Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I would say so yes but ofcourse only in the years the charged it not running till today.
    • please complete this:     and scan up the PCN bothsides to one multipage pdf read upload   dx  
    • Must satisfy POFA if they want to ground Keeper Liability, so no Keeper liability, their RoboClaims always try to sue both as if they can jointly and severally, but the Courts should be looking at the was Driver or Keeper and chuck the claim out for being vague, but they don't  They might if POFA fails and they know they are onto a loser, might have a last gasp and try to rely on Elliott v Loake a criminal case so not applicable to a Civil claim, and CPS v AJH Films, again not applicable as is about employer/employee, they will do this to try to get someone to cough up before a case they know they are going to lose to salvage what they have already paid ou to go to court.  I would delete the  line   As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline as is my right to name the driver (s) at this time"  That is an oblique reference to the duty to name driver in a Criminal case, and is the Elloitt v Loake scenario.   Others will have better ideas, but lloking decent.
    • Good morning request sent off yesterday to moriarty law  but today got this load of tosh  Combine Jul 17, 2019.pdf
    • In response to your question, I have a copy of the title deeds showing ownership and also the leases. No idea what to do with that info though!   I should be most grateful if you would review the attached brief draft defence on page 1. The page 2 thoughts are a work in progress.   The POFA point is weak in my opinion, but having read a lot of analysis of the requirements, I haven't managed to come up with anything beefy.   I should be grateful for any ideas on that, as it seems like a failure to follow procedure would be a strong defence.   Also it asks for the driver's details on the PCN and then the claim states the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver, but I don't really understand whether there's a point of defence there.    DRAFT DEFENCE 1)      The claimant has failed to prove that VCS had a contract with the landowner (The West London Property Corporation Ltd.) in August 2015, and therefore failed to show either a legitimate interest in controlling parking at the Berkeley Precinct, or the authorisation to make charges on their own behalf, for any overstay in the carpark, including for first-time offenders (relevant to Tesco lease). (no response to CPR 31.14 request delivered and signed for at 10.32a.m. on 9th July) 2)      The claimant has failed to prove that VCS obtained a planning permit from the Sheffield Planning Department under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007 (also requested in my CPR 31.14 letter) and that there were prominent signs in existence at that time, showing clearly the terms and conditions for parking and the charge payable for any breach. Therefore, the three elements of offer, acceptance and consideration required for a contract were not met, and no contract existed. 3)      The claimant failed to issue the PCN in the timescale required under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 for keeper liability and, allowing for the 2 day delivery time afforded to Royal Mail, it arrived a day later than the 14 day deadline. The parking company has not met the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. The parking company can therefore only pursue the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As the parking company have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were, I submit I am not liable to any charge.    
  • Our picks

Incontro

ParkingEye ANPR PCN - Town Quay 2, Southampton

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

I need some help. The defendant has been issued with a £100 'Parking Charge' by Parking Eye.

 

The alleged offence occurred during the day time on a weekend, and was apparently brought to the attention of the plaintiff by ANPR cameras recording time-stamped photos with entry+exit times of the vehicle registered to the defendant. The plaintiff claims that the defendant spent just over 30 minutes in total at the car park.

 

Answers to the FAQ thread are as follows:

 

 

1 Date of the infringement: Late January 2019.

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 5 days after the date of the alleged infringement

 

3 Date received 11 days after the date of the alleged infringement.

 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] YES.

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? YES, see above.

 

6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up your appeal] Defendant has not entered any correspondence with plaintiff or any 3rd party appeals company.

 

 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up n/a

 

7 Who is the parking company? ParkingEye Limited

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Town Quay 2, Southampton

 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Letter mentions POPLA

 

Many thanks for taking the time to read... My query is - should defendant appeal via POPLA, or contest the charge with ParkingEye? Some guidance would be greatly appreciated, based on the answer to above as well as potential defense points to the claim, I can write a draft letter for the defendant and post up here for critique before issuing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

defendant, plaintiff, defence..

its not in court

 

its a speculative invoice by a fleecing private parking company..

 

have a read of these threads ...you'll soon get the idea

https://cse.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:6449422593&ie=UTF-8&q=Town+Quay+2,+Southampton&sa=Search+CAG

 

scan up the NTK, bothsides to one multipage PDF

read upload

 

dx


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And DO NOT APPEAL.


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 OTHER

 

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

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys.

 

@DX100UK: sorry I do realise that, in hindsight I should have simply said person A, person B etc. Or banana, potato etc. Blame my lack of imagination. :)

 

As requested, here is the charge form: https://imgur.com/a/Wlsx2aa

 

I apologise for the fact that it's heavily redacted, I did it to preserve the identity of the defendant (in case ParkingEye trawls these forums), and in the event of a court case (unlikely I know).

