PWE White Moss in the lake district

[Boobyandthebeads]

We had a week in the lakes and parked at White Moss car park on Thus 6th Aug.

We were there from (according to PwE) 17.57.38 to 19.23.49.

 

 

During this time I stayed in the car with our youngest daughter, while my husband went off for a walk with our older daughter.

We thought that the car park was owned by the National Trust

because we are members we assumed that we could park for free.

 

 

Didn't think anything of it because we hadn't actually left the car & are NT members - drove out and continued with our holiday.

 

We have just returned from another holiday and today (24th Aug) received a letter (dated 18th Aug) from PwE stating we owe £50 reduced to £25 if we pay within 14 days.

 

Does this parking charge stand because of the time scale it has taken for the letter to arrive; 18 days from parking to receiving the letter?

Edited August 24, 2015 by Boobyandthebeads

[ericsbrother]

As they have used ANPR to get the times and vehicle reg then they have to use para 9 of the POFA.

This means that they must have a letter outling their claim on your doormat no later than 14 days after the date of the event.

 

 

This means that if you parked on the 6th Aug then you should have had the letter by the 20th at the latest. There is no leeway on this for them.

 

You can now either wait and see what they do next or you can write to them and say that

 

 

"The keeper of the vehicle, reg +++++++ received a demand from you on the 24th of Aug 2015.

This is demand is not compliant with paras 8 or 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

therefore the keeper of the vehicle has no liability whatsoever in this matter.

 

 

Any further demands will be treated as harassment and reported to the authorities as such."

 

the keeper should send this and not say anything else.

 

If by some miracle they can prove service of their claim on the 19th aug

then they should be showing you this and you can appeal in the conventional manner.

 

 

However, they dont get things right so I wouldnt be sweating about this.

[Boobyandthebeads]

Thanks. I'll let you know the outcome as we've just received a letter stating Legal Action Pending due to lack of correspondence from us. So the numerous emails I've sent them are just a figment of my imagination then?

 

As they have used ANPR to get the times and vehicle reg then they have to use para 9 of the POFA. This means that they must have a letteroutling their claim on your doormat no later than 14 days after the date of the event. This means that if you parked on the 6th Aug then you should have had the letter by the 20th at tyhe latest. There is no leeway on this for them.

You can now either wait and see what they do next or you can write to them and say that "The keeper of the vehicle, reg +++++++ received a demand from you on the 24th of Aug 2015. This is demand is not compliant with paras 8 or 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore the keeper of the vehicle has no liability whatsoever in this matter. Any further demands will be treated as harassment and reported to the authorities as such."

the keeper should send this and not say anything else.

If by some miracle they can prove service of their claim on the 19th aug then they should be showing you this and you can appeal in the conventional manner. However, they dont get things right so I wouldnt be sweating about this.

[armadillo71]

What exactly have you received and from whom?

 

 

Can you post up a redacted copy please. (PDF).

[ericsbrother]

The legal action pending is just a threat and doesnt conform with the requirements os a lba under civil procedure regs.

 

 

Then write to them at their registered company address telling them again their is no keeper liability under PoFA and any claim against you will be rigourously defended and costs for loss of income etc will be claimed when they lose.

 

 

If the letter is from Gladstones or Miah,

write to them and copy letter to PWE so there is no doubt that you arent a mug

[Boobyandthebeads]

Latest email back from PwE:

We note your comments regarding the IAS, and as such we have checked your details on their site and allowed the full 21 days from today for you to make your appeal to them. We note you state this is a breach of contract however you are incorrect in this statement. We are not claiming keeper liability under pofa 2012 and therefore we have no requirement to get the notice to you within 14 days as you state.

We note your comments regarding harassment, however as you stated in you early emails that you had not paid for parking all we are doing is trying to collect the outstanding debt you have. We have complied with all consumer regulations in doing so.

We will await your appeal to the IAS. Should this not be made then we will take legal action to recover the outstanding amount.

[silverfox1961]

Latest email back from PwE:

We note your comments regarding the IAS, and as such we have checked your details on their site and allowed the full 21 days from today for you to make your appeal to them. We note you state this is a breach of contract however you are incorrect in this statement. We are not claiming keeper liability under pofa 2012 and therefore we have no requirement to get the notice to you within 14 days as you state.

We note your comments regarding harassment, however as you stated in you early emails that you had not paid for parking all we are doing is trying to collect the outstanding debt you have. We have complied with all consumer regulations in doing so.

We will await your appeal to the IAS. Should this not be made then we will take legal action to recover the outstanding amount.

 

Hi,

In the unlikely event they tried this in court, introduce that email as evidence.

 

This more evidence that the IAS (and their members) are ignoring the rights of the motorist.

 

They write to you demanding the name and address of the driver which you choose to refuse them (as is your right) so to punish you, they assume you are the driver and chase accordingly instead of following proper procedure and chasing the keeper.

 

No wonder they take so very few people to court.

[Boobyandthebeads]

Latests replies:

Dear Sir

As previously stated the signage of terms and conditions is clear. The site has not been under the management of the national trust since 2007.

We reject your offer the charge is £50 and must be paid in full to prevent further action being taken.

and

Dear Sir We have wasted more than enough time on this matter. The charge is £50 which is a contractual charge. You failed to read the terms of use which clearly state that charges are due. We will not be dropping the charge and will pursue you for payment in full taking legal action as necessary.

