Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 1st again why do you keep changing things before you send them   you've added counterclaim in to our std CPR 31:14 you sent? why? this opens you up to additional costs and I hope you didnt tick counterclaim when you did AOS on mcol too?   also I notice you've  played with our std OD defence above too...   pers I would refrain from continuing to change things as they are written in the frain they are for specific reasons.   your defence is due by 4pm Monday [day 33]   here are 2 versions you will ofcourse need to adapt them to lowells para no's and remove the NOA stuff as your docs show Lowell have complied with those. but don't forget to mention other documents provided to date notably statements contain no proof they came from Lloyds but rather Lowells own internal data system    dx   1. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant entering into an Agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim ('the Agreement') with the [insert original creditor] . .  2. The defendant denies that the account exceeded the agreed overdraft limit due to overdrawing of funds but is as a result of unfair and extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. .  3. I refute the claimants claim is owed or payable. The amount claimed is comprised of amongst others default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, missed or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety. .  4. It is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon. .  5. The claimant is denied from added section 69 interest within the total claimed that as yet to be decided at the courts discretion. .  6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. .  The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-. .  (a) Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification.  (d) Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.  (e) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct. .  7. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated [xxxxxxx] namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request. .  By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. .  .............. or  Particulars of Claim  1.The claim is for the sum of 2470.56 in respect of monies owing pursuant to an overdraft facility under account number XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX.  2.The debt was legally assigned by Santander UK Plc to the claimant and notice has been served.   3.The Defendant has failed to repay overdrawn sums owing under the terms and conditions of the bank account.   The Claimant claims:  The sum of 2470.56 Interest pursuant to s69 of the county courticon Act 1984 at a rate of 8.00 percent from the 7/04/2015 to the date hereof 14 days is the sum of 7.58Daily interest at the rate of .54  Costs Defence  The Defendant contends that the particulars of the claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant once having had banking facilities with the original creditor Santander Bank. It is denied that I am indebted for any alleged balance claimed.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied.I am not aware or ever receiving any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925. It is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon.   3. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Original Creditor has never served notice pursuant to 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974  Any alleged amount claimed could only consist in the main of default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, rejected or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbeyicon National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.  4. As per Civil Procedureicon Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.  The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-.  (a) Provide a copy agreement/overdraft facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of all excessive charging/fees and show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.   (d) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (e) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.  5. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated April 2015 namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request.   By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  Regards  Andy    
    • Hi   Just read your thread and looked at the Docs posted in your PDF.   1. from AST to rent a Car Parking space you need to have signed a Car Parking Agreement for a Space and for visitors you should have asked permission for another space in advance with a fee to pay. (i also assume renting a parking space would be at a cost)   2. You have no signed Car Parking Agreement nor visitor space agreement.   Did you not fully read that AST before you signed it and pick up what is stated about parking and ask them about this Car Parking Agreement and if you need one to park in the car park?   You could formally complain to them about what was verbally said to you but unless you have evidence of this it may be hard to prove.   You should also contact them and ask how you go about renting a Car Parking space/costs and about the Car Parking Agreement also what the process is for a visitor car parking space/costs.   You need to be aware that they could class you and your visitor as illegally parking in there car park without consent nor a signed car parking agreement which they could use as a Breach of your Tenancy Agreement so you need to be careful in how you are approaching this and where you are parking.   Just for info on checking Manchester Life website they have numerous buildings/apartments/car parks but you may be in a building where some of the apartments are leasehold and as part of there leasehold they may have purchased a car parking space in that building. (so how do you know you are not parking in a space that someone in the building has legally purchased?)
    • It converts a forthwith to monthly payment which is set to suit your finances...so if £5 a month so be it...rubber stamped by the court....if you try to negotiate direct ...which it sounds thats what your doing.....they can alter it whenever they feel like it and if you dont comply can execute the judgment...but not if you submit an N245 as advised.   But hey what do we know ? 
    • you still got that spreadsheet I did for you?   dx  
  • Our picks

paulwlton

BPPM ANPR PCN - failed to pay - part reg only - even though I paid??!!

