Jump to content

FTMDave

Site Team
  • Posts

    7,713
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    110

Everything posted by FTMDave

  1. @10shinhan Do you know the history of the IAS? Once upon a time there was only one parking association, the British Parking Association, which had a half-decent appeals body which often found in favour of the motorist. The worst of the PPCs were incandescent about this so, seeing a hole in the market, the directors of the firm of solicitors who got most of the parking work decided to set up a rival trade association, the IPC, and its appeals body the IAS. So the trade association, the appeals body and the solicitors getting the parking work were all run by the same two people. No conflict of interest there! If you had absolute proof that you were in prison in Australia at the time of the contraventions and the vehicle was scrapped 20 years ago, the IAS would still find a reason to say you were in the wrong. We have never seen one, not even one successful appeal to the IAS on CAG. I was just about to send this and your last post popped up. You reported that you were the driver and the registered keeper at the time the parking charge was issued. You reported that you are being held liable for the parking charge Who wrote this? Countrywide or the IAS?
  2. Look - apologies. When we won the persuasive judgement about POFA my thoughts were - at last we have a persuasive judgement - StoryBoard is going to court soon - StoryBoard can use the persuasive judgement. It completely slipped my mind - again - that you had outed yourself as the driver so POFA is neither here nor there in your case. Sorry, all your time on the phone was wasted as you can't use the judgement. FTMDave holds hands up. As a tiny justification we are all volunteers here and it's hard to remember every detail of every case, I just presumed like most users you hadn't appealed and hadn't outed yourself as the driver.
  3. I've just looked through our Countrywide threads. There is yours. The one Lolerz mentioned where they obsessively pursued a Cagger and got thrashed in court - twice. And 27 other cases where they haven't dared try court. So they are not very litigious. Plus the one time they did try court they got an absolute hammering so they will be very careful about doing court again. The problem is their greed as £160 x 5 = £800 and avarice may cause them to chance it. So it's best you factor in that you may well have to face them in court in the long run where their magnificent win rate is exactly 0% Nail hit on head. Can you please post up your appeal to the IAS? If the matter ever does get to court Countrywide will have a big problem as they have no-one to sue. They don't know who the driver of the vehicle was. They could have pursued the keeper if they had bothered to respect the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 but as LFI has pointed out that was far, far too difficult for them. But that protection will be thrown away if you have outed yourself as the driver so we need to see the appeal. And as others have said - stop appealing!
  4. Understood. But you really need to move on this. You should really have contacted the port authority in October, instead of wasting your energy on the very spivs who set up the signs so as to entrap motorists. Not that that was your fault.
  5. Sorry, please ignore my last post. I had forgotten that you outed yourself as the driver. Thanks LFI for the reminder.
  6. New version attached. It takes into consideration their WS. I had stupidly quoted verbatim about the recent persuasive case and had suggested that the vehicle was parked. Have sorted that. A short section added at the end about the Unicorn Food Tax - in fact two different types of feed for the unicorns from PE! I have added LFI's Beavis magic. i was unsure how to properly explain the Beavis case - LFI did it in two lines. Draft Witness Statement-2.pdf
  7. SeldomSeen, the antics of the attendant make your case even stronger than Intrepid's, as legally the attendant should have "mitigated" the loss and told you you were parked in the wrong place. However, every case is different, as dx says, please start your own thread.
  8. I quoted a recent persuasive case in your No keeper liability section. The unredacted name of the defendant which you can quote is in the PDF here https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/465769-premier-park-euro-car-parts-gatwick-80-crawley-rh10-9pl-no-parking-period-quoted-so-pofa-not-respected/ Their WS is dynamite, especially para 16 where they again hide the consideration & grace periods. However, I'll comment in the morn, tiredness is kicking in here.
  9. I think CEL have called your bluff. You now have a choice of - drop the matter - sue for £3500 - sue for an open amount and let the judge decide. If you decide on the third option you will need to do some reading up as I believe these cases are a bit more complicated. You've had conflicting advice from the regulars which is no bad thing as we have very few cases like yours and it's good to weigh up different opinions. It was great that you got rid of the CCJ so quickly from your credit file but on the other hand ironically it makes it more difficult to sue CEL who did right their wrong. I get the impression that you're up for revenge so the good news is that you can sue both Smart and DRP for a couple of hundred quid each for distress for not respecting your SAR. We have experience with this and it's straightforward. The next step would be to send them a Letter of Claim, which would also serve as a reminder of the SAR so they couldn't pretend they knew nothing about it and could also mention their misuse of your address while pursuing a debt so you have a paper record that they have ben told yet again and have done nowt. Have a think about if you want to do this. Here is an example of someone who did, and won, and which includes a template LoC https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/452147-loc-to-ncp-for-failure-to-supply-sar-paid-in-full/#comments Some Caggers haven't had it so easy though and we would like you to read those threads too, but firstly decide if you want to sue Smart and DRP.
