3. Messages

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 ... 122
1
Private parking tickets / Re: Private Parking Charge Notice
« on: Yesterday at 08:38:59 pm »
Quote from: Judi in Cornwall on Yesterday at 05:01:49 pm
...so admit I should pay something.  However the signage states that the charge PCN is £60 if paid within 14 days or £100 within 28 days.  I had no opportunity to do either as the notification from BW Legal was the first I had heard of my error. I have contacted BW Legal to point this out and await their response.  Advice from you would be welcome.

Never ever admit to liability in any private parking issue. It is about the worst possible thing you can do. You are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and need the advice you will receive here if you don't want to be picked off and extorted.

As requested by @DWMB2, we need to see the correspondence between you and BW Legal. Also, show us the original Notice to Keeper (NtK). We don't need to see any reminders or debt collector letters. Just the original NtK and the comms between you and BW Legal.

No one pays PPS unless they are ripe fruit that has been plucked from the gullible tree. You are now here, so not gullible anymore, we hope.

2
Private parking tickets / Re: ParkingEye - London Aquatics Cenre
« on: Yesterday at 08:32:33 pm »


It ain't relevant land.

3
Private parking tickets / Re: ParkingEye - London Aquatics Cenre
« on: Yesterday at 08:24:37 pm »
Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park Bylaws

4
Private parking tickets / Re: ParkingEye - London Aquatics Cenre
« on: Yesterday at 08:17:47 pm »
Any appeal must be only as the keeper. Do not identify who was driving. There is no legal obligation on the keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company.

The PE Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA and so the keeper cannot be liable if the drivers identity is not known by PE.

So, your post should start: "I The keeper received a parking ticket for not paying for parking."

Are you saying that there are no other signs at the location? Any contract is formed by the terms on the signs at the location. They cannot be formed by anything on a website. The contract is formed by conduct, whether the driver bothered to read the signs in situ, or not.

If you can, go back and get some photos of the signs and the general layout.

There is no mention of ParkingEye or any BPA roundel on the sign you have shown us.

5
Private parking tickets / Re: Received contradicting letters
« on: Yesterday at 08:07:57 pm »
Is this the thread?

Received two PCNs from April 2023 with legal and court fees on top but this is the first time I am hearing about this

If so, this thread should be merged into it.

A Notice of Discontinuance (NoD) means that the claim has been discontinued. In other words, it's the end of the matter. Well done for following the advice and persevering.

Please show us the NoD.

6
Private parking tickets / Re: County Court Notice for Unpaid PCN (N1SDT)
« on: Yesterday at 07:59:50 pm »
Here is the defence and link to the draft order. You only have to edit the header in the defence for your name, the claim number and to sign it my typing your full name for the signature and dating it. There is nothing to edit in the Draft Order.

Both documents should be attached as PDF files to an email which is sent to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC to yourself. The email subject must contain the claim number and in the body just say that attached is the defence and draft order in the matter of SIP Parking Limited v [your name] Claim No.: [claim number].

Quote
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

SIP Parking Limited
Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant


DEFENCE


1. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim. The allegation that the vehicle was on site in excess of the paid-for time or parked without making a valid payment is refuted.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.5;

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

(c) The PoC do not set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has
breached the contract (or contracts);

(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

(e) The PoC does not adequately explain the basis for the £60 claimed as 'debt damage costs,' nor does it provide details of how this amount was calculated or justified;

(f) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the defendant as the driver or the keeper. The claimant obviously knows whether the defendant is being sued as the driver or the keeper and should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of action.

(g) The statement of truth in the Particulars of Claim does not comply with Practice Direction 22, paragraph 2.1. The form of the statement does not include the required wording that 'the Claimant understands that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.' This omission renders the statement of truth invalid, and consequently, the Particulars of Claim do not comply with the Civil Procedure Rules.

