Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • A local builder has wrecked my garden, charged me for materials he never delivered, consistently lied and failed to turn up when he said he was going to and built a wall which is unfit for purpose.  He has just walked away from the job and will not take my calls
    • I should add that the CCJ amount has reached £334, So if I minus the £50 in claimed solicitors fees and £25 filling fee that means that they upped the fee to £259 by the time they entered the CCJ.
    • I’m sure Nature is grateful for you flagging it as needing more examination !   Until then, what is your point about older people and anti-inflammatory medicines? or are you just quoting learned articles at random in the hope that occasionally you’ll either “get lucky” with a comment, or that you’ll gull someone into thinking you actually understand the cytokine / interleukin / inflammasome pathways….. The utility of steroids (dexamethasone) for in-patients needing oxygen has been demonstrated by the RECOVERY trial. I can’t see where this has been analysed on a sub-group basis for older people on anti-inflammatory meds : are you suggesting the trial has “missed a trick”?   What is your feeling on which interleukin needs to be targeted? And should it be upregulated or downregulated?   More to the point (since I don’t expect an answer that shows any degree of understanding, if you answer at all) :   What is your point, rather than just posting journal articles at random!
    • I know what you are saying but the court route so far has almost doubled the claim 
    • Here's my first draft! Let me know what you think so far...cheers!   On behalf of the defendant Statement no.1 20/05/2022   In The County Court At Manchester   Claim Number   HIGHVIEW PARKING LIMITED VS    Witness Statement   I am the defendant in this case. The facts and matters set out in this statement come from my personal knowledge and I believe them to be true.   I was not able to reply to the court documents as I was no longer at the service address at the time the court papers were served. I moved out of the address on the 30th of September 2021   September 31st 2021 - I moved out of my address November 15th 2021 - I left the UK November 25th 2021 - I was served court papers at an address I was no longer living at December 17th 2021 - Judgement by default was issued against me April 1st 2022 - I realised I had a CCJ against me on my credit file and contacted the court for more information April 1st 2022 - I immediately sent the court a N244 request to have the judgement set aside   I received no pre court action dated prior to this date    The Claimant's Witness Statement point 20g about prompt action is incorrect. As soon as I realised I had a CCJ on the 1st of April I applied to have the judgement set aside.   ######### Draft order ######   Between   Claimant xxxxxxxx -and-Defendant xxxxxxx       Draft Order   It is respectfully requested that the Judgement dated xxxxxx claim number xxxxxxxx issued under Part 12 CPR be set aside pursuant to CPR 13.3. a/b.   It is Ordered   The Claim be set aside and the defendant be allowed to defend the claim   Signed    Dated.     DRAFT DEFENCE      (1) the Claimant is suing the wrong person, the Claimant should be suing the driver of the vehicle and has not established keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012;  a Notice to Driver should have been delivered within 14 days if the claimant wishes to rely on Keeper liability. Claimant's Witness Statement exhibit 3 clearly shows that their Charge Notice was issued on the 01/09/2017, 27 days after the alleged contravention. DCBL still have no idea whether they are pursuing the keeper or the driver and are disregarding Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to try their luck in the hopes of dishonest financial gain.    The claimant is put to strict proof that it was indeed the defendant who was driving the car at the time.      (2) Locus Standi - the Claimant is not the landowner and I do not believe they have the authority to bring this claim.  A letter - not even from the landowner - saying there is an agreement is not the same as producing an agreement (Claimant's Witness Statement exhibit 1);   The claimant is put to strict proof that they have the consent of the land owner and is asked to produce the actual agreement between themselves and the landowner.      (3) the convoluted "free parking voucher" scheme is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2019;      (4) I do not believe the Claimant has obtained planning permission for their signs which is a criminal offence and makes it impossible to have formed a contract with the driver;   The claimant is put to strict proof that they have the correct permissions from Manchester Council in order to operate the site as a parking business.      (5) The Claimant is claiming the debt, legal costs and an extra invented sum as an attempt at double recovery which invalidates the whole claim. Their action is expressly forbidden under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 and ensuing government Code of Practice, as well as previous legislation.    (6) Both the BPA and the IPC do not not have compliant Codes of Conduct. They are in breach of the Law in two ways at least which has been confirmed by the new Private Parking Code of Practice introduced by the Government earlier this year which clarifies the position that has always existed on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 but ignored by most parking companies as well as the BPA and IPC.    (7) Escalation of costs Private Parking Code of Practice s9 states in the most recent publication ‘Private parking charges, discount rates, debt collection fees and appeals charter: further technical consultation’. 36. To reduce harm to motorists, we propose to cap the level of debt recovery fees at the existing industry level £70. In setting this cap, we have taken into consideration the deterrent effect, the amount of court fees and the costs to operators of enforcing parking charges. We will keep the cap under review and will take these factors into consideration when setting it in future.   The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued. The claimants WS Exhibit 3 demonstrates the unlawful progression of a £55 charge becoming £135, and escalating to £165 in Exhibit 5, way in excess of what code of practice dictates.   Even back in 2017 the charges were unlawful and on that basis the PCN should have been cancelled as an abuse of process.   Charging of extra debt collection/ administrative costs etc over and above £100. This has always been the case . Schedule 4 s4[5] states "(5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).   (8) Most parking companies are breaking the Law by using ANPR cameras that records the entrance and leaving of the car as the "period of Parking" on their Notice to Keeper which is necessary to comply with PoFA 2012. It is obvious that a car is not parked as it is driving within the car looking for a space, then parking in it and then leaving the car park should be not included in the ANPR times. In addition if there are disabled people in the car or children in car seats this can all add to the time. So given that there is a minimum of 10 minutes "consideration time" it is more than probable that the parking period was complied with and that the case should never have been taken to Court. It also means that the keeper's GDPR was breached.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Digital Parking Enforcement PCN - 15-17 Church St, Epsom, KT17 4PF


