Jump to content


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1295 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

my wife parked the car in Colindale and I got a pcn from parking control management, addressed to me the registered keeper,

 

I wanted to fight it but I think I'm way out of my depth

, i was under the impression that because i was the registered keeper and not the driver I wouldn't be liable,

 

i also read that i should ignore the letters and wait for it to go to court

the 26/02/2017 PCN was issued

 

05/04/2017 i received a keeper liability letter, which states that under the protection of freedoms act 2012 schedule 4 states the registered keeper of the vehicle becomes liable, and its too late to name the driver and everything is on me

, i thought it was just threats and i should wait it out

 

31/05/2017

23/06/2017 i have now two debt recovery letters from Trace asking 160 pounds

 

any suggestions would be greatly appreciated

 

having looked into this further i see that there is a very strong case for defence,and its getting favourable decisions in county court

 

Defence

 

I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

 

1.***** I was, at the relevant date, the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. On the material date, I stopped in the layby for a very brief period of time. I did not see any nearby signage prohibiting this.

 

2.***** I subsequently received a Notice to Keeper from the Claimant, alleging that a charge of £100 was due to them. I did not send an appeal to the Claimant. or a further appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the Independent Parking Committee (IPC).

 

My research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors, the individuals in question being John Davies, and William Hurley.

 

Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the SRA Code of Conduct. As such, the Claimant does not come to this matter with clean hands.

 

3.***** The Claimant’s signage with the largest font at this site states “No Customer Parking At Any Time”. A further sign with much smaller writing and higher up states

 

“The loading bay is only for authorised vehicles actively loading & unloading when delivering to the commercial tenants of Heath parade”.

 

It is submitted that if these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer, then as they are forbidding they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance.

 

In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal the landowner, is offering anything to motorists. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant.

 

The above point was recently tested in the County Court at High Wycombe, in the case of Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), where District Judge Glen dismissed all three claims, stating in his judgment that:

 

*“If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels’ first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach. The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all.

 

This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway.

 

All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.”

 

While this is a County Court decision and therefore not binding, it is on all fours with the present case and may be considered as persuasive. A full transcript of the Approved Judgment for the above case will be provided in the event that this case proceeds to a hearing.

 

5.***** In addition, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 rules that if signage has multiple interpretation the interpretation most favourable to the consumer applies. It is clear from this the signage with the largest font should apply.

 

6.***** In the alternative, if it was held that the signage was contractually valid, it would be impossible for a motorist to have read the terms and conditions contained therein from a moving or stopped vehicle, and if the vehicle is stopped, the ‘contravention’ according to the Claimant is already committed.

 

7.***** The above point was recently tested in several cases regarding Hayes and Harlington station. There a similar situation arises as the vehicles were charged for briefly stopping but the signs are far away from vehicles and high up

 

In all cases it was ruled that no contract was entered by performance as the signage could not be read from a vehicle. No transcripts are available but as PCM UK were the claimant in all cases they will be fully aware of the cases;*C3GF46K8,*C3GF44K8,*C3GFY8K8**,*

 

8.***** *The IPC code of conduct states that a grace period must be allowed in order that a driver might spot signage, go up to it, read it and then decide whether to accept the terms or not. A reasonable grace period in any car park would be from 5-15 minutes from the period of stopping. This grace period was not observed and therefore the operator is in breach of the industry code of practice. Additionally no contract can be in place by conduct until a reasonable period elapses.

 

9.***** Thus the signage is simply a device to entrap motorists into a situation whereby the Claimant sends them invoices for unwarranted and unjustified charges, for which motorists can have no contractual liability due to the terms and conditions not having been sufficiently brought to their attention. This activity is bordering on, if not actually crossing the boundary of, a criminal offence of Fraud By False Representation.

 

my question is what do i do,

 

do i ignore it and take it to court

 

or contact the debt recovery company and let them know that according to my defense they are wasting their time

Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to have your arguments pretty well sorted already. You could add that by charging you the extra £60 they have broken the terms of POFA S4 ]5] (5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)© or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).

 

I would n't waste your time, money or energy replying to Trace-they are dead beat debt collectors with less power than a broken food mixer. Just keep an eye out for any Letter Before Action notice from PCM -then come back to us.

 

In the meantime could you kindly complete this form so should you get an LBA we can get straight to the point and send them on their way with perhaps £250 in your back pocket from them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In your first defence point you say, ' I stopped in the layby for a very brief period of time. I did not see any nearby signage prohibiting this.'

 

Yet in your first post you say that it was your wife who was driving?

 

It is recommended that you always refer to 'the driver', without identifying same. It just creates an extra hurdle for the PPC

  • Haha 1

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites
Honeybee13 thank you for checking up on me. Having a senior moment I guess.

If it happens again just go ahead and put it in. I won't mind -I'll still speak to you.

 

:D The trouble is that my senior mindreading skills are rusty and I might copy and paste the wrong stikky, lookin.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

wow lots pf great replys,thanks guys,i just like to point out that the defence I posted doesn't belong to me,and I havnt used it,i think its mr mustard , I was just showing it as an example of the direction these have been going

 

it was a parking charge notice, I clicked on the extra link,but where do I go from there? sorry to be pita

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry about it. What's done is done. You will get several more threatening letters followed by threatening letters from debt collectors and/or tame 2nd rate solicitors all of which can safely be ignored. However if PCM write a Letter Before Action come to us and we will give you help on how to answer and avoid payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eats,

 

I've been trying to help someone fight a ticket for stopping (not parking) in a layby in this area.

 

Can you confirm the location please.

 

Have you asked the local authority who has authority for parking in the layby.

 

:-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't use that defence....

Its aload of ole twaddle

That would open 1000's of reasons for them to crush you in court

If if if it ever went there

 

Some might form a witness statement

 

A defence to a PPC PCN is A two line one

 

If the PCN is that old

I'd ignore everything now

Until/unless you get claimform

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

as the new unlawfully inflated demands are from a debt collection agency

the first thing you need to do is read up on them and their methods.

 

the second thing you then need to do is ignore them and get on with your life.

 

Your letter, whilst commendable will be wasted and may encourage the bandits to harass you further.

 

Ignore any dca as they have no say in any matter and if you do get a lba from PCM or their monkeys then come back here for tweaks to your letter

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...