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.

Messages - b789

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 36
It’s no good appealing as the keeper if you are not the keeper. If you were thrown under the bus by the keeper identifying you as the driver, then you are liable.

The driver is always liable. The PPC have no idea who the driver is. If they issue a PCN and comply with the strict requirements of PoFA 2012 they can then transfer the drivers liability to the keeper.

If they have not complied fully with the strict requirements of PoFA, they cannot transfer that liability and have nowhere to go. That is why we always tell victims of these PPCs to never identify the driver. Any appeal or communication should be only as the keeper.

There is no legal obligation in civil law for the keeper to identify the driver. No assumption or inference can be made that the keeper must also be the driver. The burden of proof that the keeper is also the driver is on the PPC. They have no proof unless the keeper identifies the driver.

Also, they are not “fines”. I will pay each of those PCNs if you can show me the word “fine” in any of them. The are speculative invoices from an unregulated private parking company.

If you’re so concerned about the £40 bribe discount, are you sure you want to pay them or do you want to fight the scammers? It’s your money.

With regards to dates, the NtK complies with section 9(5). It is dated Friday 10/05/2024. It requires two working days to be “deemed” as “given”. Therefore, irrespective of the actual date you received it, it was “given” on Tuesday 14th May, one day before the deadline. Unless you can prove it was received after that date, that argument has no legs.

Do not despair. The NtK fails the strict requirements of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) to invite the keeper to pay the charge. So, no revealing the identity of the driver. Any appeal is made only as the keeper. They have no idea who the driver is unless you tell them, inadvertently or otherwise.

There are always issues with ECP signs. They have lost at POPLA many times over their poor signage as long as this is clearly highlighted to the assessor with identification of which part of the BPA CoP they fail.

Can you get some photos of the signs at the location with a general overview of the different sections of the car park that you say have different terms?

Oh dear. Please tell us that you have not yet had any contact with MET. At no time must you reveal the identity of the driver. Only the driver is liable and they have no idea who that is.

Simply appeal with the following (verbatim) and wait for them to either cancel it or reject it and provide a POPLA code.

I am the registered keeper. MET cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, MET will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because the McDonalds at Gatwick Airport is not 'relevant land'.

If Gatwick Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Byelaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because MET is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for METs own profit (as opposed to a byelaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and MET has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NTK can only hold the driver liable. MET have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

After they reject the appeal, you can use the above and the fact that they have breached the following sections of the BPA Code of Practice: 2.4, 2.15, 20.4, 21.6 and 21.13, 21.27 and 22.6 to name a few. A complaint to the BPA pointing out METs continued use of PoFA to try and hold the keeper liable when the location is under statutory control. It is illegal and a breach of multiple BPA CoP sections.

I agree that the CRA breach is a very valid point. It should probably lead any POPLA appeal. The keeper should certainly not reveal the drivers identity as the NtK also fails PoFA 9(2)(e)(i).

OP, do not rush this as it appears you may have already made the mistake of identifying yourself, the keeper, as also being the driver in your earlier appeals. Any communication must be as the keeper only. They have no idea who the driver is unless you tell them, inadvertently or otherwise.

Before you fire off any more appeals either to PE or POPLA, please show us here what you intend to send and we will advise/critique so that it is as powerful as it can be.

I note that for the parking event on the 3/5/24 there are two NtKs, one dated 7/5/24 and one 21/5/24. As the second one would fail PoFA 9(5). It would be interesting to know why there were two NtKs issued as the later one does not mention that it is a reminder.

You would say that the driver paid for the parking. The burden of proof is on the operator to show that the driver didn't purchase parking. The sign does state that you can pay by downloading the App. It does not state that you should have the App already downloaded and ready to make payment. So, time how long it takes to read the whole sign, download the App, set up the method of payment in the App and then make the payment.

The point about it not being purchased within the time allowed is irrelevant as it is an unfair penalty clause and a private company cannot apply a penalty. Use the points I posted yesterday about it being an "Impossibility in a Contract" and an "Unfair Term" under the CRA 2015.

So, simply appeal as the keeper. No stating who was driving. Just use the Royal "we". Explain to them that the driver paid for the duration of parking and that they should cancel the PCN as the requirement to pay within 5 minutes is an impossibility and an unfair term under the CRA 2015. Also explain that they have failed PoFA 2012 in that their signs fail to adequately bring to the attention of the driver the charge amount, in which case you are not obliged to disclose the identity of the driver and you will not be doing so.

