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.

Topics - b789

Pages: [1]
A Consultancy firm working for the Department for Levelling up Housing & Communities (DLUHC) has asked to share this, to help inform the final work of bringing in Statutory regulation of the parking industry.

The Department for Levelling up Housing & Communities (DLUHC) is working with Zaizi, an independent consulting company, who are conducting research about people’s experiences of receiving a parking charge notice (PCN) and appealing it.

We are looking for UK-based participants who have had to appeal a parking charge notice (PCN). Zaizi is working with People for Research, the UK's leading user recruitment agency for market research and usability testing to run some research with the general public and help to improve services for all.

We are looking to understand the experience of people who received a parking charge notice from a private parking operator. Participants will need to be motorists and either the person who was driving at the time of the parking in dispute, or the registered keeper of the car.

If you are available and interested in taking part in paid research, please complete the short questionnaire below. If you are suitable, People for Research will be in touch with you in the next few days to confirm your session. The session will involve a video call with a researcher.

Date of sessions: Monday 20th May to Wednesday 5th June

Type of research session: 1-2-1 online discussion

Incentive: £60 bank transfer/voucher

We are interested in speaking to anyone who has received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a private parking operator, more specifically this can be anyone:

Who was driving at the time of the parking incident in dispute
The registered keeper of the car who received the PCN but was not present at the time the car was parked
Anyone who was successful in their appeal
Anyone who was unsuccessful in their appeal
Anyone who did not challenge/appeal but felt they had a strong case to appeal against  the PCN
Anyone who went through the first stage/challenge but did not proceed to the second stage appeal
To ensure we have a diverse group of users to speak to, the team are particularly interested in speaking to people from the following:

A mix of genders
English as a second language
Low digital literacy
A range of accessibility needs (e.g. neurodiversity, visual impairments etc), ages, socio economic backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, locations where people live (in England, Scotland and Wales)

The initial part of the survey to respond and confirm your interest is here:

Please read Zaizi's privacy notice here.

Please read People for Research's privacy notice here.

Private parking tickets / Rescuing a poor defence and counterclaim
« on: March 12, 2024, 07:32:44 pm »
Seeking the advice of the more legally trained and experienced of the forum (@H C Andersen, @Nosey Parker, @DWMB2) on a case I have just picked up today. A friend who knows I help out with PCNs has advised a former colleague to get in touch as they have dug themselves a bit of a hole regarding a PCN and subsequent claim.

Background... From what I can make out, so far, the defendant was first notified about an outstanding debt of £170 on 5/5/22 by DRP for an alleged parking infringement on 22/2/22 from CP Plus (Nexus). At some stage, the defendant got in touch with DRP and had a phone conversation that was unpleasant and was terminated by the defendant after the DRP employee was rude and demanded to know how much the defendant had in their bak account and could they pay the "fine".

The defendant then went on to get in touch with DRP again through a "chat " service where they demanded a transcript of the phone conversation. They were told that a transcript would be provided but nothing was forthcoming. They have a record of the "chat" conversation where they were told transcript was being requested.

The next interaction that I have evidence of is the claim issued through DCB Legal on 23/10/23 which was acknowledged. A defence and counterclaim for £500 was submitted. The defence and counterclaim were poorly pleaded snd I am pretty sure that the counterclaim has no legs.

It is a pity that I was not contacted earlier in the process as it would have been easily defended as back in 2022, CP Plus t/a Group Nexus did not rely on PoFA in their NtKs and the driver has not been identified. Also, the PoC were the typical rubbish that DCB Legal provide which failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Directions Part 16 and could easily have been requested to have the claim struck out as a preliminary matter using the CEL v Chan appeal judgment. Too late for that now.

Interestingly, the claim was sent to the defendants local court where the DDJ reviews the case before a hearing date was set and issued an order for the claimant to submit amended PoC because of the CPR 16.4 problem. See below:

As you can see, the DDJ is not too wet behind the ears and has ordered the claimant to specifically whether the claim is brought under PoFA (which, even without seeing the original NtK, we know was not likely to be at that time). Also, to explain that if they are not relying on PoFA, what the cause of action is.

The claimant submitted amended PoC. However, in the amended PoC, they make no mention of PoFA but do the often seen, feeble attempt to make an excuse by stating: "Following receipt of the Notices, the Defendant failed to nominate a Driver. As such, the Defendant is now pursued on the balance of probabilities that they were the Driver of the Vehicle in that, if they were not,
they would have nominated

I can provide copies of the various documents if required once I have redacted them. The defendant could have submitted an amended defence by yesterday but I only received this all today. I am hopeful that the failure of the claimant to submit in their amended PoC what was requested by the DDJ will be enough to get the claim struck out.

This is the General form of judgment and the amended PoC:

The amended PoC:

When advising defendants on where to send specific documents to the CNBC, they have updated the email address to be used. Different addresses for different stages of the process:

I normally deal with private PCNs over on MSE but I'm handling this penalty notice for a family member. He was stopped at the location, Swinley Lane, Wigan, completely unaware that there were any restrictions. There were no obvious or prominent signs and, as can be seen in the photos he took at the time, there are no signs or road marks to indicate any restrictions.

The wardens photos include a photo of a sign but there is no indication where this sign is in relation to the car. At the time, the sign that was photographed by the warden was noticed on a lamppost 20m behind where the car was stopped.

On the day, the road was covered in snow and no road markings were obvious or observed.

Advice from the forum would be appreciated.

A GSV view of the location is here:

Pages: [1]