Jump to content

yewneik

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by yewneik

  1. Thanks dx100uk, Reading through the prior art, am I correct to think these are the points you recommend in the defence. Glad I have a bit of time to get this right, but hope to get it sorted so I can get on with my life. 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle]. 2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 4. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 5. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Original point 3 is interesting: 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. But from what I've seen they are licensed to pursue people with PCNs. So assume it's a null point. Also, on my point 3, should I mention that I contend that I did purchase and display a valid ticket, it was the fault of a broken ticket machine (which has since been fixed) that allowed me to purchase a ticket without entering my registration details. This machine also did not have any of their 'contract details' displayed on it. Thus meaning I had no information on said contract at point of purchase, extending to point 2. Thanks all!
  2. CPR Sent yesterday, Should I get on writing up defence? Is it best to writ up briefly, focusing on main points of defence, and should I leave factors such as no 'car park rules shown on point of purchase' out for the time being? Cheers
  3. AOS is sorted, Just working through the CPR form letter now. Besides the 3 doc types the template is there anything else worth adding to this request? Realise the CCTV is likely a lost cause, but Is this the place to request it anyway?
  4. Well speaking with Morrisons last year, they essentially said all CCTV and transaction data is only kept for a month. On finding out that the PPC owned the CCTV, I thought it would be a good point if going to court that they will obviously have footage of me purchasing a ticket then displaying it in my car. My worry is that they have deleted their footage, but I could also use this as a point, if you were attempting to prove someone didn't purchase a ticket surely they should have retained that footage to show wrongdoing. At the moment I need to know if I should write to the carpark, requesting the footage of the day, under ICO guidelines. It's just going to a problem if they revert to a 'we only hold our CCTV footage on file for 1 month' response. Thanks
  5. ANPR Camera on the way in/out, Then 2 or 3 CCTV cameras in the car park, checked with the Morrisons who do not have access to the footage. All cameras owned and operated by the carpark.
  6. Thanks very much indeed dx100uk. Some great information in there, will have a thorough read, but definitely the information I need right now! I'm keen to request the car parks CCTV footage of the day, should I hold off until it's confirmed we're going to court, or is now the right time to request it? Name of the Claimant : Civil Enforcement Limited Claimants Solicitors: S Wilson, Head of Legal Date of issue 26 July 2021 (Received 30th July) Date for AOS - 13th August Will get this sent out on Monday (2nd August) Date to submit Defence - 27th August What is the claim for – Claim for money relating to a Parking Charge for breach of contract terms/conditions(TCs) for parking in private car park (CP) managed by Claimant. Drivers may only park pursuant to TCs of use displayed in CP and agreed upon entry/parking. ANPR cameras or manual patrols monitor vehicles entering/exiting the CP and TC breaches. Charges of GBP182.00 claimed. Violation date: 02/07/2020 Payment due date: 31/07/2020 Time in: 12:20 Time out: 12:49 PCN: Vehicle reg mark: Car park:-Butterfly Walk What is the value of the claim? Amount Claimed £197.40 court fees £35 legal rep fees £50 Total Amount £282.40 Thanks for your help through this everyone!
  7. Right last version before I throw it in the Post. Dear Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL) I write in response to your Letter Before Action - Claim for Debt , which I have received in relation to PCN Number: xxx I am writing to notify you that I have no intention of paying these ridiculous invented penaltys, for allegedly breaking an imaginary contract with yourselves. Muddied misplaced signage does not magically create a contract, that after having paid for a ticket, of which you are well aware, allow you to harass and extort me for money. Especially in the current climate, bombarding me with invented penaltys has cast a dark cloud over an already incredibly difficult year. You have also put yourselves in a poor standing moving forward, aside harrassing me with threats of bailiffs being sent to my house without due process, but illegally adding a £82 administration fee, presumably as some sort of unicorn food tax. I suggest that you look at DDJ Harvey’s judgement at Lewes County Court on 05/02/2020 (Claim number F0HM9E9Z). He was not very happy with these made-up amounts. You can either drop this foolishness now or I will instruct legal council, compile my case against your dispicible company, and look forward to walking over you in court. I hope we can call this matter over with, and that to that end I will never have to suffer another one of your pointless letters again.