  10. OK, how about this? I've royally knackered your layout and numbering, but hopefully any new bits can be added to your original. Alterations in red. I've moved your Terms of contract section further up as it is your ace. Draft Witness Statement.pdf
  11. How about something much shorter and to the point? Mr Tom Willis Chief Executive Shoreham Port Nautilus House 90-100 Albion Street Southwick Brighton BN42 4ED United Kingdom Dear Mr Willis, I am writing to complain about poor customer service practice by GXS Services Ltd which I believe is leading to unfair outcomes for users of Shoreham Port Authority facilities. I’m a local resident who signed up for an evening class within a Shoreham Port Building ‘The Hut’. I received 2 ‘Parking Charge’ letters from GXS at Shoreham Port, Lady Bee Marina, after attending the class on 2 evenings on consecutive weeks. I appealed both PCN’s with the reason ‘unclear signage’. The area was not well lit and the peripheries dark and shadowy with vans parked. As a woman on my own in that area, it did not feel safe there, the risk of sexual violence was at the forefront of my mind due to recent cases in the media and getting safely to the building was the priority. It was dark on both occasions, there is no GXS signage as you enter the area from the highway, no clear ‘camera logo’ to indicate it’s ANPR or GXS, like you see in supermarkets etc. I was not aware I was entering into a ‘contract’ with GXS and believed I was authorised to park there as I was attending the evening class within Shoreham Port. I appealed both Parking charges using the GXS digital portal, as per GXS guidance on the back of each of the original Parking charge letter. No outcome of appeal communication was received from GXS and I contacted them several times via phone and email to inform them of this. I have never received a reply and instead GXS have involved debt collection agencies and are now demanding £170 per invoice even though that is expressly forbidden by law. This situation is extremely stressful and I have had many sleepless nights and extreme worry about being pursued for £340, an awful lot of money. I feel exasperated at the unsatisfactory response from GXS. I have now spent several days of my own time repeatedly trying to engage with them to reasonably resolve this matter, which they are unwilling to do. GXS's trade association's Code of Practice is extremely clear - "Signs must be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk, if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times" but they are obviously only interested in entrapping motorists, not in professionally managing a car park. I also note that the port is subject to statutory control, namely bye-laws, and the proper procedure if anyone commits a traffic violation is prosecution in a Magistrates' Court with a fine paid to the state. The proper procedure is not enrichment of a cowboy private parking company. I am therefore writing to request that you instruct GXS to cancel both invoices. Yours, XXXXX
  12. So, I see you're preparing a section on NO KEEPER LIABILITY. As part of that simply include two paragraphs. 01. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, section 9(2)(a) states that the keeper must be supplied with: “ (1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. (2) The notice must (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.” The notice did not specify the period of parking. Instead it specified the times the vehicle entered and left the car park, which is not the same as the period of parking. It is simple common sense that the period of parking was shorter. 02. In the persuasive case K4GF167G heard on 5 January 2024 at Horsham county court, Premier Park Ltd v Mr XXXXX, the judge dismissed the case specifically on this very point that the notice had not included the period of parking.
  13. They are liars. I had a 6-hour train journey yesterday and used some of the time to look through their trade association's new Code of Practice. This stood out Signs must be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk, if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. You want both invoices completely cancelled. Your first, second and last paragraphs are excellent. The others about GXS not respecting their own appeals procedure are neither here nor there - cut them out. No way should you say you tried to pay, that seems like you accept you owe the money. Mr Willis's job is very simple - to tell GXS to cancel both tickets.
  14. Great detective work! I'm at work now but will help with this late this evening when I knock off.
