1
Private parking tickets / Re: VCS - Parked after expiry time - Powis Car Park, Woolwich
« on: Today at 10:40:03 am »
Can I ask when VCS submitted their Witness Statement?
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Private parking tickets / Re: Parking fine at my own home
« on: Today at 09:47:45 am »
Please confirm that no driver(s) were revealed in the appeal(s)?
3
Private parking tickets / Re: Court summons
« on: Today at 09:34:00 am »
It would also help to know the location so we can eyeball on GSV if possible.
Please be sure to answer ALL QUESTIONS above as they are all important.
Please be sure to answer ALL QUESTIONS above as they are all important.
4
Private parking tickets / Re: GroupNexus PCN, Claim form received DCBLegal - Forestry England land
« on: Today at 07:27:26 am »
Given the issue date, I would log into MCOL and submit and Acknowledgement of Service to buy a little extra time.
5
Private parking tickets / Re: Moorside Legal - Private Parking Charge
« on: Yesterday at 06:06:46 pm »
We have learned from other plaintiffs that Moorside are actively being investigated by the SRA.
As a result the SRA are not acting on additional complaints regarding Moorside where those complaints are broadly along the same lines as the ongoing investigation - TBH, that seems totally reasonable in situations where the fresh complaint does not bring any new evidence of wrongdoing.
This appears quite serious for Moorside.
I have also had eyes on a further document from Moorside where they appear to admit that they have struggled with compliance since the outcome of Mazur - I can only assume that they have become over reliant of non-qualified personnel - given that they are serial litigators they now appear to find themselves in a position where there are insufficient qualified personnel to carry out tasks that are considered to be 'conducting litigation'.
There are likely to be a number of so called 'law firms' involved in private parking enforcement who find themselves in the same boat.
Interesting times!
As a result the SRA are not acting on additional complaints regarding Moorside where those complaints are broadly along the same lines as the ongoing investigation - TBH, that seems totally reasonable in situations where the fresh complaint does not bring any new evidence of wrongdoing.
This appears quite serious for Moorside.
I have also had eyes on a further document from Moorside where they appear to admit that they have struggled with compliance since the outcome of Mazur - I can only assume that they have become over reliant of non-qualified personnel - given that they are serial litigators they now appear to find themselves in a position where there are insufficient qualified personnel to carry out tasks that are considered to be 'conducting litigation'.
There are likely to be a number of so called 'law firms' involved in private parking enforcement who find themselves in the same boat.
Interesting times!
6
Private parking tickets / Re: Notice to Keeper, I park services ltd
« on: Yesterday at 05:41:50 pm »
You will not shake them off immediately - this is a sometimes a drawn out process but one you are very likely to win.
You could respond with the following as an appeal;
Thank you for your PCN / NtK which I received yesterday.
I write purely as the Registered Keeper.
As I understand it, the vehicle driver is not known to I Park Services Ltd?
Since there is no legal requirement to do so, I will not be providing any driver details to an unregulated parking operator.
No assumption can be drawn from me simply exercising my legal right.
Having examined the NtK, I can see that it fails to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraphs 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(f) - in each instance the legally required sections of mandatory wording are not present in the NtK - this is immediately fatal to your reliance on PoFA in order to invoke keeper liability since total compliance is required.
The options are therefore reasonably simple;
Cancel the PCN
OR
Waste further resources and provide me with the appeals information / codes etc.
I am sorry that I cannot help you further.
Best wishes,
xxxxxx xxxxxxx
You could respond with the following as an appeal;
Thank you for your PCN / NtK which I received yesterday.
I write purely as the Registered Keeper.
As I understand it, the vehicle driver is not known to I Park Services Ltd?
Since there is no legal requirement to do so, I will not be providing any driver details to an unregulated parking operator.
No assumption can be drawn from me simply exercising my legal right.
Having examined the NtK, I can see that it fails to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraphs 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(f) - in each instance the legally required sections of mandatory wording are not present in the NtK - this is immediately fatal to your reliance on PoFA in order to invoke keeper liability since total compliance is required.
The options are therefore reasonably simple;
Cancel the PCN
OR
Waste further resources and provide me with the appeals information / codes etc.
I am sorry that I cannot help you further.
Best wishes,
xxxxxx xxxxxxx
7
Private parking tickets / Re: PCM Embassy Gardens
« on: Yesterday at 05:05:52 pm »
Reply with the same text that you used in the previous response to the letter of claim.
Moorside are hopeless.
The are just tree shaking in the hope that you just pay.
Did they ever provide the info requested in your previous response?
Moorside are hopeless.
The are just tree shaking in the hope that you just pay.
Did they ever provide the info requested in your previous response?
8
Private parking tickets / Re: VCS - Parked after expiry time - Powis Car Park, Woolwich
« on: Yesterday at 04:07:51 pm »
Please contact the Court as a matter of urgency with regard to Witness Statement submission.
Check on MCOL to see if a submission is still possible?
Please answer the other questions above as quickly as possible.
Having checked the evidence PDF, I can see that the original NtK is not PoFA compliant as a section of mandatory wording required by Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(f) is missing from the VCS issued NtK.
I also note with interest that VCS wrongly state that you have admitted that you were the driver - I have read the appeal and I can see that you appealed as keeper and that the driver was never revealed.
In the VCS appeal response they wrongly state that you admitted to being the driver - this demonstrates how VCS behave.
Can we assume that the Witness for VCS is in fact the hapless Jake Burgess? No need to redact anything other than your personal details!
I can come up with some defence points.
They will probably pull out anyway.
Check on MCOL to see if a submission is still possible?
Please answer the other questions above as quickly as possible.