[Boobyandthebeads]

My responses:

Thank you for your correspondence. Yes I did admit to not paying the parking costs but as I explained in my very first email – this was a genuine error because the signs are very misleading and we thought that because the National Trust sign was on the name of the car park that it belonged to them. Had I have realised it wasn’t their car park I would not have parked there at all. As this was a genuine mistake I offered to pay for the amount of time I was parked there, a sum of £3 but you refused to accept this payment and sent a bill for an extortionate amount. I state again that I am happy to pay a reasonable sum for my genuine and honest mistake. If you would allow this then I will make an immediate payment and bring this matter to a close.

Please let me know as soon as you have amended the amount I owe to a reasonable sum and I will make immediate payment.

and

Park with Ease,

Please understand I am trying to be reasonable about this and am happy to pay what I owe – this is something I stated in my first email. I renewed my membership of the National Trust after some years as not being a member so as such they did not inform me of any changes to car park ownership. Their logo is still visible on the car park and is therefore very misleading. As such please accept that this is a genuine mistake and I will happily pay what I owe for the time I was parked there. A fee of £50 is absolutely extortionate – please can you send me a break down of where you get this cost from?

[silverfox1961]

Stop emailing. You have now admitted to being the driver and as such, they would have proof of this IF they took court action.

 

Please ignore unless a court form turns up. They don't care what you think. All they want is your money.

[Boobyandthebeads]

I had already admitted we were the driver of the vehicle in our first email. We were in the wrong but didn't know at the time because we thought that the car park belonged to the National Trust.

 

I feel now that they would take court action if we left it because we have admitted liability but still refusing to pay. I don't think that IAS would uphold any appeal either.

[ericsbrother]

the land isnt theirs, it is NT but they manage the car park. Not all of the land covered by their CCTV is parking land for them to manage so the burden of proof still lies with them. However, you should stop doing their legwork for them and then tell them that you are in the wrong, if you continue on this parth you will end up losing in court and having to pay their costs to boot so you either take steps to fight it properly or pay up now and avoid further costs. They are agressive because you havent used the arguments that would kill any claim and they scent a payout.

If it were me I would look very carefully at where the car actually was and then try and determine whetehr this is on the land they manage and then demand proof of the assignment form the landowner to allow them to make legal claims in their own name, planning permissioon for the signage, proof of the land being covered by their management agreement etc. I would do a bit of homework and then hit them with this as soon as they send a letter before claim or letter before action.

[Boobyandthebeads]

The car was very clearly on the part that is their car park - we know now we should have paid the parking costs but didn't at the time because we thought as members of the NT we thought we could park there for free. I know I've dug myself into a bit of a hole by admitting fault and ownership and so can't see any way out than to pay the £50.

[Boobyandthebeads]

Homework - what am I looking for? I've no idea what I'm doing with this now. Feel like giving up and just paying them because they're not looking like they're going to back down ever. This is their reply.

Dear Sir To be clear the charge is £50 and will not be reduced. This could all of been avoided if yyou had read the signs that are clearly displayed within the car park.

[Boobyandthebeads]

Asked them for the above details and this is the response I've got:

As we have stated we have already wasted enough time on this matter. We will not be corresponding any further with you. We have no requirement to provide you with those items nor do they have any relevance.

As we have stated we will instruct legal action if payment in full is not made.

So do I go ahead with the appeal to IAS or just ignore them and call their bluff? If I do the latter I fear we'll end up with court action and a huge bill for their costs - something we cannot afford. Hubby is just saying to pay up and have done with it. How likely are they to drop this? Or are they just going to take us to court and what are the odds of us losing? Quite large I feel.

[silverfox1961]

Pay or not to pay. In the end that is your choice and no amount of trying to convince you otherwise is going to make any difference if you have made up your mind you will lose.

 

Before any PPC can take action, they must have followed pre action protocol and by refusing to follow the law laid down in PoFA 2012, they are already on a sticky wicket as they should be going after the keeper and not the driver once the relevant period has expired.

 

If it did go to court. it would be in the small claims section where costs are strictly limited. Any attempt at them trying to get more will fail.

[ericsbrother]

STOP CONTACTING THEM.

 

 

because you keep bothering them every 5 minutes

they have you down on their suckers list as going to pay up.

 

 

If you dont want to pay dont,

they are wrong in law and so will lose at court .

 

 

You cannot mitigate yourself out of this by saying you didnt know,

ignorance is no defence

 

 

if you do want to fight back then you have to read up on the parking laws

and read a good few of the relevant threads on here. so you know where you stand.

 

I would let them do their worst but that is easy for me to say as it is not me who has to turn up at court

and tell the judge why PWE are a bunch of shysters.

 

 

Being right is not enough,

you have to show you are right.

 

 

Conversely, PWE have to show they have a valid claim

and they will find that difficult if you point out where they are wrong

and that is why you need to do a bit of searching.

[Boobyandthebeads]

Thanks, that's really helpful.

 

 

I'll get onto it and do my research.

 

 

Feel happier now that they don't have a valid case.

 

 

I just felt that because we knew we'd parked there

 

 

now know we should have paid at the time that that was all the evidence they needed.

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

Someone has pointed out that your attachment higher up the thread contains a reference number that could identify you. I've removed the post to protect your anonymity.

 

HB

[Boobyandthebeads]

Thanks - thought I'd covered everything up.

Hello there.

 

Someone has pointed out that your attachment higher up the thread contains a reference number that could identify you. I've removed the post to protect your anonymity.

 

HB

[cumbriaman]

What was the outcome of this case

[dx100uk]

all PWE claims in the lakes using ANPR have now been found to be faulty

see the parking pranksters site or other like threads here

 

 

thread closed

 

 

dx