I wouldn't worry too much about putting too much effort into this as you are dealing with an extremely unpleasant set of intellectually malnourished ex-clamper thugs whose unregulated private company is a member of the IPC. Their sole interest is in how much they can scam you for.

I'd place money on them rejecting any appeal and any secondary appeal to the IAS. Others may advise that you try the IAS but the choice is yours. You never know, you may be one of the less than 4% of appellants that succeeds with them. The most likely outcome is going to be count court clam from them where they will either discontinue or else get spanked by the judge for their vexatious and unreasonable behaviour.

Show us whet you plan on sending as your appeal before you do so.

I think you may be under the misapprehension that you are dealing with a parking company that has a customer service ethos. They are ex-clamper thugs whose only interest is in how much they can scam you for.

There are no "magistrates" involved in the process should it ever go as far a hearing. This is not a criminal matter. It is a contractual dispute under civil law. There is no "Rumple of the Bailey". It is county court in the small claims track.

If it ever got that far, here is short video that shows you what to expect on the day of a hearing, assuming it is not by telephone or video link:

Anyway, we are a long way off anything like that happening. More often than not, they will file a claim in the hope that the defendant is low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will poop their pants at the first sign of a court claim and pay up. In our experience, depending on which roboclaim solicitor they use, they will discontinue before any hearing as they really don't want a spanking from the judge for their unscrupulous methods and breaches of various statutes, laws and codes of practice.

Private parking tickets / Re: Euro Parking County court letter
« on: Yesterday at 03:14:04 pm »
That's good to hear. It's possible that the first judge for the resolution hearing was a junior deputy district judge. Hopefully the next judge will be more amenable to questioning the Claimant about the breaches you will be expanding on.

Let us know if the Claimant send a Supplementary WS. They sometimes try that. Also, when you go to court, make sure that you have spare copies of your WS as it is not unknown for the rep for the Claimant to try and say they don't have a copy of it.

It may be worth creating a Skeleton argument. A skeleton argument is a written summary of your case and your main arguments in your case. It should outline the relevant background facts of the case and briefly refer to the law that will be relied on in your arguments.

A Skeleton shout be served no later than two business days before the hearing. It may be worth having a read of this:

So, according to the NtK, what is the timescale they say you should expect a response to an appeal? If they have passed that date and you have not had a response or they say that they did respond but you've not received anything (check spam folder) you need to complain that they have not followed the guidelines and you will be reporting them to the BPA.

I still don't see a picture of the NtK (front and back please). We need to know dates shown on it.

You said earlier on when questioned about what you wrote to either TNC or Parking Group: "...yes had a copy of it, I responded to it but didnt acknowledge who the driver was more a reflective letter (on visiting the site to get photos) stating the signs were not visable". Was that to PG as an initial appeal? What date was that and did you receive a response to that?

When and how did you send the second letter that we thought you'd sent to the MD of the property management company? Did you send it as an email? An PDF attachment to an email? Using their webform?

Well, for now, you should proceed only as the keeper. As @slapdash has pointed out, trying to blame the app is not going to get you anywhere. Have you complained to the app people?

Where are you up to with Plan A? It is too late for Plans B and C so, keep at Plan A until/if/when they issue a claim, which is Plan D.

For now, you can safely ignore any debt collector letters. Never, ever, ever, communicate with a debt collector. They are powerless and are only engaged to try and care the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying. They are not a party to the contract you allegedly breached with the parking company. They cannot take you to court or give you a CCJ or send bailiffs.

If/when you receive a Letter of Claim from either the parking company or a firm of roboclaim solicitors contracted by them, come back for advice on the next steps. An LoC will give you 30 days to pay, not the usual 14 days.

If you think you can get them to send you a copy of the original NtK, then by all means do so but I doubt the'll be that cooperative unless you do it as a SAR and then they have 30 days with which to provide it.

I'm glad you are prepared to fight the in court if necessary. That is where you ultimately win anyway. It is very straightforward and easy to respond and defend any claim.We will be assisting you every step of the way. They will only go all the way to a hearing if they think you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree. If you're here getting advice, then you aren't.

As one of the occupants of the vehicle had a blue badge and the driver was only dropping off a passenger, there should be a letter of complaint to PCM for the record. They will then be on notice that if they continue to pursue the keeper, they will know that the occupant had protected characteristics and extra time should have been allowed as required under the Equality Act 2010.

If you want to draft something to show us and we can then advise on any changes. Any correspondence is to be as the keeper only. It is a learning experience for you.

There are a couple of things you should be doing for now. Plan A is always the easiest to get these cancelled is to get the landowner to tell their agent to cancel it. You can continue with Plan A right up until the commencement of Plan D.

