OPS/Gladstones ANPR PCN Claimform - Broadwater Street West in Worthing, West Sussex

[KaBoom!!! 4]

Hello all. First of all thank you very much for supporting this website. It has given me some hope in what to me appears to be a very dishonest situation.

 

Summary

 

PCN received after stopping for 12 mins at the entrance to a P&D car park in which ALL 4 Spaces were blocked by a wooden pallet each with a notice saying the road was too narrow for parking and emergency access.

 

Details

 

Broadwater Street West in Worthing, West Sussex is a short, narrow L-shaped side street running along the side of Starbucks and to the left behind it and other buildings, giving access to lock-up garages and waste bins. It has 4 parking spaces nose to tail running from the entrance of the road.

 

My passenger had a painful case of cystitis and needed to use the loo. Thankfully we saw a Starbucks and from the main road it looked like there were parking spaces free in the side street next to it. After turning into the street and letting my passenger out, I saw that each of the parking bays had a wooden pallet in them preventing their use. In addition there was a sheet of paper on the wall to the side of each space saying that access was required at all times in case of emergency, bin collection and deliveries and that the road is too narrow for parking cars and through traffic. This is certainly the case.

 

Having entered this narrow street the only way out was too drive to the end of the L where there is just enough space to turn around and then drive back to the entrance. Unable to park I waited just short of the main road for my passenger to return. Although I had fully intended to pay, with it not being physically possible to park let alone legal, the whole place gave the appearance that parking was at least suspended if not cancelled. Hence it never crossed my mind that I would be penalised for stopping there. There is of course no one supervising to tell you.

 

My passenger could have just run in to Starbucks, used the toilet and run out but being polite she chose to buy some tea. We had just left the vet after having spent an hour talking to one of their very kind nurses about the loss of our dog which has been heartbreaking. It was a very emotional time and with the cystitis as well I couldn't drive off and leave them; stopped by the entrance I could at least clear the road if for example an emergency vehicle required access.

 

They returned after approx 10 mins and we left.

 

What Happened

 

PCN received for "Failing to Park Within a Marked Bay". Given the situation described above where I was physically unable to park in a marked bay, let alone do so without blocking emergency access I thought it was a [problem] and a quite ludicrous one at that. And for this reason I have not contacted One Parking Solutions.

 

I have since received a letter from ZZPS Limited saying my unpaid PCN has been passed to them to resolve. The balance owed has now increased to £170. They have quoted Parking Eye v Beavis as a recent Supreme Court Ruling. I have spoken to them and they said I was parked for 12 mins. If I do nothing the matter will be passed to their solicitors.

[Sidewinder 3,750]

Can you please copy and fill this out with your own answers?

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket-(1-Viewing)-nbsp

 

All of the emotional stuff is largely irrelevant so just stick to the facts - you went to park, the parking spaces were occupied by pallets, therefore you were unable to park in a marked bay and was not actually 'parked' as such?

Have they provided photographs of you in the area? Would they support your assertion that the pallets were occupying spaces? Did you not notice anybody taking phoitos - did they issue a ticket on site or only via the post?

[KaBoom!!! 4]

Hi Sidewinder

 

They have a camera installed that took a photo of the car "parked" at the entrance to the road. That photo only shows my car parked at the entrance to the street, so no pallets in that photo.

 

They've also said that they have others available to view n their website, maybe they will show the pallets? I do have recent photos showing the pallets and the notice about access.

 

The first I knew about it was a letter in the post.

 

Just to confirm, it's a Parking Charge Notice delivered by post.

Will fill in the form.

 

Thank you!!!

 

Here is the form you requested

 

[

[Sidewinder 3,750]

Thanks - for ease of reading:-

 

1. Date of Infringement - 4th May 2018

2. Date on the NTK - 11th May 2018

3. Date Received - Unknown as not signed for.

4. Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? No

5. Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes, via onsite camera. Photos available

online via their website (in addition to the one in the PCN)

6. Have you appealed? No

7. Who is the parking company? One Parking Solutions Ltd

8. Where exactly? Broadwater Street West P&D, Worthing BN14 9DE

The letter informs how to appealing to themselves and “if OPS deem your appeal

unsuccessful, you will be informed on how to appeal POPLA”.

