Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “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.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
    • Hang on. don't panic!   You sent the snotty letter which has told the fleecers to put up or shut up.  So far they've haven't taken you to court.  This might change, but so far you're in the driving seat.  You don't have to deal with them any more.  It's up to them if they have the gonads to start court action or not.   Regarding DCBL, they are not representing their client in the normal way that a solicitor represents a client, because the sums of money involved are too low for that.  They are just chucked a few quid to send a couple of "threatening" letters.  There is no point in dealing with them.   If you want the original PCN send a SAR to UKPCM only.  For the SAR letter simply click on "SAR".   However, the SAR has nothing to do with the 30 days, you've already dealt with that with the snotty letter.  You need to read lots of similar threads and familiarise yourself with the legal process.  CAG is a superb free library.    
    • Hi again, so I will send a SAR to UKPC because I don't remember seeing the  NTK.  Then should I let DCBL know otherwise they will probably issue the court papers but they might hold off if i tell them about the SAR?   what do you think?  I need to do it this weekend or it will be beyond the 30 days.  Otherwise to let it run will definitely lead to a court case perhaps??   Can I get a copy of a SAR letter on here? thanks
    • 👍   One thing, write "unlawful", not "illegal".   Sorry to be pernickety, but "illegal" = "a crime".   "unlawful" = "not in accordance with the law".    They've lied to the DVLA but that's not actually a crime, it's misuse of your personal data which is a civil matter, and you can sue the idiots once your case is over for breach of GDPR, but it's not a criminal offence.
    • Just added also paragraph 11 stating " Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, VCS should prove that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith."
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Smart Parking/CST Law ANPR PCN Letter Of Claim - Matalan Car Park - wrong reg - Medtia Square Oldham Manchester


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 453 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Dear Consumer Group

 

Can anyone help me please?

 

I have received a Letter Before Claim for an outstanding amount of £185.00

 

I paid for my time in the car park but entered two of my registration digits in the wrong order. 

I appealed immediately to Smart Parking as it was blatantly obvious it was my car but I was denied. 

I appealed to POPLA but they found in Smart Parkings favour. 

 

I have received over 9 letters referring to this (each one more sinister) and each time they have addressed it to Mr and I am a Miss. 

I hoping I get the opportunity to point this out to them as we are all capable of making simple errors!

 

I read all of your responses from the Matalan PCN but it was an old thread and I'm just wondering if I should send them the same response Ericsbrother suggested or has there been a change since then?

 

They did keep quoting the Case in Law in the first few letters but not mentioned it since. 

I would be very grateful of any help please, I'm tired of their threatening letters.

 

Thank you very much

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG. People should be long later to advise you.

 

I've had to remove your attachment because you haven't covered up your name, address and the vehicle reg number. Perhaps you can anonymise that and repost it.

 

The letter mentions Debt Recovery Plus who can only ever issue threats on behalf of  not so Smart Parking. I don't think you have anything to worry about apart from seeing a series of threatograms.

 

Best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Smart Parking/CST Law ANPR PCN Letter Of Claim - Matalan Car Park

please complete this

 

 

 

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

1 Date of the infringement 24th May 2019

 

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]

Never received one.
 

[scan up BOTHSIDES as ONE PDF- follow the upload guide]

 

3 Date received

Never received one.
 

 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]

N/A
 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?
Yes

 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]

Yes
 

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

Yes
 

7 Who is the parking company?

Smart Parking
 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]

Medtia Square Oldham Manchester
 

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

POPLA
 

There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure,

please check HERE

 

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here

2 Letters from Debt Recovery Plus LTD.  2 letters Debt Recovery Plus (they have different letterheads & designs).  2 letters from Zenith Collections and 2 letters from CST Law.

 

I tried to attach all of the letters as one multi page PDF as you requested but it wont let me.  Says there is a limit of 4.88.  Shall I send them individually?

 

And thank you very much for your time and help :)

 

I made a compressed zip file but it wont let me attache that either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply properly redact your org pdf..read upload

 

Shame you appealed..

Next time dont!

 

Dx

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to Smart Parking/CST Law ANPR PCN Letter Of Claim - Matalan Car Park - Medtia Square Oldham Manchester

you still left your docs unredacted!!

 

anyway i've done them now.

 

what date is the letter of claim please

 

dx

 

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to Smart Parking/CST Law ANPR PCN Letter Of Claim - Matalan Car Park - wrong reg - Medtia Square Oldham Manchester

Just put the redacted PDFs and we can have a look at it (NotSo) Smart parking know that wrong reg is de minimis, a legal trifle, you paid, so no loss to sue for, however they wil  bully and bluster, all appeals are automatically refused.   then have a search in this forum for wrong reg number cases where a defence was successful to get the picture.

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

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You still have time to send a snotty letter in reply stating things the Team will suggest shortly, if you ignore it a Claimform will definitely follow, the Smart parking muppets have fewer braincells than a petrol head biker high on patrol vapour.

  • Haha 1

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

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which Ericsbrother letter were you referring to?  He has quite a library of snotty letters 😁

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to cut & paste, I'm not very technical, enjoy!

 

He wrote:-

 

would respond to this.

