TPS ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - Wrong Reg - boddingtons Gt Ducie Street, Francis Street, Manchester, M3 1PQ

[Dave962]

I Have emailed sorry, do you think I can make a minor amendment and resend? Or will I be able to use as ammunition on the day?

Thanks for that input its much appreciated 

[FTMDave]

It's no problem to have left some small bits out, your WS is excellent anyway.

[Dave962]

Thanks Dave all thanks to yourself and the rest of the team.

It's nice to have a bit ammunition on the day when I get. my chance to speak.

[Dave962]

just had this email received today…

We thank you for your recent email.

We take the confidentiality of our matters very seriously and as a result, we ask you to answer the following security questions in full before we can correspond with you via email.

Please could you confirm:

• Your full name 
• First line of your address
• Postcode 

By responding to this email, you consent for us to use this email address for communication in relation to your case, this may contain information that is personal to you. When communicating by email, please remember that it may be ‘unsecure’. If at any time, you no longer wish for your personal information to be communicated by email, or you no longer have access to this mailbox, please notify us immediately.

 Should you prefer to discuss this matter on the telephone, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0203 434 0437.

Kind Regards,   

Alex Keogh  

Case Manager 

DCB Legal Ltd  

Edited April 3 by Dave962

[Nicky Boy]

Ignore.

It's effectively a receipt for your WS, which is good!

Also, you don't want to give them the opportunity to send more rubbish just before any deadlines, by confirming anything and allowing them to "correspond with you by email", which is bad!

[Dave962]

Thanks Nicky Ill ignore 

[Dave962]

Thanks everyone for all your help, but unfortunately my case was dismissed.

This is the 2nd time I've had this happen now so I doubt ill be taking on any parking firms in future sadly.

The judge said I lost it on the grounds that the sign said I had 28 days to declare who the owner of the vehicle was, and said I should have complied with this. 

My costs are

Judgment for the claimant £133.33

Issue fee

Hearing fee

Solicitors costs - total £265

grand total £398.33

Do those costs look about right?

Im sure I only paid c.£250 last time so these figures seem highly inflated!

Edited April 18 by Dave962

[Nicky Boy]

Judge lottery!

[FTMDave]

How the hell are there £265 solicitors' costs?!

[Dave962]

Crackers isnt it! It really took my breath away tbh.

Is there anyway this can be explained or appealed?

[FTMDave]

Rereading it won't be £265 solicitors' costs.

It will be £35 claim fee + £25 hearing fee + £205 solicitors' costs.

Solicitors costs are supposed to be capped at £50, the only way they can be more is if you were found to have acted unreasonably.

If that is how the case has panned out then you have been very, very unlucky and the judgement is truly horrific.

[lookinforinfo]

The Judge was wrong. The keeper is only INVITED to say who was driving, there is no obligation for them to say.

[anotheruser0000]

@lookinforinfo  ....  Is there grounds to appeal or challenge the judgement in that case LIFI?

EDIT:  After reading through this again, I'm amazed at this judgement given all the information.

"The judge said I lost it on the grounds that the sign said I had 28 days to declare who the owner of the vehicle was, and said I should have complied with this."

Do you mean  he said the driver  of the vehicle?

They know you are the owner/keeper of the vehicle .... DVLA told them.

I have looked at the signs, where does it say this on the signage? .... The sign in the exhibits says:

Parking Charge Notice Enforcement Procedure:

Registered keeper details may be requested from the DVLA and a parking charge notice will be issued to the registered keeper by post. Non payment within the 28 days of the date of issue may incur further costs for debt recovery.

Where does it say you have 28 days to tell them who the owner/driver is on the signage?

Or do you mean on the PCN?
Hang on, just rereading the PCN will come back to this.

I read it and under the heading Protection of Freedoms act they state:

You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that
on which this Parking Charge Notice to Keeper is given (a notice sent by post IS to be presumed, unless the
contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted), the parking
charge has not been paid in full or we do not know both the name and current address for service of the driver we have
the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you.

Notice is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act2012 and Is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that act.

OK, so they are telling you that they have the right to recover any unpaid part from you, the keeper but under S9 [2][e] they MUST -

(e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and INVITE the keeper —

(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; OR     (which I don't think they have done)

(ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

So, the question I have is, does the following statement on the PCN satisfy S9 [2][e][ii] even though they don't quote the specific section?

As we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, if you we're not the driver at the time , you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them.

I'm a newbie at this so just my take on it but is this the point the Judge is referring to?

I'm further confused, because in your defence you stated:

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle]

Ok, this was later than 28 days but the owner of the vehicle was not in question because it was confirmed by DVLA, unless I'm missing something?

2. The Defendant paid the full fee £14.20 for 24 hours parking to Parkology from 29/09/22 1700 to
30/09/2022 1700, 24 hours (1440 minutes).

DE MINIMIS
The Defendant paid. The Claimant therefore suffered no loss. EXHIBIT X
The defendant informed the Claimant during PAPLOC about the wrong reg being incorrectly entered.

So, this started out as you putting the wrong registration number in, you PAID for the parking, you just made an error putting the wrong reg in? ... de minimis?

That was the crux of the matter, not who the owner/driver was, what did the judge say about that?

Edited April 19 by anotheruser0000

[dx100uk]

be careful under law...the RK is not necessarily the owner of a vehicle...

[anotheruser0000]

Ah, Ok, .... Noted.

I guess I am referring to Owner/RK interchangeably.

I will have to read this thread again, I've missed something.

I was so annoyed and frustrated about the fact this case was lost it's been floating around my head all night.

Dave962, are you sure that's what the Judge said? .... It doesn't make sense.

Did the judge in fact dismiss the case on the grounds that the defendant did not make an appeal within 28 days?