4. The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order made at another court which the allocating judge ought to make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and understand the case which he/she/it faces and can then respond properly to the claim.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:


Date:

Draft order for the defence

7
Private parking tickets / Re: County Court Notice for Unpaid PCN (N1SDT)
« on: Yesterday at 06:32:10 pm »
Please show us the signature that you have redacted on the claim form. It is not necessary to redact that and it could also make the claim and the statement of truth invalid. It is in the public domain so no need to redact it.

8
Private parking tickets / Re: East Midland Airport VCS Charge Notice - Clutch failure emergency stop
« on: Yesterday at 05:57:10 pm »
The landowner or their agent have instructed VCS to cancel and so the IAS has been told to drop it by VCS. I would bet that had VCS not been told to drop it by the organ grinder, the IAS would have rejected the appeal.

9
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
« on: Yesterday at 05:55:33 pm »
So, Tusker need to provide evidence of the refusal by CPM to accept transfer of liability and the reason given by CPM.

They need to read the specific paragraphs of the Act to make it clear that CPM refusing to accept transfer of liability is irrelevant. There is an Act of parliament that specifically states that as long as the hire company follows the correct procedure, liability is transferred. If CPM refuse to accept the transfer, they are acting unlawfully.

The actions taken by both Tusker and CPM are unlawful due to non-compliance with the legal framework set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

Why Tusker's Actions are Unlawful

Failing to Properly Transfer Liability Under PoFA: By providing the hirer with a letter of authorisation and a copy of the the NtK, instead of ensuring that CPM issues a Notice to Hirer (NtH), Tusker is not following the correct legal process for transferring liability. The hirer cannot be lawfully pursued based on a Notice to Keeper that was never addressed to them.

Potential Unlawful Billing of the Hirer: If Tusker pays the parking charge and then seeks to recover the amount from the hirer, it is acting unlawfully because the hirer has not been formally made liable under the law. The hirer has no legal obligation to pay a charge based solely on Tusker’s actions, as the proper transfer of liability procedure was not followed.

Why CPM's Actions are Unlawful

Refusing to Accept Transfer of Liability After Receiving Proper Documentation: If CPM has been provided with the hirer’s details and the required documents, as per PoFA paragraph 13, they are legally obligated to pursue the hirer by issuing an NtH. By continuing to hold Tusker liable even though they complied with the requirements of PoFA paragraph 13 for transfer of liability, CPM is not complying with the law.

Attempting to Enforce a Parking Charge Without Proper Transfer of Liability: CPM’s continued pursuit of Tusker for the parking charge despite having the hirer’s information means they are attempting to enforce a charge against a party who is not liable under PoFA. This goes against the intent of the legislation, which aims to ensure that liability for parking charges is properly transferred to the party who was responsible for the vehicle at the time of the alleged infringement.

Resolving This Issue Through the Legal System

If CPM continues to pursue Tusker for the parking charge, and if Tusker pays the charge and then seeks to recover it from the hirer, the following legal steps should be taken:

Tusker Should Challenge CPM in Court: Tusker should bring a claim against CPM for failing to accept the transfer of liability. They should argue that they complied with PoFA by providing the necessary documents to transfer liability to the hirer, and therefore, CPM’s continued pursuit of them is unlawful.

The Hirer Could Dispute the Charge if Billed by Tusker: If Tusker pays the parking charge and tries to recover it from the hirer, the hirer should contest this on the grounds that they were never legally made liable under PoFA. Since CPM did not issue an NtH to the hirer, there is no legal basis for Tusker to demand payment from the hirer.

Legal Recourse for the Hirer Against Tusker: If Tusker tries to recover the parking charge from the hirer, the hirer should seek legal recourse against Tusker for attempting to charge them unlawfully. This should include challenging any attempts to deduct the amount from wages (if a salary sacrifice scheme is in effect) or disputing the invoice in a small claims court.

The Proper Resolution

To resolve the situation in accordance with the law:

• CPM should issue a Notice to Hirer (NtH) after receiving the hirer’s details from Tusker. This correctly and lawfully transfers liability to the hirer.

