some shopping (for which I have receipts) at Sainsburys. A week later, Euro Car Parks sent a Parking Charge Notice to my address, but the letter was only addressed by surname (which oddly also happens to be my sons surname who still lives at the same address and he is well over 18). The images of the registration number of the car were not particularly good either and potentially ambiguous, so I ignored it as in my view it wasn't properly addressed to me. A Notice to Keeper followed, similarly ambiguously addressed. Forward to May 2015 and first letter from DRP arrives, followed by 12 more over the period up to February this year (is this a record?) I did reply to them initially in a brief letter just the once telling them I didn't owe them anything, but perhaps predictably it made no difference. Anyway, the letters eventually stopped in February this year, so it seemed that they had accepted defeat. Last week, however, I received a letter from Gladstones Solicitors. It noted Euro Car Parks as the "claimant", but was equally intimidating and also equally ambiguous as the DRP ones (e.g. "Client may instruct taking legal proceedings" etc.). Notably it did not say exactly who their actual client is, and also requested replying to DRP rather than Gladstones. They also invited me to pay DRP, not them and not Euro Car Parks. I had written to Sainsbury's Chief Executive in May 2015 but I don't believe it ever got anywhere near him as I received a very poor reply from them saying that they "couldn't" cancel the charge, which I believe is nonsense, what they meant was they weren't going to. The reply was from their customer services and it was clear they had no idea about parking contracts. I didn't reply at the time, but having received Gladstones letter, I shall now be writing to them again. I may also write to the BPA about the matter. I am seriously considering taking action for harassment against DRP. It seems to me that their persistent letter sending may constitute harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which defines harassment as conduct which causes another person alarm or distress. I think 12 letters threatening court action and so on may just about creep into that category? Incidentally, I don't believe they will take this further as they have made the threats so many times that if they thought they had a case they would surely have done it by now. Maybe I should tell them to get on with court action if they are going to? On the other hand I don't want them to think that because up to now I have totally ignored them that they think they can actually take action and win simply because I don't respond. Any comments or suggestions most welcome. thanks
  3. It's not for the Crawley Morrisons, but it is a Euro Car Parks run car park elsewhere and for what its worth, I now have a nice little collection of letters from DRP, (four or even five maybe, I've lost count) each one offering a new deadline for payment and threatening to refer to their client for court action if I don't pay. I'm almost inclined to write back and tell them I wish their client would get on and take me to court, but as previously advised, I'm not going to wasting a stamp on them. (mind, I could send it without a stamp !).
  4. Its very easy to find out land ownership if you go on line to the land registry site. You'll have to register and it will cost you £3 for a plan and £3 for full documented details of the register. You'll obviously need the exact address details, usually you can get this from the local council website if you don't know it.
  5. Thanks, As things stand, my position is that ECP have not actually served ME with a pcn so no need for a POPLA code as yet, but I will ask for one if I hear further from them properly. The DRP jokers can recommend whatever they like to ECP, until I hear further from ECP I'm just writing to Sainsbury's again and also considering complaint to BPA, for all the good I suspect that will do. Obviously I don't know if the (presumed) contract with Sainsburys allows them to use other companies. I'm wondering if they are also in reach of Data Protection by passing personal information on to another company, there is nothing on the signage about use of personal information, so it could be worth making contact with the ICO. It was an ANPR capture, but the images they have sent of the number plates are poor on one of the photos. DRP seem to have got hold of copies of the whole image showing a car like mine, but the VRM is unreadable on one of the photos, so I will challenge this when I hear further.