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 101 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

The two letters in this thread are the only correspondence I've received that's it in relation to this charge.

 

I'll get in touch with my company to ask if they have it though, should I ask for a copy of it from this firm who sent the letter?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

 

You need to read threads similar to your own so you become familiar with who you are dealing with.

 

You are in dispute with Digital Parking.  You have sent them a SAR to get to the bottom of this.  When they reply upload what they have sent you.  If they don't reply within a month come back here anyway and we can decide what to do.

 

Also get on to the hire firm.

 

ZZPS are idiots who have no power as its not their debt and you can use their letter to furnish the bottom of a hamster's cage or to throw out of a window as a paper aeroplane or however else you might want to dispose of pointless pieces of paper.

 

 

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

No it isn't.  It's a standard letter from an uninterested third party.

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

Please ....been awaiting you getting the ntk from who got sent it since the 19th.

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

finally got hold of someone in the parking dept at my company who are short staffed apparently due to Covid & Xmas etc.

 

my first correspondence I heard in this matter was from the debt collection agency, ZZPS dated 13/12. The original PCN my company received was at the beginning of November.

 

She said because it came to my company and has their company name and address on the correspondence, she wasn't allowed to give me a copy. She said I'd have to get in touch with DPE and ask for a copy which should have been sent to me back in November when my company referred them to me as the keeper of the vehicle but which I've never received.

 

She's sending me a covering letter and job sheet to show I was dropping next door at the time, not that will probably be of any use in these circumstances but there you go.

 

Should I get in touch with DPE and ask for a copy of the NTK that I never received back in November - I already submitted the SAR to them before Xmas?

 

Many thanks

Edited by dx100uk
formatting
Link to post
Share on other sites

well why cant your company simply block off (redact) the bit they dont want you to see?? :crazy:

and send it as a PDF?