 

@Brassnecked: I notice from reading a lot of past threads, a lot of people have (successfully) appealed against ParkingEye using the POPLA service, is there a specific reason you recommend the defendant shouldn't appeal?

 

What's the best course of action here? Registered letter (via Royal Mail) to ParkingEye denying any liability stating common reasons such as:

* No registered keeper liability at that particular location

* Signage not compliant with BPA code of practice

* Not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

* Etc...?

 

What's best course of action? Should I start writing the letter for defendant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't have to 'protect' anyone …

 

times/dates are important

it doesn't matter if PE read here.else we would have lost 1000's of speculative invoices.

and we haven't.

 

goto googleeye nosy neighbours and give us the link to the exact car park

as if this is within the docks, they are stuffed,


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'goto googleeye nosy neighbors'?

 

Sorry dx100uk, but is there a typo there? Not sure what you meant...

 

Anyway, the car park is the 'Town Quay Car Park 2' which I believe is at the end of a pier, closest location I can give is: 50°53'33.6"N 1°24'20.1"W (Streetview is available but dates back to over 10 years ago, when no ANPR/entry notices existed).

 

Does this help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so then you have some homework to do if the site is near to you.

 

Get some pictures of the entrance to the car park fromthe public highway as the driver would see it entering the land and then some pictures of any signage inside the car park that differs from those at the entrance. if there are no signs visible as you enter then we want pictures showing that as well.

 

Now the point about the car park being inside the docks is that harbours are almost all covered by their own byeleaws, often going back hundreds of years and so those byeleaws trump any contract offered by PE, even if the harbour board say they gave PE a contract.

 

we like to identify the site and hope that the parking co's do take notice so they have the opportunity to save themselves some money and drop their more ridiculous claims before it goes too far.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras, typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks ericsbrother

 

Unfortunately I am far away from the site, it'd be a 2 hour round-trip for me to get there. However I asked a relative to visit the site and take pictures:

 

https://imgur.com/a/bBxgW6Z

 

Does that help at all?

 

Time is anxiously ticking, and I'm very keen to get this out of the way. So is POPLA appeal the best course of action to begin with? I read on numerous sites that merely an appeal on POPLA citing GPEOL gets tickets overturned instantly, and that's without even beginning to consider the harbour bye-laws issue!

 

I've already worded a draft letter/appeal, happy to post it up here if need be, for people to review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slow don't rush..

We need the small print at the bottom clearly

We also need to confirm who owns the land

 

Check the local council planning section of their web portal

 

No need to rush into any appeal at all

Pointless...


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dx100uk, you can find the small print here https://imgur.com/KXf2xec

 

I will try my best to find out about the land ownership, is this to confirm whether the land the vehicle was allegedly parked on lies within the boundaries of the Port of Southampton, for ABP byelaws?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4.1 The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land

in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any

parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a

local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has

statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws

applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also

excluded.

 

ABP Port rules from November 2016

Associated British Ports have issued updated Port Rules for persons present on ABP property. Please note that these rules are complementary to the rules for Docks Permits and the Southampton Harbour Byelaws 2003

 

16/12/2016.

 

https://www.southampton.gov.uk/business-licensing/licensing/taxis-private-hire/noticeboard/nb-port-southampton.aspx

 

 

http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/admin/content/files/PDF_Downloads/Soton%20Byelaws.pdf

 

Does the above help? Clearly shows that the car park (and a huge chunk of the general region operates falls under remit of the bye-laws) - I'm actually surprised that it's so large!

 

Also found a more detailed site plan: https://www.southampton.gov.uk/images/town%20quay%20plan_tcm63-364755.pdf

 

Should I email the council (the planning department) seeking confirmation that these planning docs are still valid, and byelaws described still cover the area in question? Or is this enough?

 

Thanks once again for your help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

enough no need to do anything further

 

if/when whichever fake/tame paperwork only solicitor write with a letter entitled 'letter of or before claim'

then you'll simply send back one of the snotty insulting letters you'll find on many threads here already

until that come you can safely ignore everything else from everyone.

 

dx


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I guess the waiting game starts.

 

Having read many other threads on the forum as bedtime reading, the odds are it's only a matter of time before they try it on and waste my energy with further letters. Let's hope I'm wrong.