Recommended Posts

 

On the 03rd July I paid to park for 2 hours in Greasborough Road, Rotherham car park.

 

Today I've recieved a parking charge for £100 because of the "failure to pay for parking" They have a photo of my car entering at 14:28:19 and departing at 15:58:35.

 

The letter is threatens enforcement action, including county court proceedings for failing to pay the charge.

 

I was certain id paid for parking and as i was taking my daughter to have her nails done for her school prom she was also 100% certain id paid.

 

I've just checked the glove compartment of my car and there the parking ticket is.  I paid the £1.00 parking fee to park between 14:29 and 16:29

 

I think there maybe a breach of the new data protection regulations in this case????

 

Regards

Paul

 

 

 


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ok, you are in the right so far so name the parking co and we will advise on the next steps.

Also, who owns the land? a stiff letter to them complaining about the useless bandits they have allowed to run amok on their property causing peopel to have a cloaim against themt for the behaviour of the parking cowboys may well get them to tell the parking c to wind their greedy necks in.

 

i bet that the payemtn system uses ANPR so requires to to enter car reg as well as cash into the machine. can you check the details on the ticket and let us know if the reg entered  is correct?

Edited by ericsbrother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reg is entered correctly.

The company is called Bank Park Management Ltd.


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where does it say FINE paul please on any of their paperwork?

 

please complete this so we have all the correct info to properly advise you.

 

also scan up the NTK/PCN to one multipage PDF bothsides

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

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

they are IPC members so gulity by association of not caring about honestly and that is borne out by the fact the company hasnt registerd properly with Companies House.

 

You would have thought that an accredited trade association that is run by two solicitors would have done some due diligence checks before accepting a crook as a member fo their upright organisation.

This means that any appeal to them will fall on deaf ears.

 

Scan up the NTK so we can pick holes in that as well. remove your personal details plus any of their reference numbers QR codes barcodes etc. but leave on the dates and times for both the event and the date of the notice.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Looks like my mistake. The new machine requires the full reg to be entered now, whereas before, only the first two numbers were required. I entered the first two numbers.

Edited by paulwlton

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Scan.pdf

 

Edited by paulwlton

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hi Paul,

Interesting that you say you only received the Notice yesterday when the PCN is dated the 12th. To be compliant it should have reached you by the 17th. Also they have used a PO Box number for their address-another no no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they try Court with this they are going to lose, they are going to send ever more srident and demanding letters, invole a tame DCA who has no power to do squat.  Time to act is when they send a LBA from a tame solicitor then rebut them with an acidic letter that as paid and still have ticket they will look very silly if the progress further.  Others will no doubt expand on the correct course of action to take.


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
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

 

Hi Paul,

Interesting that you say you only received the Notice yesterday when the PCN is dated the 12th. To be compliant it should have reached you by the 17th. Also they have used a PO Box number for their address-another no no.

 

I thought the same. Date of sending is 12th, but recieved on the 19th.?

 

 

The ticket to prove I paid within a minute of parking .

ticket.pdf

Edited by paulwlton

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The date question is I suppose not really relevant in your situation as you paid so you owe nothing. it does therefore call into question Bank Park's record keeping accuracy. Your ticket clearly shows you paid; their Notice clearly stated that you haven't paid. So they had no reasonable cause to access your data from the DVLA.

I have added below the most recent DVLA Instruction manual to the parking companies on how they should operate which will probably give you a better idea of how to approach the DVLA with your complaint. The manual also confirms that the DVLA do require them to adhere to the now defunct OFT's Guidance on Debt.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/455973/Annex_A_-_KADOE_Fee_Paying_Contract_V4.pdf

This is a very interesting pamphlet which if the mods read this might decide its worth putting in the Library.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only inputted the numbers in the reg not the full registration. This is their get out clause. 

 

Just sent off the appeal.
 
 
I recieved a NTK on the 19th July 2019 from Bank Park Management Ltd, which claims that on the 03rd July 2019 I failed to pay for parking.
 
I appeal the charge on the basis that I paid for parking between 14:29 and 16:29.
 
As you have no legitimate interest in continuing to process my data pursuant GDPR I request that you delete my personal data off your systems.
 