  6. Having sorted my wife's charge at Morrisons, now trying to do same with Sainsburys and Euro Car Parks. ECP sent the initial parking charge, "issued" 10th February, letter dated 16th February. Interesting thing was that there was no first name on the letter. There are two of us here at this address, my son and myself, so the person to whom it was addressed was ambiguous. In my view they had not written to me. A second letter, headed notice to keeper was dated 9th March. Again no first names, only surname. I then heard nothing until a letter from Debt Recovery Plus was received, dated 7th May. This letter was addressed to me, and headed *Notice of Intended Court Action" which of course it was not. they demanded £130, £60 more than the alleged original charge. This letter referred to a letter dated 14th April, which I had not received. Wording was curious - "If you are liable for this charge and do not pay the full amount...." and threatening to pass a file to the creditors solicitor with a recommendation to commence court action. I replied to this letter saying, I had not received a pcn, nor a notice to keeper, nor a notice of keeper liability. I disputed the "debt", said they had not complied with the BPA Code of Practice, told them I would be writing to the landowner, which I have, and telling them if I had no response within 14 days I would consider this an indication that the matter was closed. This prompted a written, rather than a form letter, explaining some tosh about the BPA Code of Practice, quoting Clause 22.7 (incorrectly) about challenges not being possible, referring to the pre-court action code of conduct (irrelevant at this stage) with a comment that they were trying to resolve the matter amicably (strange given that the tone of their other letters was anything but amicable) and mentioning Beavis vs Parking Eye as a "landmark Case" and alleging that they believe that similar conditions applied (I think not as I understand it). They finally said that they may not reply to any further correspondence if it didn't provide further "evidence" I am drafting a further response and will thank them for not writing further to me and tell them I won't be writing to them again. I have written to Sainsburys but cannot believe the response I have got. We were actually customers at the store and I submitted receipts to show this, we also used our nectar card. It was answered by their customer services "Careline" - more like "Don't Careline" - saying that they did own the car park, but "would not be able to overturn the charge" which I know to be not true. They did thank me for taking the time to contact them! There will be a follow up letter addressed personally to their CEO. Interested to receive any comments from anyone. How would my view that ECP have not written to me because they only used second names in the initial letters stand up? thanks
  7. Just thought I'd update on this. My letter to Morrisons was a good idea. They have replied today advising that the charge has been cancelled as a gesture of goodwill. They also advised that if my wife needed additional time to shop there, to advise their customer services in store and they would make a note of it. 10/10 for Morrison's customer service and common sense. A weasly letter from PE also arrived, advising same, but no reference to the fact that Morrison's would have told them to cancel. I suggest anyone who gets a parking charge writes to the store to complain about the way the PPC's operate and to let them know that as customers it's not acceptable to be treated in such heavy handed intimidating way. I have every sympathy with the problems stores may have with parking in some locations but I wonder if they are really aware of the consequences of using PPC's under the current regime. This needs changing. The BPA Code of Practice is not fit for purpose and the introduction of the FOI clauses has allowed PPCs to refer to legislation in their threats which adds to the intimidation factor. Thanks to all for contributions.
  8. Thanks ericsbrother. I have photos of the signage and this will be a key part of my evidence. Also the fact that it is becoming increasingly obvious to me (just need a bit more confirmation from the Council) that the attempts to limit the car park usage to customer only, when it should be for the benefit of the town as a shoppers car park, means that they are in contravention of the planning permission for the site. (which is a criminal offence). I'm going through the BPA Code of Practice, (which leaves things to be desired in a number of areas) as well to make sure I understand all the processes, in particular around how and when appeals can be made and matters referred to POPLA (as a possible means of alternative dispute resolution which the Court Practice Document expects to have been attempted). I would be interested in views on the matter of agreements with the landowner, which PE must have. The actual Landowner listed in the land registry I now know is Safeway. Although Morrisons own Safeway, does this mean that the agreement to manage the car park must still be with Safeway and even if PE do actually have an agreement with Morrisons, this would not be valid? It is possibly a very technical point of law and not expecting proper legal advice obviously, but what do people think? One further question, my wife has not yet admitted to being the driver. Is it still possible that in admitting now to being the driver, this could re-set the POPLA clock anyway and require PE to follow the "normal" appeal procedures?
  9. Their signage says that data will be shared with " the BPA, POPLA, mail service providers, credit reference agents, collection agents or solicitors". So BPA is listed separately from POPLA. And mail service providers? Hmmm. More to the point, I've just checked online with the land registry for details of ownership and apparently the owner of the land is Safeway Stores Ltd.
