OPS/gladstone PCN PAPLOC now claimform - <10mins CCTV passenger leaving car - Broadwater Street West, Worthing

[ericsbrother]

the wording of the NTK is deficient to create ANY liability, let alone keeper liability

 

They have failed to allow a grace period and being BPA members they should know better but the BPA wont sanction them so not worth complaining at this stage.

 

Worth doing so after this has ended though just to embarrass the both of them.

They are not honest brokers

 

Now the supposed breach isnt a breach and if the 10 minute rule didnt exist then at worst it would be trespass and that means the landowner may sue you for the wear and tear to the car park.

 

How much? less than a penny so never going to happen

 

[ericsbrother]

Something like this,

 

Dear will and John,

 

One Parking Solutions must be really scraping the barrel to hire  the owners of the IPC to do their dirty work when they are supposedly upright members of the BPA and have promised to abide by their Code of conduct.

 

Well, that has a minimum of 10 minutes grace period and as my vehicle was never parked in the first place your clients surely know they are throwing bad money after bad if they continue with the vexatious action.

 

Whilst we are on the subject of Codes of Conduct perhaps you should reread the SRA's code as you have a duty to the courts as well as to your client to act properly and I see a full costs recovery order coming my way should you continue with this folly.

 

With this in mind I now expect you to tell them to stop being stupid and I will enjoy the peace.

[ericsbrother]

block their email address.

It isnt clear from this that Gladdys are actually under instruction to even send this letter. It would be unlawful for them to do so but I would surmise that once they got a cheque for £160 they would soon get  an instruction so they could pay OPS the £100.

Ask POPLA whther they have included your email address when sending your evidence to OPS and if they have THEY are in breach of the GDPR and you can take action against them for that.

[ericsbrother]

You dont need pictures of the signage to respond to the claim but you will need then when writing your full defence (witness statement) as they are the contract offered or possibly not if they have got things wrong.

 

The simplest outline defence will be:

There was no breach of contract so no cause for action by the claimant (now the 10 minute grace period is a matter of law as decided in the Beavis case so it wont matter what the IPC say they allow their members to do and the BPA CoP makes this abundantly clear and by failing to allow the grace period they have breached the rules.

 

The claimant does not have planning permission for their signage and equipment, breaching the Town and Country Planning act, Advertising Hoardings regs 2007 and so the defendant cannot enter into a criminal compact with them.

 

The claim is entirely without merit and abuse of process and should be struck out by the court using its case management powers

 

The adjudicator for POPLA has deliberately missed this point and made a great deal about what the passenger did.

The passenger has nothing to do with any offer to a driver, this has been commented on by judges in the past.

The idea that pre authorisation is required makes the event a matter of trespass and not a contractual matter.

 

That decision was a load of cobblers and is likely to help see the end of POPLA ( and the IAS), it ignores 2 major points of law that destroy the claim.

 

the fact they were filming the passenger is also a breach of their permissions under their ICO registration so a breach of the GDPR - they cant lawfully process the images.

 

they will argue that breaking one law doesn't automatically preclude them from using that info to enforce another and in certain circumstances they can be right but even handing the footage over to POPLA breaches the GDPR and you and the passenger may well have a claim for damages against both so they have to be certain of that right as I don'tont think it applies so it will be down to the judge to decide.

 

[ericsbrother]

I would continue to follow the usual course of action until it is time to exchange documents.

 

At that stage I would seriously think about letting them know you live abroad and want to attend court in person and will be seeking your costs for doing so and tell them how much an open ticket costs and see if they are still interested in wanting to continue ( don't invite them to do anything).

 

There was a claim made by these parking bandits some years ago where the defendant had to fly in from thousands of miles away ( he was in the forces) and they were forced to pay over £4 grand in costs. they appealed saying he could have visited his granny or something to mitigate the cost but the judge said that even if he did that the purpose of the trip was to attend court and it doesn't matter what else you do along with that it doesn't change the purpose of the trip.

 

As for not wanting them to have your address abroad, it would be better of they were forced to communicate by letter to that address and maybe you demanding that the hearing be in your local court under UK law to make them travel to wherever at their own expense.

 

if you were bothered to you could make this very uncomfortable for them but you don't seem to want to do your homework on the simplest of matters when it comes to procedure. Knowledge is power and you can use that to see off this claim well before a hearing if you put a bit more backbone into this.

[ericsbrother]

 as you reside abroad you can still remind them about costs!

 

The address you are using is for service of documents and that is different to residence. 

A company will have a registered address that may have nothing more than a postal forwarding service there so as log as it isn't a PO box number any address will do for correspondence and wont affect your travel costs.

 

However, get the AOS and outline defence in first as they may well chuck the towel in as soon as they see the claim is going to be defended.