 

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might have been better not to have appealed, you will lose, then they will think you are on their hook to be reeled in with some threatograms, and added Unicorn Food tax.


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

Ive made it clear that they've no lawful basis to continue to process my data. They have no legitimate reason or purpose as there was no parking breach. If they send threatening letters ill issue a claim for compensation under Article 82 GDPR for the distress they cause.


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Their get out clause  would only work if it stated on the PCN that you failed to input all your registration. But their PCN didn't state, it said only that you  didn't pay. You have the ticket that says otherwise. Therefore their records are inaccurate and so in breach of GDPR. The pamphlet I added in  post 12 has this to say at

 

A5.1. The Customer shall at all times comply with Law and Industry Best Practice in carrying out its obligations under the Contract. 

and

 

D1.7. The DVLA is satisfied that providing the data to the Customer for the Reasonable Causes is compliant with the first and second principles of  the DPA in that it is collected and provided lawfully and fairly for the for the purpose of supporting the lawful use of vehicles.

But  Bank Park did not comply with the first and second principles. I note that the DVLA wash their hands of any blame attached to themswlves  providing data as they have transferred the act of being a Data Controller from themselves to the parking company in all cases. 

You will probably find that if you wait fro a reply from Bank Park they may hide behind their registration number and not agree to quash your ticket. Whereas a complaint to DVLA [as well as asking thabout the date that requested your data was requested ] might encourage them to see sense more quickly.

As an aside I am surprised that you didn't ask for a payment from BP of between 250 and 500 pounds for their breach when you appealed.

Edited by lookinforinfo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The requirement was to enter the full registration  prior to parking. I messed up, so their system flagged up non compliance and the process of contacting the DVLA was valid in their view.

 

The breach of GDPR would take effect if they continue to process data after being informed that theres no legitimate reason to do so.


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought that as you paid for your parking up front that by them  contacting the DVLA claiming you hadn't paid for parking was when the breach of GDPR took place.If they continue to contact you re the ticket, that would be a further breach of the GDPR.

 

To illustrate your position there is the case some time ago regarding Baroness Walmsley and TFL. She paid the ticket and entered the wrong registration and ended up in the High Court where it was established that it is not the purpose of the scheme to penalise those who make a genuine error. A fact that should be well known to the parking companies since some of them will have lost in Court over the same situation. So as I said, the GDPR breach was theirs when they asked the DVLA for your data.I have included the relevant section below  from her case.

 

 

 

. 43. This interpretation of regulation 16 has the effect of reconciling the provisions of the Scheme as a whole with its purpose, which is to ensure that charges are paid for cars that enter the Zone and that those who fail to pay are penalised. It is not a purpose of the Scheme to penalise those who make a genuine error as to their vehicle's registration number. As has been seen, many people do make such errors and are relieved of penalty. It is and must always have been obvious to Transport for London that there were bound to be many people who would mis-state the registration numbers of their vehicles. For example, it is obviously easy to confuse the letter I with the numeral 1, and the letter O with the number zero, quite apart from the room for mistyping or simple mistake as occurred in this case. 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

bae7471710c27d4d03bc22c4486bd258?AccessK

Edited by paulwlton

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think the tack suggested by Lookedinforinfo, is a decent one, you paid, so no consequantial loss, the wrong entry is a trifle as per the TFL case, so if they tried court I'm sure there will be other ways to tolchock them and cost them more money for a vexatious case.


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

If they ignore my appeal and continue to pursue their case without any lawful reason I shall seek compensation for the distress they'll have caused and if they further ignore I shall issue a court claim under Article 82 GDPR. 


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Paul I forgot to add the Case no myself on my previous post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they will reject your appeal because they want the money and that is that.

They will lose a court case as there are plenty of persuasive cases t be considered and they all hinge on the fact that you paid so were granted a licence to park and their pettifogging attempt to chisel you for more money  woudl fall in the "de minimis" rule and as they have used the wrong reason for saying you have breached the contract they cant go back and try again so they dotn ahve a cause for action

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're correct, they've stated I failed to pay for parking. 


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

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...