Free Traffic Legal Advice

I would be sending a formal complaint to ECP in writing, telling them that their debt collectors are to immediately cease contacting you and must erase your data.

I'd copy in their data protection officer for good measure. Include a copy of the email confirming cancellation.

If I had the misfortune of representing a parking company, I'd probably also point to the fact that the assertion around the driver was disclosed at a late stage, and draw attention to its omission within the defence.

Looking at the points around the driver, in your case I would try and avoid Gladstones using any weaknesses in your defence to distract from the weaknesses in your case. The starting point is that it is for the Claimant to prove their case. Therefore, if they allege you are the driver, they should prove this on the balance of probabilities. I would draw attention to the fact that they have provided no evidence that the Defendant was the driver, and are relying on assumptions, which are disproved by your evidence. Even if your evidence is to be accorded little weight (which you assert it should not be), they have offered no evidence that you were the driver.

It then becomes a question of keeper liability.

This is a harsh sanction.

It's one of the main problems with the 'vague particulars' defence, in my personal view. The judge isn't wrong to say that it doesn't deal with all of the allegations in the claim, and any claims that the defendant fails to deal with can be considered to be admitted...

The purpose of this part of the forum is to advise people who wish to challenge parking charges they have received. Our advice is focused on the steps a motorist can take within the system as it stands to get their charge cancelled as quickly and cheaply (both in terms of money and time) as possible. The quickest way to do that is to get the supermarket to cancel it. The second quickest way is to appeal. If you provide good evidence, you have a good chance of getting it cancelled long before court.

If people want to take up the good fight and push for change, that's their call, and I applaud them for doing so. If you want to change the system such that there is stronger regulation of the industry, you should encourage your MP to do what they can to progress the introduction of the Private Parking Bill, preferably not watered down.

Them spending £35 initiating a court claim they inevitably discontinue won't make them change. The government properly regulating the industry just might.

They were clamping vehicles until government outlawed it.

supermarkets are likely to look at the balance of PR vs revenue from these parking operators

In our anecdotal experience supermarkets are often some of the most responsive in terms of getting parking charges cancelled for genuine customers. Contacting them is always the best starting point.

I am done with filing complaints BTW, I don't believe it has any effect whatsoever.

Single complaints, perhaps, volumes of complaints add up. It is those motorists making a noise (in part through complaints) that kicked the government into action with their much delayed Private Parking bill.

Your frustration is understandable, but going into a case with the primary objective of causing the other party 'pain' is generally unwise. Consider 2 scenarios...

Scenario 1
You receive a parking charge notice as a result of a 'double dip'. Confident that the charge has been incorrectly issued, you respond to ECP by way of an appeal, briefly setting out your evidence and explaining that the charge is not owed. They either accept this and cancel, or reject. If they reject, you appeal to POPLA, setting out the same evidence and explaining that the charge is not owed. POPLA either accept this and cancel, or reject. If they reject, ECP may then proceed to court. At this point, you submit a defence and Witness Statement, setting out your evidence, and also drawing attention to the repeated attempts you have made to resolve the matter, and drawing attention to ECP ignoring your compelling evidence and ploughing on with a hopeless case.

Scenario 2
You receive a parking charge notice as a result of a 'double dip'. Wanting to inflict pain on ECP, you do not engage with the matter, with the hope that they will take you to court. When they eventually do, you suddenly produce evidence you have previously not shared, showing that you do not owe the money. Up until this point, ECP are unaware of the technical error that has occurred.

Which of the 2 scenarios do you think would yield the best chance of you convincing a court to award you costs on the basis that ECP have behaved unreasonably?

If you appeal, and show them clear evidence that you don't owe the money, and they still take you to court, you'd have a fair argument that they have behaved unreasonably and should pay costs. If you don't engage, ECP could argue that a not insignificant part of the reason it has ended up in court is because you took no steps to resolve the matter prior to it going to court.

And when you say the court would take a dim view, how can this affect the driver?

If a judge takes the view that a party to litigation has behaved unreasonably, he can award costs to be paid by the party that has behaved unreasonably. In theory, a party can 'win' their case and still be deemed to have behaved unreasonably. It's quite a high bar, but why take the risk?

You could also look into misuse of personal data and making a claim for this, although this would be somewhat out of the remit of this forum. Again here though, in my view any such claim would be made stronger by showing that you had taken steps to inform them that they should not have accessed and now be continuing to process your data.

Guide: Posting Images

Im guessing thats not correct as the keeper is not liable.

How have you reached that conclusion without sight of the original parking charge notice?

Is there a specific defence template and draft order for Uk Parking Patrol Office?

I would recommend against a template defence. Some of the ones previously suggested on here are fairly frequently being struck out on the basis that they do not properly respond to the claim.

A good first stage would seem to be talking to your employer...