  15. Thanks. This is a LOADING IS NOT PARKING section from another WS. Ir can be tweaked and included. More late this evening. LOADING IS NOT PARKING 18. In the case of Jopson V Homeguard, Claim No. 9GF0A9E, 29.06.2016, also a residential parking case, Judge Harris makes persuasive observations on what constitutes "parking". "The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it." Judge Harris goes on to list examples. "A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine." 19. In this case the driver was there to collect a paying passenger and never left the vehicle even for a moment.
  16. Both WSs have uploaded fine. You know the drill with me, knock off work late, so will have a good Night Owl read through this evening late over a beer. Three quick initial things. I don't think there's any need to go into detail about teaching your partner to drive because they will use these details to pretend you shouldn't have been there. Just simply state that you weren't the driver and that you had a package to deliver to the company. A LOADING IS NOT PARKING section would be good too. You've uploaded PE's WS but not their 53 pages of (presumably) daft attachments. Did they include the contract? if so, was it the heavily-redacted version?
  17. You have to give them a chance to pay before enforcing. You're very scant with the detail. So this was not a default CCJ then. Did they turn up in court and argue their side before the judge found in your favour?
  18. As I've just had a 6-hour train journey and needed things to occupy my time, I've had a look through the new bits of the CoP. Of course there's the usual Will & John pretending to improve matters for the motorist before instantly contradicting themselves. However, there are bits that are half decent, and which the PPCs will surely ignore, which we can use in WSs. These are below. Bits in red are new, taken from the government CoP. Bits in blue are new, but not based on the government CoP. Bits in black had always been there, just not noticed properly by me. They have also had to accept the government consideration & grace period times. 9.3 Keying errors Where the terms and conditions require the driver to supply their vehicle registration mark at an on-site machine, by telephone or online, the parking operator must have and follow a documented policy and procedure to avoid issuing or enforcing a parking charge in respect of accidental keying errors, including the adoption of technologies that prevent keying errors e.g. by recording the VRM of vehicles entering the land and rejecting those which don’t match on input, and physical checks of photographic images matched to make, model and colour of the vehicle as recorded by DVLA. Some common keying errors can be accommodated within the registration system, for example confusing the letter “o” with the numeric symbol “0”; more advanced systems that record the vehicle VRM on entry can be set up to reject VRMs if they do not match those of any vehicle on site. Schedule 1 Signage Signs must be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk, if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. Appropriate illumination can be achieved in a variety of ways for example: 1.ensuring sufficient ambient lighting; 2.using reflective material on signage; 3.positioning signs where headlights are likely to illuminate them. Entrance Signs Signs at the entrance to a parking area must clearly show the type of parking available and if, when and how any payment is required to be made. If public parking is not welcomed, that must be made clear. If public parking is welcomed, but subject to a tariff, then the existence of the tariff must be made clear. If one of the standard wordings in Table A.1 applies, then the standard wording should be used. Changes in Operator’s Terms and Conditions Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the Car Park and which materially affects the Motorist the Operator should place additional (temporary) notices at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur Parking Charges. Notices should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required and left in place for an appropriate period.
  19. Out standard defence - well done Andyorch - does point out that the PoCs are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. Obviously an intelligent judge has had a read of them for once and agreed. Well done judge. Well done TravellingTechy. Thread title updated to show victory. It would cost MET £275 to reinstate the claim
  20. Your victory will make it easier to get the admin charge back. We've had a few cases recently of car hire companies mixing up (or pretending to mix up) Penalty Charge Notices with invoices from a private company. So Caggers have had to argue it out with them. But in your case not only was it not a Penalty Charge Notice but it has also been cancelled! So write to them and demand your money back on the basis that (a) the invoice was none of these and (b) it has been cancelled by the landowner (obviously attach proof). As it's in their interests to try to keep the £25, in parallel look up your bank's web pages re chargeback. Hopefully all will go well but if Leaseplan faff around as soon as you can demand a chargeback through your bank. BTW, I'd heard all this "chargeback" stuff on the forum but had never been in the position to need one until a year ago. In my case I had paid for train tickets that were never purchased as the site crashed during purchase. I wrote to the train company - no reply. I looked up my bank's chargeback pages - they said I had to give the trader the chance to remedy matters and if they didn't I could do chargeback after 14 days. The train company never replied. After 14 days I got on to the bank (RBS). My money was refunded.
×
×
  • Create New...