What did the business you were visiting at the time have to say about their patrons being invoiced for £100 for the privilege?

What was the date the original NtK was issued? Was it 27th March or earlier?

Can you evidence that you were out of the country between the dates of the first NtK (plus 2 working days) and the 28th day after that? If so, you can complain (not appeal) to UKPC and request that they reissue the original NtK and restart the clock, thus allowing you to appeal. There is clause in the latest edition of the BPA CoP 23.8 that states they must reissue and restart the process if you can evidence that you (the addressee) could not have appealed within the original 28 day window. If you can and they don’t, a complaint to the BPA is in order.

Apart from the above, all you can do for now is continue with Plan A and wait or the ridiculous but useless debt collector letters. If, or more likely when, you receive a real Letter of Claim, either directly from UKPC themselves or DCB Legal (not anything from DCB Ltd), then come back for advice on how to proceed.

A claim is the start of Plan D and is easily dealt with and will end up with an eventual discontinuation.

It would be interesting to note the dates of any demands received for any of the 3 outstanding PCNs. In your appeals and POPLA appeals, did you appeal as the keeper or ad the driver?

For example, one of the NtKs shows a date on the NtK as 29/12/2023. It says it must be paid within 28 days of the date the notice was “given” without specifying what “given” means. It cannot have been “given” any earlier than 03/01/2024. Therefore, they should not have sent any demand dated before 31/01/2024.

Whilst this may seem academic, if they’ve sent any demand before the 28 days have passed they will have breached PoFA, although that may be moot, depending on whether you have identified the driver. However, they will have also breached the CRA 2015. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires that terms and conditions must be fair and transparent. An NtK giving 28 days for payment but followed by an early demand is misleading and unfair to the keeper, thereby potentially invalidating the NtK.

Sending an early demand for payment could confuse the keeper about their rights and the timeline for responding to the NtK. This confusion can affect the procedural fairness and the keeper's ability to make an informed decision regarding payment or appeal. Procedural fairness is an underlying principle in consumer-related disputes, and a breach of this could invalidate the process initiated by the NtK.

The last bit regarding procedural fairness would only apply if it ever ended up in court.

So, did you receive any demands or reminders to pay for any of the PCNs and did you reveal the identity of the driver in your appeals?

Whatever you do, do not identify the driver. They have no idea who was driving and because their NtK is not compliant with the requirements of PoFA, they cannot transfer that liability to the keeper.

It is what we would call a “golden ticket”. Please tell us that you did not identify the driver when you appealed. No “…I parked”. Only “…the driver parked”, the royal “we”.

The sign clearly says the driver is liable. If the RK doesn't reveal who the driver was then there's nothin they can do about it.
The driver is always liable. If the PPC issues an NtK to the keeper that is fully compliant with the strict requirements of PoFA, then they can transfer that liability from the driver to the keeper.

We always tell victims to not identify the driver as almost always there is a technical flaw in the NtKs that can invalidate the compliance with the requirements of PoFA.

You won't be paying a penny to UKCPM if you follow the advice. Are you sure you did not receive the original NtK? It would be worthwhile seeing both sides of that as it is the key document to be able to see whether all the legal requirements to hold you liable as the keeper.

A few more questions though first. Was the driver or passenger in possession of a blue badge, irrespective of whether it was shown or not? At what time of day was this? Daylight or darkness?

The first thing that stand out are the signage is terrible. It is almost impossible to read that wall of text and there is no way that the charge is adequately brought to the attention of the driver. Secondly, loading/unloading or picking up/dropping off a passenger is not parking and that is defined in the persuasive appeal court judgment of Jopson v Homeguard B9GF09AE [2016].

Unfortunately, you are dealing with a particularly vexatious company of ex-clamper thugs and it is too late to do any appeals. You will have to weather a storm of debt collector letter which you can safely ignore. They are powerless to do anything, no matter how nasty they threaten you. Just file them or use them as kindling.

You will have to wait until/if/when they decide to make a claim against you. Whilst we haven't seen the original NtK, it is advised that any communication we suggest is made as the keeper of the vehicle. UKPCM have no idea of the drivers identity unless you, the keeper tells them. The keeper and the driver are two separate entities in civil law and no inference or assumptions can be made that the keeper was also the driver.

Was the person that was dropped off at the location an owner or tenant? If so, what does their lease/AST say about parking? What it doesn't say is equally important.

Anyway, a few questions for you to answer in there before we move on.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 36