  8. Using miley_b ob 's great letter as a template, is the below along the right lines: Dear Civil Enforcement (CEL) Limited I write in response to your Letter Before Action - Claim for Debt , which I have received in relation to PCN Number: ?????, you have issued in response to a case I have explained is baseless. I am writing to notify you that I have no intention of paying these ridiculous and made-up sums of money, for allegedly breaking some imaginary contract with yourselves. Expecting me to pay you a baseless fine for not entering my cars registration details amounts to extortion. You already have my £2 for parking in your car park, a fact I'm sure you realise due to the fact you own all CCTV in the carpark. I would also reference the fact that the parking meter that issued me a ticket without entering my registration has since been fixed, which shows that you are fully aware of the problems it has caused. You have also scored a big own goal by adding a £82 admin fee. Presumably, this admin fee is some sort of unicorn food tax. I suggest that you look at DDJ Harvey’s judgement at Lewes County Court on 05/02/2020 (Claim number F0HM9E9Z). He was not very happy with these made-up amounts, was he? You can either drop this foolishness now or get a good spanking in court. The choice is yours. Hopefully we will not be speaking again, xxxx
  9. Thanks DX100uk, Will dig in. If there's a specific article to look at I'd appreciate the link. I assume I write them a letter stating that the claim is unjustified etc. Will look for templates on the forum. Thanks for all your on going help. Obviously don't want to give these buggers anything if I don't have to.
  10. Right, A big boy come this time, Should I be getting my ducks in a row now? I assume I can use the included form to request their cctv records of the day, and their planning permission for signage and ANPR cameras in the car park? Or is it time to suck it up, pay them a stupid amount of money and save myself from having my credit score buggered? Cheers all Y PCN-250321s.pdf
  11. Just to keep things updated, Just received the below, it appears a debt collection group have taken over the case and will be the ones to take me to court. Also very useful that I received the letter on Sunday, missing the payment date stated in the letter. Just wondering if now is a good time to contact Civil Enforcement Limited regarding the CCTV footage of the Carpark, as if it does go to court this will be the best piece of evidence in my defence? Will have a look for a letter template for requesting this in the forums, but if someone has a direct link I'd appreciate it. As always thanks for advice in advance. All the best, Yewneik IMG_9500.pdf
  12. Hi all, Just wanted to check in with the latest nonsense from these guys. They say the debt will be passed to a collection agency, is that even possible with out going to court? Their threats seem to just skip this part of the process out? Should I be responding to them that I will happily discuss the case in court. Just getting wary of sitting on an ever mounting, if total tosh, bill. All the best, David final reminder.pdf
  13. ...no, but I guess I am pre-empting. If I do receive a 'letter of claim', this is the information I have on my side. If I do receive a Letter of Claim, will I be liable for the Unicorn Tax, as a previous poster so wonderfully put it. Or will I only be held for the £100 fine? I'm just getting the fear I guess, while I know that I am in the right, I'm just getting worried they will hit me with a whopping bill for making them escalate it to court, then that I don't have enough on my side in defence. I realise this may be the result of watching far too many crime dramas. Again, thanks everyone for their patience and help.
  14. Morrisons want nothing to do with it, literally washing their hands of the entire thing. The only thing I have in defence of my claim, is my bank statement showing an £8 transaction in that Morrisons with no further details. Morrisons now have no record of their CCTV or the transaction, as it was too late when I requested it. All the CCTV in the Car Park is owned by the car park. So when claiming in previous appeals the CCTV would show I paid, they know that I don't have that footage, I could request the footage, but will involve getting backing in touch with CEL. Getting a bit antsy as of what to do next. Would rather this whole thing would go away, but it from other forums it does sound like CEL are cantankerous. And it would go to a game of who would show up in court. I'm just not sure a bank statement is enough? All the best, DM
  15. Update with the notice from the DVLA, The signage in the Car Park states that all claims will be followed up by CEL, am I right in thinking that it's against DVLA rules because CEL are not the Carpark Owner and it's illegal to apply for records for a non member. IE CEL were allowed to get my data, but not to chase it on behalf of the car park? I guess this is the tricky bit, I am up against CEL, and they were wrong to obtain my information as they are not the owner of the carpark? Thanks all! David CEL_DVLA.pdf
  16. Also, revisited the carpark today and it appears they have fixed the machine. So you can no longer purchase a ticket without entering a reg number. Very infuriating. But we shall see what comes next. Cheers all.