They have BPA and BPA Operator Approved logos at the bottom of the PCN.

 

OK - one of the parking experts will no doubt be along shortly, but even I can see holes in this, not least that they cannot identify who the driver was (so make sure that you do not do so!) so their NTK would not seem to be PoFA compliant

 

Can you post up a PDF of the letter, with all identifying marks, codes etc redacted?

[dx100uk 8,579]

Long thread title shortened

Numerous consecutive posts merged

[KaBoom!!! 4]

Parking Charge Notice (redacted)

 

ZZPS Letter

[honeybee13 3,915]

We need a multiple page pdf document I'm afraid, or people will be downloading for ages. Our upload guide will help you.

 

 

HB

[dx100uk 8,579]

yes read upload

pop everything in one multipage PDF

[Sidewinder 3,750]

Oh man that ZZPS letter is a gem! It might just as well have been written in crayon by a four year old. They refer to the Beavis case with no context or reason why it is relevant - just that 'we say so' and that 'somebody' has added a clearly unlawful £70 'administration fee' to the PCN amount

 

The letter from the PPC also tells you that they can pass liability to the driver but with no mention of the relevant authority

 

Might be an idea to grab some photos of signage if you are local

 

Parking isn't my forte - but I have no doubt that somebody will soon advise your next steps. Fortunately it does not look as though this organisation 'does' court, but you may need to put them on notice that should they be silly enough then they will end up out of pocket, but don't do anything unless and until a wiser one than I tells you what to do!

[ericsbrother 3,411]

we really need to see the original letter they sent as it must cntain certain information and include certain key phrases otherwise it doesnt count for anything.

 

 

I would alos say that what they have as so called evidence isnt validas the sigange must be clear on what is offered and a piece of paper saying thta you cant park because of the bin lorries isnt a contract to park!

also we need more detail on exactly where the event was because Broadwater St West is the A24 not a narrow private road. However, I think I have found it on Google spyonyourneighbour so please confirm.

 

 

From what I can see there is NO signage at the entrance to the land, the marked bays are the best part of 100yds from the entrance so any signs there may as well be on the moon as far as a collateral contract goes.

Ignore ZZPS, they have no interest in anything, thye get paid to write silly scary letters

 

 

So, show us the original NTK and we will pick holes in that. In the meanwhile dont speak or contact anyone about this, you can probably bury them by their own outpourings. At ther moment it is all going your way and I cant see it changing but that doesnt mean they will drop the matter just because they are wrong, the only way most parking co's make money is by lying

Edited June 22, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[KaBoom!!! 4]

Hi Ericsbrother. The original NTK is the first pdf of the 3 in the merged post above. That has been their only communication with me; the NTK does say that other photos are available on their website - is it ok to look at them? They can only be from the same position as there is only one camera there.

 

There isn't any signage at the entrance to the land and it certainly isn't obvious that it's private land. I have returned to the site and will attach the photos in a (merged) document below and include the exact location including the positions of the parking bays on a map.

 

Thank you!!

[ericsbrother 3,411]

your images have been hidden, presumably because you left in information that will identify you such as a bar code or reference number. When it first went up I only saw the ZZPS header.

 

Would I bother looking at their images?

Not really, they can only show then if you use the reference number to get to it and as they are incapable of being able to identify the truth I wouldn't believe any assurance you got from their privacy blurb about accessing data.

 

You could annoy them and ask for copies of any data they hold on you as they have now indicated that they do and that you will be seeking a correction of any erroneous data they hold.

 

Do this after you get a little more certainty of the strength of your position and then you can give them the run around at their expense. Same goes with ZZPS if you wish but leave that for a while as they wont have much yet.

[DragonFly1967 1,674]

Here are the combined original documents (at least, I think this was all of them)

OPS-ZZPS Binder1.pdf

[KaBoom!!! 4]

Hi all. I'm really sorry but I've been trying to create a single merged file and ended up creating a monster...