Effectively telling the PPC about the error entering the registration number and providing proof of payment at that time?

To me, that's an important point.

 

[lookinforinfo]

bear in mind that not all Judges are equally versed in the PoFA regulations.

Fortunately now most of them are but sometimes a Judge from a higher Court sits in who is well experienced in Law but not PoFA

and so they sometimes go "offkey" because their knowledge can raise a different set of arguments and solutions.

It does seem particularly unfair when the decision is so  bad .

it can also be that in some situations the motorist being a lay person is not sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to counter a Judge's decisions in a way that a barrister could.

[anotheruser0000]

Hmmm, interesting point.

In my career, that I am retired from now, there were an immense amount of rules and regulations that one had to adhere to by law.

The qualification process is rigorous with on going assessments throughout your career and re-certification every 12 months.

If you were shown to be not competent in those rules and regulations you could not hold the position and the operational consequences of that could potentially be dire.

In the same respect, perhaps a judge who is not conversant in the rules of POFA should not sit in on cases that requires proficiency in that area?

I also bow to your considerable knowledge in this area, perhaps I shouldn't be commenting but by doing so I find it helps the learning process.

Your last point has just reminded me of something that may help my case, thank you.

Edited April 20 by anotheruser0000

[brassnecked]

That's such a perverse judgment its almost unbelievable Looks like totally ignored everything and just gave judgement on something that's not compulsory as in name a driver or appeal did judge confuse having to name a driver in a motoring offence case like speeding with the civil?

[anotheruser0000]

I would have to read the whole thread again to make sure but, as far as I can see the judge ruled on something that was not in dispute.

The dispute was that he HAD paid BUT that he mistakenly entered the wrong reg ....

Not who the owner driver or keeper was.

Perhaps Dave962 meant the judge said he 28 days to appeal to make that point otherwise it doesn't make sense to me.

My understanding is it's two cars from the same household so what would be the point in declaring the owner be?

Unless the car is owned by someone else in the household or something, and that has some bearing on it, I don't know ....

Personally, I think I would appeal that, unless the judge dismissed because the judge is saying Dave962 should have appealed to the PPC with the circumstances in the first place, then no point appealing.

And that would be a case where the advice not to appeal has harmed his defence?

Dave962 would have to clarify.

 

 

Edited April 22 by anotheruser0000

[dx100uk]

i would seriously forget the word owner ever exists in any court claim.

i would suspect as you do, the judge said registered keeper and DE MINIMIS does apply,

bit.....its called judge lottery...

 

[anotheruser0000]

I'm still confused?

I was using the word owner because Dave962 used that word in his explanation.

Replace owner with registered keeper ....

"The judge said I lost it on the grounds that the sign said I had 28 days to declare who the  Registered Keeper  of the vehicle was, and said I should have complied with this."

I didn't see this on the pictures of the signs, in what context does the signage require that? .... When registering to pay?

I've parked in that car park, I don't recall having to declare myself as RK to park there?

If Dave962 is not the registered keeper, how did he get the PCN?

He had to declare the Registered Keeper in 28 days?

If Dave962 is the Registered Keeper (which he is confirmed in his defence) and that's how he got the PCN the judge dismissed the case because he didn't declare himself as the Registered Keeper within 28 days as directed to by the signage??

Eh?

That's not judge lottery, that's judge senility.

I think I'm going senile trying to work this out ....

Edited April 22 by anotheruser0000

[lookinforinfo]

I think it will make more sense if you read that the Judge meant the 28 day sentence was on the PCN not the sign.

He lost because in the Judge's opinion the registered keeper has the option to declare who was driving on the day. Dave didn't do that so he takes the blame for not making the declaration. A totally wrong decision which can be challenged at a price.

There is no guarantee that another Judge will want to say that the original judgement was majorly wrong so may not change it. On the other hand another Judge may say the decision was an absolute load of pollux and reverse the decision and add punitive additions on to TPS for bringing such a hopeless case to Court.  That's why we call it Judge Lottery.

To be fair, Judges tend to get it right more often than not. Doesn't make things any easier for Dave.

[anotheruser0000]

I agree with you LFI, a totally wrong decision, I may be wrong but IMO who was driving is irrelevant ....

So what if he declared himself as the driver within 28 days? .... I may be wrong but it's my understanding that that just makes him liable for the charge as driver.

The fact is, the driver, declared or not, only made the error of entering the wrong vehicle registration number ....

The parking was paid for.

I think it more likely the judge dismissed because he didn't appeal to the PPC and tell them about the error and confirm he paid giving the chance of rectifying the situation before it got to court.

But we can only know if Dave962 clarifies.

Pollux, is that a fish like Cod?

From BPA Code of Practice

Section 17:  Keying Errors

B) Major Keying Errors
Examples of a major keying error could include:
• Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration - if it was his spouse's car
• Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration
• Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly)
• Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits

In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant).

I suspect this had something to do with it .... if so I guess he has to take it on the chin! 

Edited April 22 by anotheruser0000

[Nicky Boy]

Their COP also says further on... "we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20"

PAH!

"What they believe" carries no weight in law... It's just their own idiotic, self serving, made up rules!

 

[anotheruser0000]

Well, Nicky Boy,  You, LFI, FTMDave, dx .... all know far more about this subject than I ever could.

I was just wondering if that (BPA CoP) argument persuaded the judge to come to his decision?

If that is what it was, I don't understand Dave962's explanation so I don't know.

I was just trying to work out what it could have been because it annoys the hell out of me that these companies can pursue people through the courts and be awarded substantial amounts of money from hard working individuals, for what? ....

The Major Crime of overstaying for a few minutes or entering a wrong reg in error or something .... it stinks!