  17. For reference, this is what the appeal through POPLA came back with: Decision Unsuccessful Assessor Name xxx Assessor summary of operator case The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to failing to make payment. Assessor summary of your case The appellant’s case is that he did purchase a parking ticket on the day of the breach. He states the payment machine did not request a vehicle registration (VRM) so he did not enter one but did pay and redeem it inside the store. He states that the operator will be able to see that a ticket was purchased at the time he was on site, without a VRM attached. The appellant adds that CCTV will demonstrate he purchased parking time and his bank statement demonstrates he purchased goods inside the store. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal. Assessor supporting rational for decision The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the driver. When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “PHONE AND PAY OR PAY AT MACHINE. 1 HOUR £2.00…If you do not obtain a valid permit you must pay within 10 minutes of arrival and provide your full, exact registration number when making your payment…If you breach any of these terms you will be charged £100”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 12:20, and exiting at 12:49, totalling a stay of 28 minutes. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that the appellant did not pay to park. The appellant explains that he did purchase a parking ticket on the day of the breach. He states the payment machine did not request a vehicle registration (VRM) so he did not enter one but did pay and redeem it inside the store. He states that the operator will be able to see that a ticket was purchased at the time he was on site, without a VRM attached. The appellant adds that CCTV will demonstrate he purchased parking time and his bank statement demonstrates he purchased goods inside the store. I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and do believe that the appellant purchased parking time, but it is evident that he did not enter his VRM. I appreciate that the payment machine may not have requested this, but it is clear from the signage that it is a requirement when paying to park. It is clear the appellant was aware that payment was needed to park but failed to read the terms of parking in error. I have reviewed the operators evidence pack and it has provided images of signage on site which make the terms of parking clear. I appreciate the appellant states the signage in the centre of the car park did not stipulate this, but he has provided no evidence to show what the signage in the centre of the car park stated. The operator has provided images of signage throughout the site, all of which make the terms of parking clear, and the full and correct VRM must be entered when making payment. The operator has provided a list to demonstrate other motorists followed the terms and entered their vehicle registration via the terminal. Although I do take the appellants point on board and the operator may be able to locate a vehicle with no VRM entered at the time of the breach, but it is not their responsibility to do so, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms of parking. I fully accept that CCTV may show the appellant paying to park, but it is the responsibility of the motorist to request this from Morrisons and provide this to POPLA as part of his appeal. We cannot obtain evidence on behalf of the operator or the appellant. I note that the appellant has provided a copy of his bank statement which demonstrates he was a legitimate user of the site, but this does not demonstrate that parking time was purchased unfortunately. Whilst I fully sympathise with the appellant I must advise that POPA’s remit is to assess the validity of the PCN, as the appellant has provided no evidence that parking time was purchased and the operator has provided clear evidence that it is a requirement to enter the VRM when purchasing parking time, I can only conclude that the PCN was issued accordingly. I have reviewed the operators evidence pack and it has provided images of the appellants vehicle entering and exiting the site. It has provided images of the signage on site which are clear, legible and evenly spread, this sets out the terms of parking and the PCN amount if the terms are not met. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, however when looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant did not comply with the terms and conditions by failing to make payment. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
  18. Perfect, make a lovely file of future origami fodder until or if a Letter Before Claim arrives. At which point it's time to get my legal ducks in a row.
×
×
  • Create New...