Jump to content


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1363 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Friend parked at Wilco (Mexborough) on 22 Mar 17 at 8ish in the morning.

 

This was closely followed up with a PCN from FlashPark (Vehicle Control solutions) dated the 24th March.

 

AFAIK, there was no NTD, they have gone straight after the keeper?

 

He has just received the ''Final Notice'' with their invoice escalated to £85

 

I have copies of the two letters he's received so far, along with three photographs he's taken, of where he was parked, the DYL's that were obscured by leaves, not that it matters, and the side of the Wilco's he was shopping in that has a plastic FlashPark sign attached to it.

 

I'm sure their missives fall foul of any PoFA guidelines, their 'alleged' contravention is ''Permitted parking only''.

 

Told him NOT to ignore them, but am hoping that this can be easily dealt with with one letter, any pointers please, TIA. BB

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

several things in your friends favour,

 

 

the obscured lines,

then "permitted parking" makes any breach a matter of prohibition and thus trespass if anything, not a breach of contract.

 

 

Lastly, if the parking co is Flash Parking and VCS have sent the demand then there is no locus for the claimant.

 

Best post up the NTK suitably redacted and if possibe a piccy of the signage.

 

 

the different business registration numbers should be enough to see this off.

VCS have a track record of thinking they are someone else but so far a court hasnt agreed with them.

 

When we have seen the offending paperowrk and signs will suggest a short letter

and also would suggest sending a copy to their trade association

(Not to inform them but to fire a sighting shot)

if my suspicions are right re incorrect business.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the different business registration numbers should be enough to see this off.

VCS have a track record of thinking they are someone else but so far a court hasnt agreed with them.

 

Flashpark is Vehicle Control Solutions (not services) t/a Flashpark.

 

BPA Members rather than that other rabble :wink:

 

 

While it's not conclusive, they're listed on the BPA site as not using ANPR, but are a ticketing and self ticketing operation. I wonder then if this could be a case of 'ghosting' :|

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

use of hand held devices still covered by para 6 and 9 of POFA but they would have a bit of explaining to do if asked why they are doing things theyarent registered for doing. Might be worth a peep at their ICO registration to see what they say they collect. Remote imaging is a different category but they can be a bit vague in some of the busines types and data kept fields as they are tick the best box type fields.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a couple of things that I've spotted right off the bat.

 

1. The NTK is not compliant with the The Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008 (as amended) as it does not state the registered office address, only a PO Box. (but this is a side issue).

2. The NTK is not compliant with the BPA CoP for AOS Members.

It does not offer the required 40% discount for early payment. 40% off of £85 is £51 and not the £55 that they are demanding. BPA CoP 19.7

 

3. The NTK is not compliant with the POFA 2012 because...

a) Possible. I can't quite see, but is there a period for which the vehicle was parked?* POFA Sch 4. (9)(2)(a)

b) It does not "invite" the Keeper to name the driver, but says that the Keeper is "Required" to pay or name the driver. There is no such requirement. The driver may be 'required' to pay, but the Keeper is not 'required' to pay or name the driver. POFA Sch 4. (9)(e)

c) It does not specifically identify the creditor. POFA Sch 4 (9)(2)(h)

 

*Looking at their reason for issue "PERMITTED PARKING ONLY", I would assume that the signs in that area (any chance of a better picture of that by the way) are prohibitive. If Parking is prohibited, then no contract to park could have been formed, and therefore no breach of any contract could have taken place.

 

I wonder if they've got the required planning consent for their advertising signs :wink:

 

And that's leaving aside their 'appeals procedure'. I'm loving the way that their stated appeals procedure says that any appeal must give the name and address of the driver. Yeah right, like that's ever going to happen!

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there isnt even a proper contravention, merely a statement of permitted parking only. Does that indicate a breach of contract or a contractual term? They say alleged parking contravention in their preamble, again what on eath does that mean in regard to a contract?

 

Any judge who knows about contract law (most do as the majority of them come from a commercial litigation background) will consider that most carefully as long as it is raised.

 

Would like to see signage though, that will make things clearer to us on not only this point but others as well. Get a piccy of the entrance and any signage there, they are more important that signs just scattered around the site and are often the parking co's downfall regarding offer and acceptance

Edited by honeybee13
Paras.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies, just got back from a weekend away, will see if he can go back and get the photos.

 

But in all honesty I'm just mindful of telling him to write a few sentences just to say that there is no liability and no payment will be made.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, use the various points raised to compose something, dont have to use them all.. make sure it says "the keeper denies any monies are due beacuse"

Dont let him just sned anything before you have read it and make sure it is sent by proper post and not an email as that will not only be ignored but used as a method of free harassment

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, nothing to read as you enter the land from the public highway and the sign itself is contradictory

- is it no parking,

is it an offer of a contract to park

and is the sum a contractual agreement

or a sum due if the contract is breached.