 

EDIT: Is it not worth rolling the dice and submitting a POPLA appeal in the meantime? I mean there's nothing to lose, and the decision isn't binding for the appellant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let Ericsbrother comment i know it used to cost them £27 but not sure now or it its the right thing to bother with


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

protocols are importnat in all of this.

 

Yopu cant appeal to POPLA because you havent appealed to PE and had that rejected. We recommend you dotn appeal as they will turn it down and any appeal to POPLA as a result cannot consider the lawfulness of the byelaws and supremacy of contract so you wont win that appeal either.

 

As PE are sunk by the docks byeleaws and their signage is a miserable failure to create a contract with you either ( either an invitation to treat or prohibitive signage according to which one you read) the appelaing will only give them the thought that you are in a hurry to settle this and if they tell you a differnt fib you will just pay them.

 

I would just let them waste their money until they get to sending out a PAP letter before action and then let them knwo that there was no contract to breach beacus of x and y and that you will be demanding a full costs recovery when they fail to show a cause for action at court.

 

They noramlly go quiet then or even send you a letter saying they ahev cnacleed the charge withot an explanation of why. tyhat way they dotn give the game away in court and lose a valuable income stream that is all based on nothing

Edited by honeybee13
Paras, typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understood, no time-wasting POPLA appeal it is then.

From what I've read, I think POPLA appeals being decided in favour of the appellant are somewhat rarer nowadays, compared to say two or three years ago.

 

Thanks for the advice around the signage

- have you got any relevant case law examples I could read, to familiarise myself with this?

Or explain what is wrong with the signage specifically?

 

The thing I don't understand is

- why do the Parking Companies pursue such cases in court, especially if they have a high chance of losing (and they probably know it).

Solicitors cost £££ and I doubt the time+expenses of one attending a puny small claims court case is worth the tiny amount of money that can potentially extract from the defendant if the case is found in their favour.

 

Also, a bit of a philosophical question (and I have no idea what the answer is at the moment):

does DPA/GDPR play a part in this, seeing as ParkingEye claim to have accessed registered keeper data through POFLA when it has been demonstrated to not apply in this case?

Edited by dx100uk
merge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The poor signage is the minor of the three problems PE have with their ludicrous attempts at prising money from you.

 

The byelaws are strong because it doesn't come within the remit of POFA [and PE know that of course].

And the prohibitive nature of their signs means that you were a trespasser and only the landowner can pursue you for trespass not PE.

 

Why do they do it?

Because most people pay up without challenge.

 

others pay when the debt collectors start increasing their amount claimed and others do not bother to turn up in Court so PE then wins automatically-full amount with costs usually highly inflated.

so they more than cancel out the ones who go to Court and win.

Besides the fact that they are prepared to go to Court is often enough sadly for so many people to pay up rather than fight.

 

GDPR could well play a part in this and should they decide to take things further that could be part of your response to get them to back down.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A nice tolchock for PE and by proxy its owner, Capita under breach of GDPR might go some way to even up the score with that Beavis victory that stands only on its own facts.


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 OTHER

 

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

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you cant appeal to POPLA because you havent appealed to PE.

Our advice is as they are stuffed it isnt worth appealing as that will just encouage them to think you will pay up and instead let them waste their time and money chasing you until the point where they threaten a court claim and then blast them with both barrels. This will show that you have engaged with them and that their reason for a possible claim has no merit. They usually drop the matter at this popint as you can show their unreasonableness if they continue.

 

Please read advice carefully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Dragging this thread back up, 'Letter Before County Court Claim' has recently arrived in the post from ParkingEye (following a few periodic reminders).

 

I believe I have 30 days to respond?

 

I assume I need to refresh my memory on this topic, and then draft a response to PE - I'll post it up here for all of you to approve/critique.

 

Is that OK?

 

Huge thanks once again for all your help.

 

Also, should I submit a SAR in the same letter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no sar needed

send pe our std snotty insulting letter in many ppc threads here. [search Gladstone snotty letter

]

  • Like 1

PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, this you need to respond to.

You state that

"the land is not relevant land as far as the POFA goes so there is no keeper liability in this matter so there is no cause for action against me. As docks and harbours governed by it own byelaws these are supreme to any contract you claim to have so there is no contract for the driver to consider that is enforceable. This menas that you accessing and processing of my personal data is unlawful under the GDPR and any court claim mat result in a counterclaim for damages  breach of the GDPR as per VCS V Phillip, Liverpool CC dec 2016 "

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks a lot guys, will send them something, inline with your advice. BTW what sort of post do I have to send it by? anything special like recorded delivery? im guessing I need to keep receipts from the post office in case it goes to court and they contest receiving any correspondence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...