 

DPE wont send you a copy as its nothing to do with you if its a company vehicle at a company address.

 

24 minutes ago, northmonk said:

when my company referred them to me as the keeper of the vehicle but which I've never received.

 

once the above happened then they should have issued a NEW notice to driver.

  • I agree 1

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

That's exactly what I asked her to do after she said they couldn't send me a copy because it had their name/address on it. I said just block out your address then and send me a copy of the body of the document instead only, but she replied "I'm not allowed".

 

I mean if it'll make a big difference me having that, I'll go above her to management and tell them I need a copy. Does it make that much difference me having a copy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

go just because she doesnt know how to scan and redact...:pound:tell her to put a bit of paper or a sticky note over the bit you are not allowed to see (which i think is wrong anyway) and photocopy it.

 

we need the pictures

we need the exact wording and layout. we also need BOTHSIDES of the ntk.

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Finally managed to get a copy of the original PCN sent to my company, it's taken me this long due to comms breakdowns and general incompetence within the company, unbelievable!

 

there's no pictures or anything that sheds light on this situation, please take a look and advise accordingly,

 

Many thanks guys

dpe.pdf

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are about a million things they've got wrong.  No photos.  Your company should have got a fresh PCN from them but it didn't so there has been no right of appeal.  So you parked "immediately before" 07:17.  How long?  There is a grace period of ten minutes.  You might have stopped, seen the sign, and been off again easily within ten minutes.

 

DPE seem to be a small and particularly incompetent company.  Ignore them unless they send a Letter of Claim

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'd just dropped someone in the building next door & waited on their carpark in the dark, which is why I didn't see the signage - couldn't have been more than 10-15 mins though.

 

The parking dept at my company gave me a website where you can apparently view photos, but the link doesn't work anyway, this one:

 

http://www.ipaymypcn.net/mypcn

 

Yeah I think you're right, they seem particularly small and incompetent this firm. They're not going to have the clout and determination of parking eye for example. Anyways I sent an SRA a while back so let's see what happens.

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to check about the legal position regarding you, your company, etc.

 

Who was the letter from ZZPS addressed to?

 

Whose name was the SAR sent from?

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

The letter from ZZPS, which is a debt collection agency I believe, was addressed to me at my home address and the SAR was sent from me at my home address including 2 proofs of address as per dx's advice.

 

I've just got an amended website address from my company that does work and downloaded the images. It seems I was on their forecourt 20 mins in total, see attached PDF

 

Regards

dpe images.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.. are those photos taken by someone inside their office.?

 

i will bet my bottom dollar those are taken by an employee? Of the company that employed digital parking to manage their site parking....

 

Therefore to me this appears to me to poss be a privacy breach? They are not by a ppc employee but poss someone (security?)of the site owner?...not allowed and might be getting a backhande r too for dobbing people in?

 

if those have come from / taken on a personal cell phone..def gdpr breach of your pers data. That pers is not allowed to hold your data on a their phone!!

 

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

Hmm, there's a timestamp top left though like you see on CCTV if you zoom into the pictures. But there's 2 camera's from 2 different angles if you look, one above a railing and another higher up

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was on a small screen ...

Ok no running on that then...

 

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

So the names match.  The hire company named you personally, ZZPS wrote to you personally, you personally sent the SAR.

 

If DPE don't reply to the SAR you can sue them!  And even if you don't it'll be a useful sword of Damocles to hold over them to make them back off.

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

A couple of things Northmonk. Could you please post the date of the PCN that was  crossed out . And why did you stop there for 20 minutes after dropping off the person and did you stay in the car .

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The date of the very first PCN that was sent to my company was 28/10/2021.

 

I dropped a guy off next door and just reversed onto this little car park waiting for my next fare listening to the radio. It was dark, there was nobody around at just gone 7am and so I didn't think to check for parking signs on empty car parks at that time, it's never usually a problem. Yes I remained in the car the whole time

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...