Having checked the evidence PDF, I can see that the original NtK is not PoFA compliant as a section of mandatory wording required by Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(f) is missing from the VCS issued NtK.
I also note with interest that VCS wrongly state that you have admitted that you were the driver - I have read the appeal and I can see that you appealed as keeper and that the driver was never revealed.
In the VCS appeal response they wrongly state that you admitted to being the driver - this demonstrates how VCS behave.
Can we assume that the Witness for VCS is in fact the hapless Jake Burgess? No need to redact anything other than your personal details!
I can come up with some defence points.
They will probably pull out anyway.
9
Private parking tickets / Re: Notice to Keeper, I park services ltd
« on: Yesterday at 01:23:48 pm »
The NtK does not satisfy the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) or that of 9(2)(f) - in both instances the required statutory wording is missing.
10
Private parking tickets / Re: CUP Enforcement. Trade City, Romford
« on: Yesterday at 01:11:14 pm »
The original PCN is definitely not compliant with PoFA and there several non compliance issues.
11
Private parking tickets / Re: Notice to Keeper, I park services ltd
« on: Yesterday at 01:00:15 pm »
Can you post up the PCN redacting only personal details?
12
Private parking tickets / Re: UK Parking Control LTD - notice of debt recovery - longer than permitted
« on: Yesterday at 12:57:57 pm »
So did they pay the court fee then discontinue or did they simply pull out before paying?
13
Private parking tickets / Re: Letter before claim - moorside legal
« on: Yesterday at 10:36:40 am »
Relax - the burden is on them and not you.
This is a game of pure statistics - they don't care a jot what you say in emails and they don't have either the inclination or mental capacity to reply to them in the manner which would reasonably be expected - they are simply hoping that you bow to the pressure of the situation and pay.
You have responded to their LOC and can demonstrate 'engagement' with the pre-action process - you can also demonstrate their failings in that regard.
However, this will largely be irrelevant if this matter ever reaches a hearing since your primacy of contract position is pretty much unbeatable.
That does not mean that the Claimant will simply give up at this stage - it is relatively cheap to issue a claim - they will be hoping that you do not defend that claim so they can claim a default judgement.
As soon as you 'push back' they will probably discontinue.
Relax - nothing to worry about.
This is a game of pure statistics - they don't care a jot what you say in emails and they don't have either the inclination or mental capacity to reply to them in the manner which would reasonably be expected - they are simply hoping that you bow to the pressure of the situation and pay.
You have responded to their LOC and can demonstrate 'engagement' with the pre-action process - you can also demonstrate their failings in that regard.
However, this will largely be irrelevant if this matter ever reaches a hearing since your primacy of contract position is pretty much unbeatable.
That does not mean that the Claimant will simply give up at this stage - it is relatively cheap to issue a claim - they will be hoping that you do not defend that claim so they can claim a default judgement.
As soon as you 'push back' they will probably discontinue.
Relax - nothing to worry about.
14
Private parking tickets / Re: UKPS Nuneaton Tim Hortons PCN
« on: Yesterday at 07:59:09 am »
That's a good appeal basis but I disagree on the PoFA angle when it is so obvious that wording is missing.
What you will need to do is to lead the assessor 'by the nose' to the exact requirements of PoFA.
Also, in my appeal I would very clearly and, very specifically, invite the parking operator to provide a copy of their NtK where they specifically indicate where their document satisfies the missing PoFA terms - the operator will of course skip over your request - at which point you'll be able to comment on that during the 'comments on the operators evidence' stage.
For information, there have been successful appeals on the most minor wording deviations - this is one;
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators must follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable for the charge if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. PoFA requires the PCN to state that the notice is passed to the driver, once the details have been provided to the operator. In this case, the PCN in question does not mention this, and therefore the parking operator has failed to transfer the liability onto the registered keeper. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.
What you will need to do is to lead the assessor 'by the nose' to the exact requirements of PoFA.
Also, in my appeal I would very clearly and, very specifically, invite the parking operator to provide a copy of their NtK where they specifically indicate where their document satisfies the missing PoFA terms - the operator will of course skip over your request - at which point you'll be able to comment on that during the 'comments on the operators evidence' stage.
For information, there have been successful appeals on the most minor wording deviations - this is one;
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators must follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable for the charge if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. PoFA requires the PCN to state that the notice is passed to the driver, once the details have been provided to the operator. In this case, the PCN in question does not mention this, and therefore the parking operator has failed to transfer the liability onto the registered keeper. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.
15
Private parking tickets / Re: letter from solicitors re unpaid PCN
« on: Yesterday at 07:45:25 am »
Perfect.
So the next question is; does your lease specifically mention the parking entitlement? If so, does it specifically mention having to engage in any 'parking scheme'? ie passes / permits / fobs etc.
The reason we ask is this; if your lease already allows you to park then you can demonstrate that you don't need the permission of a third party parking operator to park - it's known as primacy of contract - your lease trumps the parking operators alleged contract.
The letter from BW is simply a tarted up debt collecting letter and can be ignored.
You should keep an eye out for a 'Letter Before Claim' or similarly worded.
Can we assume that BW etc have the correct address for service?
So the next question is; does your lease specifically mention the parking entitlement? If so, does it specifically mention having to engage in any 'parking scheme'? ie passes / permits / fobs etc.
The reason we ask is this; if your lease already allows you to park then you can demonstrate that you don't need the permission of a third party parking operator to park - it's known as primacy of contract - your lease trumps the parking operators alleged contract.
The letter from BW is simply a tarted up debt collecting letter and can be ignored.
You should keep an eye out for a 'Letter Before Claim' or similarly worded.
Can we assume that BW etc have the correct address for service?