 

Start wth dear sirs, I am in receipt of your letter dated the 31st October 2017 and have noted its contents.

 

You state that I should consider this to be a letter before action or letter before claim.

Unfortunately for you I cannot accept this shoddily thrown together piece of tripe to be a LBA as it fails miserably to come anywhere near a lba as required under the revised Civil Procedure Regulations and so would expect a court to summarily dismiss any claim later made by you or your client on that basis.

 

However as you are the parking world third worst firm of solicitors I am not surprised you failed to put any effort into this taradiddle

 

so to make sure that there is no misunderstanding

I deny that any monies are owed to your client by myself as there is precedent case law that your clients greed has blindeed them to.

 

The same applies to the inflated amount of the claim, the POFA and contract law are very clear on this point and again plenty of examples of dismissed claims are in the public domain.

 

Your fondness for misquoting the decision of PE v Beavis makes it look like you have never read the full judgement but like the other rent a threats see it as a panacea for justifying any old coddswallop you care to trot out

 

It would be wise if you took your obligations you signed up to when being entered onto the SRA roll and advised your clients it is not in their interests to continue with this matter as they have no cause for action and I shall seek a full costs recover order for any civil claim made under the unreasonableness criteria.

 

Do not be polite to these bandits.

Dont forget, you can use the letter you send as evidence should they then continue

Edited November 20, 2017 by honeybee13
Paras
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cutting & pasting is fine!  We just need to tweak the bits that don't apply.

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes POFA won't apply as you appealed, and likely ID'd yourself as driver, but no claim due to de minimis and you paid will.

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

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the letter was in response to a wrong reg. case very similar to yours, so well done on doing all the research to find it.

 

I've tweaked a bit below, adding two sentences due to a recent legal case and the BPA becoming a tiny bit decent.

 

The solicitors were different so I've cut out the bit insulting them - although fresh insults could be added 😉

 

See what others think.

 

dear sirs, I am in receipt of your letter dated the 18th June 2020 and have noted its contents.

 

so to make sure that there is no misunderstanding

I deny that any monies are owed to your client by myself as there is precedent case law that your clients' greed has blinded them to.  Even the British Parking Association have given in and changed their stance.

 

The same applies to the inflated amount of the claim, the POFA and contract law are very clear on this point and again plenty of examples of dismissed claims are in the public domain.  Remember DJ Harvey at Lewes in May?

 

It would be wise if you took your obligations you signed up to when being entered onto the SRA roll and advised your clients it is not in their interests to continue with this matter as they have no cause for action and I shall seek a full costs recover order for any civil claim made under the unreasonableness criteria.

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea, in particular wait in case Ericsbrother comes onto the forum this afternoon.

  • Like 1

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes get it exactly correct as you have to show that POPLA were wrong also, finding against you

  • Sad 1

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

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say you "know nowt" given you found an appropriate reply to an LBA for the right company for the right "offence" - well done!

 

The good news is that legally you're in the clear.  The wrong reg. nonsense is a case of "de minimis" AKA "the law does not deal with trivialities".  They got paid - end of.  A judge would laugh them at them in court.

 

Unfortunately most people don't know the law so these con merchants send out demands for money they well know is not owed, hoping motorists will wet themselves at the thought of court & cough up.  Sadly a lot do.

 

I added the bit about the BPA because even their own trade body has recently told them to accept appeals in cases like this, but hey, all they're interested in is £££.  I added the bit about Lewes because recently a PPC got a right kicking from a judge, also for making up all the fictitious "Unicorn Food Tax" (copyright EB).  Have a laugh at the following.

 

Hang fire for 24 hours to see if EB advises to change the letter, then give them both barrels.

 

 

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

As POPLA put this in their rejection decision:

 

"By entering the incorrect vehicle registration, the parking ticket is invalid for the appellant's vehicle to park."

 

Might be worth stating alongside the fact in law is de minimis,  you have safe possession of the actual ticket you paid for,  proving payment,  so was made  if they do try  their luck court the de minimis can be highlighted with caselaw.  Time POPLA had a refresher at law school the Term they use to justify rejection of Appeal, due to De Minimis rule, as payment was made, could be construed as an Unfair Term.

 

 

Just needs ericsbrother to give it the once over and you are good to go.

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

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

the BPA code has changed since then so a parking co cant calim for such an error. now the change came about because there was a problem and your case being prior to the chnage in terms for operators doesnt make it enforceable as if they go to court they will have to explain why a defective term is better than the condition that replaces it in the  code they have to abide by.

 

As brassnecked says, there is no loss because you paid the prescrobed fee and that is more importnat in law than this error. in pracice the parking co's were losing claims and govt was getting twitchy hence the change. The IPC dont agree with the law and dont enforce their Code of Pracitce so a longer haul with one of their members befiore they get a salutory lesson.

So what to say? well, the 2 points mentioned, that the current CoP prevents operators from using such a reason to screw the public and there has been no loss because the  prescribed fee was paid and that crystallises the contract, not the inputting of a car reg as the contract is with the driver, not a piece of metal so the licence to park would apply to any vehicle under the control of the driver at the time.

Edited by ericsbrother
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...