  10. Thanks for all the various comments, very helpful, especially regarding the past history of the car park. I'll try and fill in the gaps. 1 - No appeal was lodged, due to ignorance regarding way to respond to these pcns. I hadn't realised that the law had changed so we just ignored it as it worked before. 2 - I have already enquired with the Council and they have confirmed that planning permission is not required for the cameras due to their size. I suspected this as I work for a local authority running their own Town Centre CCTV system. However the question I actually asked them was do they have planning permission to use ANPR equipment. Probably the same answer but that wasn't what they said. 3 - I have also asked the Council about the planning consents and conditions relating to the car park itself. The reply was not wholly unambiguous, it referred to the use of the car park as being made available for "short term shopper's parking" but no explanation as to what this actually intended to mean, either in terms of what a shopper was, nor what was considered short term. I guess it depends on whether the intention was to prevent business parking or parking by shop workers from using it, or whether it was to allow users of local shops to use it. I suspect that the latter would have been the principle reason, otherwise it would be referred to as a customer car park, but the Council so far have not confirmed this. I will have another go at them. 4 - My wife was driving and it was her car, so she is the registered keeper. My daughter was a passenger and they went shopping in another shop in the town. They stayed just over 3 hours. 5 - PE's signage states 2 hours, but its possible to both enter the car park and leave it without actually seeing a sign with the writing large enough to be clearly seen. No surprise there I guess. DragonFly1967's comment about land ownership is interesting and I will ask the Council this, but I'm a bit baffled as to how you can have a freehold but not be the land owner. I thought that that was what a freehold was. I don't see how they could reasonably enforce the car park as Morrisons customers only unless they had someone following all the car park users around to see if they left the site, but then if the planning permission required them to make the car park available for shopping in the town they couldn't enforce this anyway or they would be in breach of the planning consents. I'll follow all these up, but my main focus now is to respond to their letter. As I had previously told them their previous letter headed Letter Before County Court Claim was not compliant with the Practice Directive, I now have to respond explaining why. One final question someone may be able to answer. PE's signage says (if you get close enough to read it or have a telescope) that they will share personal information collected with the BPA. Can anyone explain why this might be necessary, because otherwise they could be in breach of the Data Protection Act.
  11. Hopefully I'm not repeating anything here which belongs in another thread. My wife received a pcn from parking eye at the Reigate Branch of Morrisons back in March, for exceeding the time allowed. Having previously ignored (sounds familiar?) successfully and being unaware of the changes, we did same again. On this occasion, they did not shop at Morrisons so we have no receipts for the day. We are of course now, much wiser. She received 1) the initial demand, 2) a reminder, 3) a notice to keeper, although it was not formally identified as such, followed by 4) a supposed LBCCC, to which we have replied (I drafted the letter disputing the charge and stating that the letter did not comply with the court PD. My wife signed it), based on information which I have obtained from this forum and also from the MSE Forum. I have written to Morrisons to complain and saying that the terms and conditions are unenforceable and requesting the charge be cancelled. Proof of posting has been obtained for all letters sent. Contrary to my expectation, PE have not replied to our response to the LBCCC with a form letter, but with what appears to be a specific response, albeit very brief and surprisingly not threatening. I am currently drafting a reply to this. The LBCCC also appears to be of an updated format from those I have seen previously. (and the envelope even has a first class stamp on it!). Although it refers to an ADR, it doesn't actually specify what it might be, but attempts to dismiss the possibility of going back to POPLA. I'll attach redacted copies of the correspondence including and after the LBCCC as the content may also be of interest, when I've found out how to do it. An interesting aspect to this is that the planning approvals for the car park in question ( I have enquired of the local planning dept) seem to require the car park to be available as a "shoppers car park", which I contend means that Morrisons cannot restrict use of the car park only to their customers, yet part of the PE signage, (which is clearly legible), states; "Parking for customers only. For use only whilst shopping on site". I'm not sure at this stage how useful this particular information may be in relation to defending proceedings if PE continue. Amy comments or advice would be most welcome. Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...