 

It's 113Mb and was too large for the upload section so I deleted the files I already had in there.

 

On top of that I've had dreadfully slow internet all day so couldn't upload the monster.

I will try again now in the post below.

[KaBoom!!! 4]

Single merged doc including photos from a visit on the 16th June 2018. Thank you for your patience

 

 

Somehow, only 9.6Mb now!

docs.pdf

Edited June 22, 2018 by KaBoom!!!
Improved image quality

[ericsbrother 3,411]

the NTK is not complaint with the POFA and so no-one owes them money for anything

That is without arguing over the non-existent signage and whether they have any authority to do anything.

 

The signage doesn't say anything about paying these bandits £100 for breaching any non-existent terms so they dont have a hope in hell of collecting a penny via legal action if this is pointed out in a defence.

 

Likewise the sigange lacks everything that the law requires as far as information about who you are making a deal with and so forth, really the worst parking sign we hae seen for a while.

 

As you have only got as par as meaningless threatograms I would ignore them but when you get the next stage threatogram, most likely from the worlds most brilliant (at losing ther clients money) solicitors, Gladstones ( owned by the same people who own the IPC)

 

so when you get to there we will suggest a few words to send them regarding the poor advice the IPC give to their mambers o how to write a sign so it fulfils the requirements of simple contract law, somehting even a simple solicitor should be able to do. Even GCSE law is more rigourous than their efforts.

Edited June 24, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing

[KaBoom!!! 4]

Thank you everyone for your help so far,

 

I have now received another letter from ZZPS saying that they will be passing "this account" to their solicitors QDR Solicitors Ltd.

 

And the fee for that will be £30.

Letter 26th June 2018 R.pdf

Edited July 9, 2018 by dx100uk
Spacing

[DragonFly1967 1,674]

So, one company that has no rights over the (alleged) debt has passed it to another company that has no right to the debt who are about to pass it to a third company that will have no rights over it either.

 

Jolly good

[ericsbrother 3,411]

as DF says,

it isnt theirs to pass on so they cant add anything.

 

they are hoping that you will think that by the time it has been twice around the block the total will be hundreds and hundreds and you are scared into paying up before this happens.

 

Well, father christmas doesnt exist- now that means you dont have to be good anymore as nothing worse can happen.

 

QDR wont be in a hurry to do anything other than send you another scary letter as they have no client who has any cause to do more than that and they dont want to get into trouble with people who know the difference.

[KaBoom!!! 4]

Scary letter has arrived - will update when I get home in a few hours

[ericsbrother 3,411]

good, we could do with a laugh to get us through these cold wintry nights.

[KaBoom!!! 4]

Here it is. Hope it warms your insides properly

QDR Letter _ 16th July 2018.pdf

[DragonFly1967 1,674]

Removed name and reduced document size.

 

 

QDR obviously don't have a clue. They haven't even used any red ink. Amateurs!

[Gick 618]

From the above letter, I did not realize that if a CCJ is obtained, that the subject would no longer be able to LEND monies!!!

[lookinforinfo 2,135]

you could try writing something like this

 

Dear QDR,

I am in receipt of your threatogram relating to a "debt" of £182.

 

Please note that this amount began as a highly debatable speculative invoice which has been tampered with by an unregulated debt collector to reach a grossly inflated figure which would be laughed out of Court.

 

As you should be aware, this spurious claim by One Parking Solutions has so many things wrong with it that I am surprised that any reputable solicitor would touch it with a bargepole.

 

If in doubt I suggest you take legal opinion before taking any further action and might I suggest you bring yourselves up to speed with POFA to give you just one clue as to where this PCN has no hope of success.

 

I am aware that the SRA handbook demands that solicitors act with integrity ,

do not get involved with parties committing perjury

nor misleading or attempting to mislead the Court and suing people where the Courts have already thrown similar and identical cases out of Court.

 

I have retained your original letter and any further letters from you will be filed with a view to a complaint to the SRA should you think fit to take this mischievous case to Court.

 

It has no chance of a successful outcome for your client and doubts would surely be cast upon your integrity should you advise your client to continue.

Edited July 20, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing