Jump to content

Seven Towers

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Seven Towers

  1. There are no bailiffs in N. Ireland http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Services/EJO/HelpAdvice/Pages/default.aspx But do apply for two lots of expenses.
  2. Hi Cal, I'd like to get in touch with you, I have been writing to David Ford, Minister for Justice. He thinks clampers are wonderful people and can't seem to find any evidence of abuse, so I have set about trying to find some. I have been working with my MLA, he is broadly sympathetic and intends to raise the issue in the next Stormont term. Of course with the current shenanigans up there, it could be sooner rather than later.
  3. The Parking Prankster does not have a brief, he was not a party in the case. Mr Beavis does of course have a barrister, one of the leading experts in the country on the law on penalties, Mr. Sa'ad Hossain. Although admittedly he should have been up to speed on typical PPC shenanigans, he did argue the kegal points very professionally And how much was Mr. Hossain paid? Not one penny, he is working "Pro-bono" on this appeal.
  4. Hi, Sorry, I have been away for most of the last month and am just catching up now, however Eric's brother is offering good advice, as always. Yes, put the point in a word doc and email to POPLA, asking them to add it to your case. Looking forward to hearing the outcome.
  5. Sorry, I missed that you had appealed from the windscreen ticket (saving then £2.50 in in DVA fees) and you have outed yourself as the driver, therefore POFA does not come into it. If you wish to remove this point and the explanation paragraph then you can do so. However it it was me I'd leave it in there. Each appeal point that you make stands in its own right and has no impact on any of the other points. You only need to win on one point, they need to win on everything, leaving it in there will do no harm whatsoever. If you do remove a point, make sure to re-number the others as appropriate, and remember to put your own POPLA reference at the top.
  6. Notice to Keeper - the letter they send through post after the DVA have sold them your address details All Acronyms explained in post 2 here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822
  7. This happened: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5018879&highlight=pps+popla We don't want to risk another farcical POPLA decision where they accept PPS' fairy tale about their supposed GPEOL.
  8. Don't worry about understanding all of the legal points, you can't be expected to understand all of the legal jargon, BUT just copy and paste for a slam dunk win at POPLA, tweak the last paragraph if it doesn't conform with your situation, but make sure that you state that signage is non-compliant. It is for PPS to prove that their signage is compliant, the onus is on them, not you. In any case, you will win on the first point, GPEOL. The reason why this section is so long is that one POPLA assessor actually bought PPS' nonsense about GPEOL and dismissed the appeal, it took some decisive action from forum regulars to get that over-ruled. We don't want to risk your appeal failing, So, just copy, paste and make the tweaks minimal, and you WILL WIN!
  9. Don't worry too much about the signs, just go for the standard appeal points, here is a winning PPS POPLA appeal, albeit a bit wordy. Read through it, adapt the bits that don't apply to you and submit as your appeal, if you do so it will be a guaranteed slam dunk win. Attach to your appeal as a PDF/Word document, the POPLA text box has a 1000 charater limit. Dear POPLA, verification code 686xxxxxxx My appeal as registered keeper of the vehicle, comprises these points: 1. The intention of PPS' charge was not based on any advance regard to genuine pre-estimate of loss, rather they intended it to be a tariff. They have massaged their POPLA evidence now to manufacture a 'loss' statement which duplicates layers of staff time, includes double counting and is not applicable to 98% of PCNs. It is at best, a crude calculation of the actual loss suffered, made afterwards. 2. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 so there is no keeper liability established. 3. The Operator has no standing, legal title nor authority from the landowner, to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. 4. The signage terms are unclear, with small font. There are several different signs and none provide for £100 as a tariff. These points are explained below: 1. The intention of PPS' charge was not based on any advance regard to genuine pre-estimate of loss, rather they intended it to be a tariff. They have massaged their POPLA evidence now to manufacture a 'loss' statement which duplicates layers of staff time, includes double counting and is not applicable to 98% of PCNs. It is at best, a crude calculation of the actual loss suffered, made afterwards. To quote Assessor Chris Adamson, from a very similar POPLA decision v PPS which shows their true intentions behind their charges, earlier in 2014: ''... ‘No valid ticket or permit displayed’... The Operator submits that the charge is not a sum sought as damages, rather it is ‘an excess charge not a breach or a sum for damages’. Accordingly the Operator submits that it need not reflect the loss caused by the breach. In this case, I am not minded to accept this submission. The charge must either be one for damages as submitted by the Appellant, or consideration - the price paid for parking. The Operator has submitted in the alternative that the sum, ‘if considered genuine pre-estimation of losses’ is based on a number heading related to direct loss. I do not accept this submission. Whether or not the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss is to be ascertained by an objective assessment of the intentions of the parties at the time the contract was made.Accordingly, the Operator must be able to say what its intentions actually were, and cannot rely on the charge being either a tariff, or a charge for damages, depending on which suits. ...It seems clear from the Operator evidence that, whilst its intentions were actually to charge a tariff, the signage displayed did not indicate this. It has not demonstrated that anything was being offered in return. Instead the wording of the sign indicates damages, although it does not appear that the Operator’s intentions when setting the level of the charge were to compensate for the loss estimated. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.'' Chris Adamson, Assessor (Feb 2014). I have found another recent POPLA case v PPS (at the same car park as my charge relates to, same contravention) which gives the game away about PPS' true intentions in advance. This was POPLA decision reference 6860024043 in February 2014, when Assessor Nozir Uddin decided to allow the appeal on the basis that the Operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This was because PPS' intentions prior to parking charges being issued at that site, were stated to be that the charge was 'a sum in the nature of a contractual fee rather than a sum for the breach of it'. And yet the signage and rejection letter gave away the fact it was really a matter of breach of contract which required a GPEOL. In that case, PPS tried to argue both scenarios - which cannot be allowed, they cannot say it was either one or the other depending upon which suits. So in order to show what PPS' real intentions were for their charges, prior to my vehicle being parked at this site, here are some excerpts from PPS' statement regarding POPLA case 6860024043: ''The amount sought as a PCN is a term of the contract rather than a sum for the breach of it. This contractual agreement is clearly worded on our warning signage.'' ''With regards to the claim that there has been no loss suffered by the company, we consider the amount on the PCN as a reasonable charge and as part of a contractual agreement. '' So PPS' stated intentions earlier this year were that the charges making up PCNs of £100 issued at Didcot Station car park, were designed to be a contractual fee; a sum in the nature of a parking charge. The blue sign lists certain fees under the heading 'tariff' and £100 is not one of them. However, I have no idea from the Notice to Keeper how much of the tariff remained unpaid (if at all). This small sum, or a percentage of it, would be the only 'contractual sum' in the alleged contract which can represent consideration. A PCN for £100 is not recoverable in this instance, however PPS try to slant the calculations. The point I am making is that the suggestion that their charges are based on any loss is untrue because this was not their stated intention in advance. But recently PPS have decided to try their luck by pretending that their intention all along was to charge for loss. Even worse, this approach fooled POPLA on at least two occasions until robust appeals exposing the truth achieved a more measured view, as in POPLA code 6861754004 (PPS again) where Assessor Ricky Powell noticed the heavily duplicated and frankly ridiculous staffing costs: ''I am not satisfied that the pre-estimate of loss supplied by the Operator reflects the charge issued. I find that the ‘appeal writing’ loss asserted is duplicated in two heads of loss. The ‘Appeals staff’ appeals writing costs are included in the sum for £9.51. However, there are further appeal writing costs included in the ‘Management’ costs, which total £71.65. It has not been explained how the individual heads of loss included under the heading ‘Management’ are calculated. It is also impossible to determine what contribution the appeal writing costs contribute to the total of £71.65. Therefore, I cannot find that the total costs for ‘Management’ are substantiated and so must disregard them from the total genuine pre-estimate of loss. The total pre-estimate after subtracting the above £71.65 is £31.18. I find that this does not substantially amount to the issued £100 charge and that it does not constitute a genuine pre-estimate of the Operator’s loss caused by the Appellant’s breach. Therefore, I find that the parking charge is not enforceable in this case. '' (Ricky Powell, Assessor, August 2014). It seems to me that PPS have tried to mislead POPLA to gain pecuniary advantage against motorists who have all paid the tariff and can prove it. This is unsupportable and unprofessional, as is the massaged 'loss statement' that they now suddenly use to try to magically meet the sum of the PCN. In simple terms: - PPS must think I was born yesterday if they think I believe that they 'thought there was an initial loss' when yet another of PPS' extra-flimsy tickets slipped. - It beggars belief that managers and directors would spend hours on each POPLA case. There are too many layers of repeated checks by highly paid staff to be credible. - PPS use a template POPLA 'GPEOL' summary & response so it is not individually written nor even applicable to my own case at all. - staff/NI are all tax-deductible costs of running a business and do not directly flow from one alleged breach in a car park where there was no initial loss. - PPS staff do not just handle appeals, their work includes dealing with clients/permits, and Directors have supervisory/staffing/new business and Management duties so I am not liable to pay their wages nor to line the pockets of PPS owner with yet more profits. The sum of £71.65 is laughable in their GPEOL statement. - POPLA related 'work' cannot apply to each PCN as a 'genuine pre-estimate', because only 1% or 2% of cases ever get to POPLA stage. - Since the vast majority will never to go to appeal, let alone as far as POPLA, this is comparable to cases where Operators add 'debt collection' costs. In those cases, POPLA routinely dismiss those heads on the basis that 'cases may never get to debt collection stage so this is not applicable'. The same applies to 'POPLA costs'. - If I had not appealed at all, instead paying between day 14 and day 28 then the full cost of the PCN would have applied. Why? How does PPS' GPEOL explain that? - The other 'business costs' (including a DVLA fee that in fact costs £2.50 and stationery/postage) cannot be added since this does not flow from all PCNs. Where an Operator has submitted a breakdown of the losses incurred as a result of the breach and a large percentage of the amount comes from staff costs, they must be able to justify those heads as relating to every typical PCN (whether appealed or not). In the case of PPS they include several layers of checks on the work of other staff members - I would contend this is an unnecessary amount of checks and that the Operator has not shown that the items referred to are substantially linked to the loss incurred by every breach. Indeed, in the 2014 Annual Report the Lead Adjudicator, Mr Greenslade, stated, “However, genuine pre-estimate of loss means just that. It is an estimate of the loss which might reasonably be suffered, made before the breach occurred, rather than a calculation of the actual loss suffered made afterwards." As PPS have since changed their GPEOL calculations from the version presented to POPLA Assessors just a few months ago, then I contend that the calculation (even if it were a more credible effort than this one) must fail as it is not a genuine PRE-estimate. In fact is a 'post-estimate' after the event, of figures designed to match the charge. As such, the latest effort by PPS is disingenuous and is merely an over-inflated and duplicated new 'calculation of alleged actual loss, made afterwards'. It is not enforceable according to the words of Mr Greenslade. 2. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 so there is no keeper liability established. The document which purports to be a Notice to Keeper is not properly given under the POFA 2012. The NTK does not tell me as keeper what the contravention was and how much of the tariff allegedly remains unpaid for what length of parking period. In this car park there are multiple possibilities and the NTK fails to confirm me of the position (which cannot be 'either/or'). So, I am left to wonder, are PPS saying that the driver failed to pay any tariff, or paid a partial tariff/overstayed, or paid with RingGo but suffered a failure of that system, or perhaps input the car registration wrongly, or paid in full but the P&D ticket was not seen on display? The NTK fails to tell me. Further non-compliance with the POFA is the omission of the following wording as found in paragraph 8 of schedule 4: '‘(f) warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph © or (d)) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver...the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;’ (g) inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available'' In addition, the Notice contains misleading wording which not only states a level of authority and deadlines that do not exist but also breaches the BPA Code of Practice paragraph 14: 'Misrepresentation of authority': 14.1 You must give clear information to the public about what parking activities are allowed and what is unauthorised. You must not misrepresent to the public that your parking control and enforcement work is carried out under the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority.' In bold at the top of the Notice is the underlined word 'Important' and therein follows this misleading imaginary deadline and threat: 'Failure to pay the parking charge within 14 days of receiving it, without reasonable excuse, could lead to legal proceedings being issued.' This impersonates Police wording and is patently not true. There is no 14 day deadline at all and a person does not need 'reasonable excuse' not to pay or appeal a private parking charge. This is compounded by another large font paragraph in bold: 'Only payment in full will prevent us from taking further action'. It is utterly misleading and untrue that the keeper's ONLY option is to pay in full because of course there is the option to appeal. POPLA will notice that the NTK completely omits any details (even on the back) about how to appeal and the keeper's right to POPLA. There is nothing about it at all, so I hope that POPLA may be minded to report this serious omission to the BPA Ltd. POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has previously confirmed that a NTK is 'fundamental to establishing keeper liability' and if the Notice is not properly given it is therefore a nullity. It is a strict requirement of POFA that all statutory conditions must be met and stated wording included, in order for keeper liability to be established. This Notice to Keeper was not properly 'given'. 3. The Operator has no standing, legal title nor authority from the landowner, to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. I require PPS to produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. I believe PPS have no locus standi to pursue the matter in the courts nor to form contracts with drivers in their own right. I believe they are merely a commercial agent for the true principal and have a bare licence to 'issue tickets' which gives them no standing. A PPS 'witness statement' would not refute this appeal point, since the following issues would be hidden: - whether the contract allows for a contractual fee model - whether this contravention is actually stated in the contract - whether PPS are an agent and when the contract expires/renews - the site boundary and scope of the operation - what the charges are for each alleged contravention - any 'revenue sharing' which must be reflected in the calculations To be clear, I require the contract itself, unredacted, because I am NOT querying the mere right to 'issue tickets' - which anyone could do, even the car park cleaning contractors and obviously they would not have any locus standi either! If a witness statement is produced then I will be rebutting it. 4. The signage terms are unclear, with small font. There are several different signs and none provide for £100 as a tariff. This car park has various signage designs, including a dark blue one which is difficult to read at all when driving, and a black and white one which would only be readable if the font size was larger. The only tariff mentioned is small sum between £1 and £6 as far as I can see - there is no £100 tariff. The driver cannot have entered into any contract to pay the amount of the PCN as a tariff. Where it is mentioned, the £100 is in such small font that the onerous term of the £100 PCN is not sufficiently explicit to form a contract that a driver must have seen when paying. This concludes my appeal.