 

 

If the latter,

where are the terms below that are referred to on the sign?

 

 

The threat to pass on to a third party within 14 days is against the POFA,

which they must abide by as a member of the BPA

so that means any details got from the DVLA are done so by making a false statement to them.

 

 

Also the sign fails to say what ATA the company belongs to, another breach of the POFA

 

In short,

the signage is rubbish

and worth a complaint to the BPA to see what they say (nothing, most likely)

 

So, no keeper liability has been created,

they are in breach of the law

and their ATA's CoP so no real chance of ever winning a court claim

and that is without considering the offer itself,

 

 

which is not posted prominently,

is badly worded,

refers to conditions that dont exist

and contradicts itself.

 

If your friend is minded to write to them

the letter should invite them to consider night school for english as a foreign language

Link to post
Share on other sites
If your friend is minded to write to them the letter should invite them to consider night school for English as a foreign language

 

Now that is something I will tell him to quote!

 

Cheers EB, complaints all round to the various outfits who claim to police this corrupt industry will also be suggested. #muppets

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Bill & Ben,

 

Thank you for your recent correspondence, the contents of which have been noted.

 

There is no keeper liability and no payment will be made.

 

Regards,

Registered Keeper.

 

 

This is what he should send?Yay/Nay??

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's as good as anything, although I'd probably go down the whole "Blues Brothers" route and tell them that the driver was on a mission from God :lol:

 

You could write out the text from War & Peace, it doesn't matter, the PPC will reject the appeal no matter what is said.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent, missive on its way... TY :thumb:

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

To Whom this may concern

 

I bring to your attention a member of yours who are operating illegally and outside your codes of practice.

I received a parking charge notice from Flashpark on DD/MM/YYYY as the registered keeper of my vehicle. They claim that my vehicle was parked in contravention of their terms and conditions laid out on their signs on the private land.

 

I would like to highlight several shortfalls in the management of the parking on this land. Firstly as laid out in section 18.2 of your code of practice there are no signs of any description upon entering the car park or access road along side the store to which my vehicle had been parked. This is essential in establishing that the land is private and restrictions may apply.

 

I have been back to the site, there are 4 signs around the premises of the business which operate on the land. These signs are wholly inadequate, and no contract can ever be formed using them.They are incorrectly positioned, sighted, and lit, to name three of the inaccuracies that your member has with their signage.

 

Then the question of how they obtained the keepers details from the DVLA, I deem this to have been unlawful access to the DVLA's database, and I will be informing the Information Commissioners Office, and my local MP, regarding the abuse of this and possible illegality your member has used in obtaining these details.

 

As a custodian of your members I hold you ultimately responsible for their actions, and any legal action I may decide to take, on the advice of my MP and ICO, will include you also.

 

I have full photographic evidence for all issues raised and I will be meeting with my local MP and councillors to comment on the action of you and your members.

 

Continued harassment by your member will result in further complaints, including but not limited to, the Police and local MP.

 

Regards

The Keeper

 

 

For what it's worth, my friend is wishing to fire this off to the BPA...... any omissions or atts?

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Knowing the BPA, it'll be a waste of a stamp whistle.gif but it can't do any harm. You never know, they may pass it on to FleshPeek and it may make them think twice about taking the keeper on (still doubtful), they usually look for the ones that will roll over and pay up rather than the ones that are happy to make a fight of it, as is usually the way with bullies wink.png.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My sentiments exactly DF, cheers will give him the green light, you never know!?

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know what you have to do to get sanction points from the BPA but I reckon if they are caught with their trousers down like this, take the matter to court and you quote thier ATA rules back at them they will have little to say so perhaps although no outward sign of any change may be evident I bet that words are said to stop this from getting to court to avoid eggy faces all round.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Well here it is....the BPA's 'token' response.....what a waste of paper..

 

Z

 

Z

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

but also a waste of the parking co's money and that is the important bit. A paper trail has been created and it makes your friend look like they have tried to be reasonable. As the decision is not legally binding it makes no real difference to what goes on from now on.

BTW, no attachemnt to your post!

Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, no attachment to your post!

 

Yes apologies EB.....I couldn't get the attachment to ''attach''!...

 

It pretty much, says that they are not responsible for their members, and they won't do anything, educating their members or otherwise, and just washed their hands of it...

 

He's going to forward on their response to his local MP and local councillors...... Just waiting for VCS to push their luck and use DRP or some other ilk...

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You would hardly expect anything else as who pays their bills? It can be used should parliament wish to revisit private parking law again so yes, send a copy to local MP and let them know about background and how the industry makes more money out ofdeceptive practices than genuine parking control.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It can be used should parliament wish to revisit private parking law again so yes, send a copy to local MP and let them know about background and how the industry makes more money out of deceptive practices than genuine parking control.

 

Great minds think alike, he's already fired it off to his local MP and Cllrs. :thumb:

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...