Highview Parking - Now they're just toying with me***Withdrawn***

[DragonFly1967]

Well, as I predicted in my previous thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?476584-Highview-Parking-want-another-go-***Success*** I was half expecting a PCN from LowLife Parking for 7th & 8th April, and I have to admit, was rather surprised when they didn't send one.

 

However, today, the postman has brought me a gift

 

That'll be 29 days then, and as there was no NTD (as LowLife don't do those) it'll also be game over.

 

I wonder if I'll get another one (for 8th April) on Monday

 

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

 

 

I've no idea what LowLife are playing at on this one. So far, I've always found them to be on the ball regarding the sending of NTK's, but, as they clearly have money to burn, I shall assist them by wasting some more of it for them.

hpl060517.pdf

[unclebulgaria67]

But they could argue the same back re insanity of doing the same thing.

 

How many times have Lowlife now tried this on with you, for the same car park ?

 

Has this become a new hobby ?

[BazzaS]

They are scuppered by both s.9(2)(f) and s.9(5) of Sch.4 of POFA 2012, unless you want to say "It's me! I was the driver!", which seems only slightly more unwise than it is unlikely that you'd say it!

[DragonFly1967]

But they could argue the same back re insanity of doing the same thing.

 

A good point well made

 

How many times have Lowlife now tried this on with you, for the same car park ?

 

To be honest, I've lost count. I think it must be getting on for about a dozen now though

 

Has this become a new hobby ?

 

Yes, it could well be my new hobby, "Highview Baiting". I've been looking for something to do and I never have fancied trainspotting

 

You really do think that they'd have learned by now though. How hard can it be to not bother wasting your money by sending an NTK. Especially one that's 15 days late

[BazzaS]

Interestingly (though it may not be a surprise to regulars, I've only just noticed it) : the letter is an identical format to a CP Plus parking charge notice.

 

The PO Box 3573 seems shared by them.

Different Registered Office addresses, though.

 

3 Directors that are directors for both companies, all with correspondence addresses listed (on Companies House's app, when you click on the director from their Highview Parking Ltd entry), that are on Flask Walk, NW3 1HE, (where CP Plus have their registered office).

[DragonFly1967]

They are scuppered by both s.9(2)(f) and s.9(5) of Sch.4 of POFA 2012, unless you want to say "It's me! I was the driver!", which seems only slightly more unwise than it is unlikely that you'd say it!

 

I did consider that, for about a nanosecond. If only to see what they'd do next. I want them to take me to court, but of course, they don't really do court so I really would be wasting my time on that one. Plus the fact of course that it would be a lie, and I definitely won't do that in court!

 

Yesterday, as it happens, I sent in a request to the DVLA for the following...

 

Please supply me with details of which companies and/or individuals have accessed keeper information for my vehicle since I acquired it on 14/09/2016.

 

This may include companies and/or individuals accessing details of the vehicles previous keeper before your vehicle records were updated.

 

Please supply the following.

 

1. The company that requested the data. (For each access.)

2. The specific purpose for which that data was accessed. (For each access.)

3. The date of the request to the DVLA. (For each access.)

4. The date that the data was released by the DVLA. (For each access.)

5. If this was a manual request, please supply me with a copy of the V888, V888/2 or V888/3. (For each manual access.)

6. If this was an electronic release, please supply me with a copy of the contract between the DVLA and the requestor that allows EDI access. (For each company.)

7. A record of any and all DVLA audits of the requesting company. (For each company.)

8. If at any time the original requesting party had the permission of the DVLA to sell and/or pass my personal information to any third party. (For each company and/or manual access.)

 

So, I shall wait and see the outcome of that, and then if there are grounds (which I'm sure there will be), I will be issuing Highview (and possibly Debt Recovery Plus) with a LBA, which won't be an idle threat, and making complaints to the BPA (probably a waste of time), the DVLA (likewise) and the ICO.

[DragonFly1967]

Interestingly (though it may not be a surprise to regulars, I've only just noticed it) : the letter is an identical format to a CP Plus parking charge notice.

 

The PO Box 3573 seems shared by them.

Different Registered Office addresses, though.