  10. Any update yet? We're all dying to know how Scottish courts deal with PPCs.
  11. DragonFly, I can only assume you have done one or more tours of NI in the past, but things have changed considerably, government traffic wardens and TV licence inspectors now operate everywhere, with the blessing of all the political parties, you would not recognise Belfast. You should come back, it will change your views, just ask anybody who has been to Belfast in the last 10 years. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-28899153 It doesn't take any courage for a clamper from East Belast to enter the car park of a "gentrified" city centre appartment block, just off Sandy Row to fit a wheel clamp. The days of having a quiet word in the ear of the right person are long gone. Even in the bad old days you had to have friends in low places, so that was never an option for me. The legacy of the troubles has left some good things, we have the strictest anti-discrimination legislation in the world, and the most accountable police force in the world. It's just a pity that the Stormont Assembly can't get its act together and criminalise wheel clamping, like every other part of the UK.
  12. Unfortunately, wheel clamping has not been criminalised yet in N.Ireland. However, whilst wheel clamping may remain legal per se, entering somebody's driveway, or privately owned parking space in appartment complex, to fit a wheel clamp, constitutes illegal clamping. There are no bailliffs in N. Ireland, any enforcement of judgements is carried out directly through the court, not any private company. https://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Services/EJO/EnforcementOrders/Pages/default.aspx
  13. OK, well let's say the item is a wheel clamp, and the person visiting is an employee of a PPC, trespassing.
  14. Well let me pose a legal question, if somebody trespasses onto your driveway, and places something on your car, be that an advertising flyer, or a wheelclamp, can that something be treated as a gift, for you to do with as you please?
  15. We will, I do not live at Whitehall and am not a victim of the ****** clampers, but I am helping to co-ordinate the fightback. We are currently trying to get a lease from a property owner that will show if the parking spaces are held freehold, or if there is any assignment of rights to the management company. Even if rights are assigned, I would be amazed if those rights include the right to clamp vehicles and demand a ransom payment.
  16. Yes, there are a group of victims getting together to take a claim against Minerva Security and Whitehall Management for the return of all monies that were extorted. The first thing that you need to do is to report the crime of extortion to the police, follow the instructions in the thread linked above (post 3)Post a message on that thread, it is being used as the main point of contact. Note for the CAG management: This is a very serious issue and it is important that we keep all of the information for the victims of this injustice in one place on a single thread, so please accept my apologies for directing people to MSE, I hope you understand.
  17. IMHO, the management company have brought a legal storm upon themselves, and will be sued for every penny that has have extorted from residents. If any Whitehall Square victims are reading this, I would advise you to check the following thread: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=66313247&posted=1#post66313247
  18. The management company at this appartment block have invited the devil into bed with them by bringing in Minerva Security to "manage" the car park. Minerva were supposed to hand out tickets to anyone not displaying a badge, but of course prefer the option of clamping instead, because then they can extort £120 from their victims. Minerva may well have authorisation from the management company to clamp vehicles parked in the communal parts of the car park which fall under their technical ownership. However all of the individual parking spaces in Whitehall Square are privately owned, and unless the parking space owner has authorised Minerva, they have no more right to clamp a vehicle in a private space, that they would to clamp a car on a driveway. If you have been a victim of this, post here for advice on how to claim your money back. And for Minerva reading this, Scottish Courts have declared wheel clamping to constitute "Extortion and Theft". Trespassing on peoples private property and fitting clamps to vehicles to extract a ransom payment to which you have absolutely no right is extortion So sue me, the truth is always an absolute defence against defamation. Wheel clamping has already been criminalised in every other part of the UK and the Stormont government is currently in a consultation about wheel clamping http://www.dojni.gov.uk/ford-launche...n-private-land It will be a travesty if they do anything other than follow the Scottish model.
  19. No, they don't, NI posters ask for help regularly on the other forums, this should set their minds at ease.
  20. Freedom of Information Request from NI Courts Service Central Management Team Laganside House 23-27 Oxford Street Belfast BT1 3LA Telephone: 028 90 328594 Fax: 028 9041 8945 Email: [email protected] Our ref: FOI 110/14 Date: 30 July 2014 Dear Mr SevenTowers, SUBJECT: Freedom of Information Request Thank you for your email in which you write:- “Could you please tell me how many court claims have been lodged in the N.Ireland Courts Service since 01/01/2010 by each of the following private parking companies who operate in N.Ireland: Anchor CPS Anchor Group Services Limited Car Park Services Limited Civil Enforcement Ltd. Euro Car Parks Horizon Parking Limited Parking and Enforcement Agency Limited Mercury Security Management Smart Parking Ltd. Town and City Parking UK Parking Control Limited.” On 9th July you clarified your request as follows:- “I am referring specifically to small claims. Please provide the information both for cases taken by these companies against individuals, and cases taken against them by individuals.” Your request which was received on 7 July 2014 and clarified on 10 July 2014 has been handled under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI). I have conducted a search of our records and can confirm that since 1 January 2010, one small claim case involving the companies listed has been lodged. The case involved Civil Enforcement Ltd and they were the respondent in the case. I hope this information satisfactorily answers your request. If you are dissatisfied with this response you may ask the Courts and Tribunals Service to conduct an internal review in relation to your request. A request for an internal review should be addressed to: Records and Information Access, 4th Floor, Laganside House, 23 -27 Oxford Street, Belfast, BT1 3LA within two months of the date of this response. If following the internal review you remain dissatisfied with the Courts and Tribunals Service’s treatment of your request, and then you are entitled to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner’s address is Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF. If you have any queries about your request please do not hesitate to contact us. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications. Yours sincerely Information Access Team Central Management Team So there you have it, only PPC to go near a court in NI is CEL, when somebody took a claim against them. In N.Ireland, all PPCs can be ignored with impunity. It turns out that all their bluster is pure bluff, quelle surprise!
  21. There's no harm in being clued up enough to copy and paste from the internet, we've all learned about PPC shenanigans and how to deal with them on the internet. I really don't understand the logic of not sending a firm and assertive letter that between the lines says to them ; 1. I'm not a dumb sucker who is going to fall for your mis-representation of authority 2. I know how to deal with fake PCNs from private parking companies 3. You are going to get nothing but hassle out of me 4. You're going to have to cough up £27 and go through the bother of a POPLA appeal 5. You're going to lose It costs nothing to fire these shots over their bows, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain, so why not just do so??? Of course I agree, they will almost certainly still reject, but they will know they have taken on a "problem client"
  22. I know its hard to believe, but some PPCs are actually accepting a very very small percentage of appeals. Of course it's got nothing to do with mittigating circumstances, or any sort of "goodwill" and everything to do with them knowing that a clued up appellant has 100% chance of winning at POPLA, costing them £27 and a load of hassle presenting their case.
  23. There is no reason not to send a firmly worded appeal, as you say their whole business is based on tricking people into believing you must pay. A strong appeal shows them that they're not dealing with a mug who is going to give into them. It is almost certain that they will reject the appeal, but several PPC have finally realised the futility of throwing £27 away with every POPLA appeal, so it is possible that they will cancel. Even if (when) they don't cancel the ticket it will show that you're not a candidate to be messed around. PPCs will do anything to avoid handing out POPLA codes, it does no harm at all to show you know how to deal with them from the outset.
  24. You need to much more assertive, it's not about what happened on the day, you need to challenge their legal right to issue such charges Dear xxxxx As the registered keeper of (reg) I'm in receipt of your parking invoice xxxxxx dated xxxxxx. I wish to invoke your appeals process as all liability to your company is denied on the following: 1) The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner 2) Your signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice 3) You are not the landowner and do not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass 4) The driver paid, the fact that an error was made typing in a reg number does cause any loss to you. A copy of the ticket is enclosed. These points and others will be raised with POPLA should you not accept this appeal, and you will be expected to provide a full breakdown of your alleged loss, and your full unredacted contract with the landowner. If you do reject the challenge and insist on taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my expenses from you. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc. By continuing to pursue me you agree to pay these costs when I prevail. Any communication that does not either confirm cancellation or include a POPLA verification code shall be reported to the BPA as a breach of their Code of Practice - the BPA recently issued guidance to all members to remind them of this fact. Such communication may also be deemed harassment and pursued accordingly. Registered Keeper Do not sign your name - Just print it
×
×
  • Create New...