 

3 Directors that are directors for both companies, all with correspondence addresses listed (on Companies House's app, when you click on the director from their Highview Parking Ltd entry), that are on Flask Walk, NW3 1HE, (where CP Plus have their registered office).

 

There's quite an incestuous relationship between all of these... Highview Parking Limited, CP Plus Limtied, CP Plus (International) Limited, CP Plus (Trading) Limited, CP Plus Investments Limited, Ranger Services, Ranger (Holdings) Limited, Ranger Plus Limited, Fairer Parking Scheme Limited, Target Parking Limited. All have one (or more) of the same directors.

 

And talking of different registered offices, Highview can't even get that bit right. According to their NTK and their website. They claim to have 2 separate 'registered' offices, at completely different addresses.

 

NTK. Registered Office. Ranger House, Queens Road, Barnet. EN5 4DJ

Website: Registered Office. 88 Crawford Street. London. W1H 2EJ.

 

And that's without the confusion of trying to actually write to them.

 

PO Box 3573, Barnet EN5 9QA (which is on the NTK) or PO Box 599, Borehamwood, Hertfordshire. WD6 4ZL (which is the address displayed on the signage).

 

 

Basics people, BASICS!

[BazzaS]

 

NTK. Registered Office. Ranger House, Queens Road, Barnet. EN5 4DJ

Website: Registered Office. 88 Crawford Street. London. W1H 2EJ.

 

88 Crawford Street is Cameron Baum, an accountants. They seem to be the registered office for a number of companies.... (not that that implies anything illegal or immoral, many companies use their accountants address as their registered office).

The registered office was changed to Ranger House from 88 Crawford Street on 2/6/15.

[DragonFly1967]

88 Crawford Street is Cameron Baum, an accountants. They seem to be the registered office for a number of companies.... (not that that implies anything illegal or immoral, many companies use their accountants address as their registered office).

The registered office was changed to Ranger House from 88 Crawford Street on 2/6/15.

 

Oh, I wasn't implying that there was anything wrong with changing their registered office. No problem with that at all. But you'd think that it may have occurred to someone up at LowLife Towers that not changing it on their website is breaking the law.

 

Since the introduction of the Companies Act 2006 it is also a legal requirement to display your registered office address on your company’s website.

 

Oops!

[DragonFly1967]

Here's what I will be posting to LowLife on Monday.

 

HPL - Letter 1. 06-05-17 _Redacted_.pdf

 

I'm not even bothering to mention that the NTK was timed out. I'll save that (yet another appeal reason) for POPLA if they choose to go down that route.

[DragonFly1967]

I had a bit of a rethink on this one...

 

I'm going to go with. "The driver of the vehicle is allowed to park in this location during any month containing the letters A, R or U and on any day containing the letter Y. As April contains both the letter A and the letter R, and Friday contains the letter Y, this charge should be cancelled"

 

Sod 'em, I'm just going to let them waste their money to issue me with a HOOPLA code.

[ericsbrother]

they also fail to name themselves as creditor of the debt so another approach is to say that you have paid the entity who wrote to you with an identical letter but said they were the creditor and you paid them

 

The reason why these peopel have several companies doing the same job is so when one folds because they dotn feel like paying their taxes or someone sues them they can wind that one up but keep going with the others. They wuill claim that there was a transfer of certain liabilities (ie tell people they are sending out demands to that the debt has been transferred when it legally hasnt been ) and swap signs in the car park without telling the landowner and then claim that they have transferred the contract ( again, normally not true).so they have a right to continue to scrw over random people and the company that was foolish enough to let them in..

[DragonFly1967]

Just for my ease, I decided to appeal this one online (with an email address of highview_are_not_getting_paid@)

 

They "considered my reasons for appeal carefully" and rejected it, issued me with a HOOPLA code and I appealed to HOOPLA using exactly the same grounds as last time.

 

Apparently "after further investigation", LowLife Parking have decided to cancel the PCN.

 

 

NEXT!

[AndyOrch]

Thread title amended...well done DF

 

Regards

 

Andy

[DragonFly1967]

I won't start yet another new thread, but... Guess what

 

You're way ahead of me.

 

I've had yet another NTK from DimView Parking.

 

Parking event: 14th April

NTK Date: 8th May

Received: 11th May

 

33 Days

 

Basics people! Come on, get your act together

 

 

Online appeal again, I'm fed up with wasting stamps even if they're not.

 

I do not pay PCNs that are received on a Thursday. Unfortunately, your PCN has arrived on a Thursday so you're all out of luck. If you're desperate to waste some more of Highview's money, just supply me with a POPLA code.

 

 

This is starting to get ridiculous now

[unclebulgaria67]

Do you have to enter the car park, if you are just dropping off, picking up ?

 

The CCTV might be poorly sighted, but you don't have a car behind you each time you left the car park, causing a problem.

 

Is it possible LowView will put all of these cases together and decide to pursue one of them in the future? They have given up so far, as there is a CCTV issue in that car park, they can't seem to argue against.

[DragonFly1967]

Do you have to enter the car park, if you are just dropping off, picking up ?

 

The CCTV might be poorly sighted, but you don't have a car behind you each time you left the car park, causing a problem.

 

Is it possible LowView will put all of these cases together and decide to pursue one of them in the future? They have given up so far, as there is a CCTV issue in that car park, they can't seem to argue against.

 

You would have to yes, well, unless you stopped on the road outside, but that would be on DYL. But this isn't about dropping off/picking up.

 

The driver has and the car displays a staff parking permit which is clearly displayed in the windscreen, yet DimView, despite being told this on countless occasions, still continue to waste their money and issue NTK's.

 

I really hope that they do decide to take me to court as a) that will allow me to wipe the floor with them there as well and b) allow me to issue a counter claim (without having to spend any of my own money). But I don't think they've got the minerals for it.

 

 

Anyway, the "Appeals" department are clearly on the Espresso this morning and have already "carefully considered" and rejected my appeal and issued me with my HOOPLA code. Off we go again then

[BazzaS]

I really hope that they do decide to take me to court as a) that will allow me to wipe the floor with them there as well and b) allow me to issue a counter claim (without having to spend any of my own money). But I don't think they've got the minerals for it.

 

You'd still have to pay the issue fee for your (counter)claim

What is your counter claim for?.

[DragonFly1967]

You'd still have to pay the issue fee for your (counter)claim

What is your counter claim for?.

 

Granted, but it would cost me less.

 

As for grounds for the counter claim, I'd start with their breaches of the DPA (no reasonable grounds to access my keeper details) and go from there I'd say.

[BazzaS]

Yup, and that cause of action (misuse of private information) is actionable 'per se'

[s13.1 of the DPA, S 13.2 having been disapplied by the Court of Appeal], so you don't even have to show actual damage caused ....

[DragonFly1967]

As I said though, I honestly don't think that they've got the minerals to actually take me to court. I've been trying to goad them in to it for about 2½ years!

 

Plus, they'd have to win at HOOPLA first anyway and they keep withdrawing as they know they've got no grounds to issue the NTKs. It's laughable really. Perhaps their business model (in my case at least) is "waste as much money as possible".

[ericsbrother]

if they do get you to court they may quote all of the times that they have withdrawn their claims and say that you are a "vexatious defendant" and demand a free kick or a penalty if inside the box.

They may demand that the BPA allow them to have another go as they werent ready this time.

[DragonFly1967]

if they do get you to court they may quote all of the times that they have withdrawn their claims and say that you are a "vexatious defendant" and demand a free kick or a penalty if inside the box.

They may demand that the BPA allow them to have another go as they werent ready this time.

 

[DragonFly1967]

DimView have thrown in the towel, again.

 

Presuming that on each occasion they're paying the DVLA £2.50.

Allowing £1 for printing and postage.

And £32.40 (inc VAT) to issue a Hoopla code.

 

I reckon that so far, DimView have wasted about £500 issuing me with NTK's. More when you also add in all the begging letters from DRP.

[unclebulgaria67]

DimView have thrown in the towel, again.

 

Presuming that on each occasion they're paying the DVLA £2.50.

Allowing £1 for printing and postage.

And £32.40 (inc VAT) to issue a Hoopla code.

 

I reckon that so far, DimView have wasted about £500 issuing me with NTK's. More when you also add in all the begging letters from DRP.

 

You could always write to them pointing out that they are losing money and ask if they are interested in paying you as a consultant ! Perhaps you can install the CCTV in a different place, so they don't have the issues they currently have.