• Tusker should not attempt to recover the charge from the hirer unless CPM has properly issued an NtH and the hirer has been lawfully made liable.

• If CPM refuses to issue the NtH, Tusker should challenge CPM's actions rather than paying the charge. This approach would uphold the legal framework established by PoFA and ensure that liability is correctly assigned.

So, this needs to be explained in detail to both Tusker and CPM. If Tusker filled in that form and provided copies of the requested documents, liability has been transferred whether CPM accepts it or not. The ball is then in CPMs court and if they are acting lawfully, they must send an NtH to the Hirer. If they don't, then the hirer is not liable. Tusker is not liable either because they followed the lawful process to transfer liability.

10
Private parking tickets / Re: ParkingEye-Barnet Hospital-PCN
« on: Yesterday at 05:14:22 pm »
Quote from: allondon on Yesterday at 03:54:50 pm
However, it seems that the PCN wording in section Protection Of Freedoms Act is compliant with PoFA 2012, or am I missing something?

Have a read of paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA and show me where there is an invitation or anything that means the same as "invites" the keeper to pay the charge.

PoFA 2012

Here is a little précis I wrote a while ago that explains the failure:

Quote
PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) failures

Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012

This paragraph mandates that for a parking operator to hold the vehicle's registered keeper liable for a parking charge, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include:

An "Invitation to Pay": The notice must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.

Exact Wording: The wording must clearly convey this invitation and mere implication or indirect suggestions are insufficient. The act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to fully incorporate this invitation renders the notice non-compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012.

Non-Compliance Issue

If the NtK fails to include a clear "invitation to pay", or any synonym of the word "invitation", this omission is a breach of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). Even if the notice suggests that payment is required, without an explicit invitation directed towards the keeper to settle the charge, the notice does not meet the exacting requirements of PoFA 2012.

Significance of Full Compliance

Strict Liability: The law mandates full and exact compliance with the specified wording and content outlined in PoFA 2012.

Partial or Substantial Compliance Insufficient: Even if the notice largely complies with other requirements, the absence of a clear invitation to the keeper to pay is a significant flaw. The operator cannot rely on partial or even substantial compliance — every element as specified in the legislation must be present and correct.

Consequences for the Operator

Challenge Basis: If the notice is found to lack this crucial element, it can be used as a basis to challenge the parking charge.

Keeper Liability: The operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper, which significantly weaken their case if the notice to the driver or other requirements are also flawed or if the driver is unknown.

Conclusion

In summary, a PCN that does not include an explicit "invitation" for the keeper to pay the charge is not fully compliant with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012. Since the law demands strict adherence, any omission, even if minor, invalidates the notice and relieves the keeper of any obligation to pay. This should be raised in any appeal or legal response to the charge.

11
Private parking tickets / Re: UKPS PCN at Eaton House Coventry, on site for 34 seconds
« on: Yesterday at 03:44:23 pm »
Check to see what evidence they have that the vehicle was at the location for 34 seconds. If they've only a single photo, they can't even even prove that it was there for more than 1 second.

12
Private parking tickets / Re: UKPS PCN at Eaton House Coventry, on site for 34 seconds
« on: Yesterday at 03:07:01 pm »
Tell them to go fornicate with themselves as that NtK is not PoFA compliant.

Easy one to defeat... as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

Quote
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. UKPS 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. UKPS have no hope at IAS, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Note for the regulars: I know that the bit about no hope at IAS is not strictly true, but it serves its purpose.

13
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
« on: Yesterday at 03:02:04 pm »
For heavens sake! Tell your friend to tell the "fines processing team" that they never had to get in touch with CPM to transfer the liability. They only had to send the tear off form and the copies of the requested documents to CPM and that would be the end of the matter. They are obfuscating.

They really are exposing their intellectual malnourishment and shameful lack of understanding. That or they are trying to wriggle out of their liability due to their incompetence.

There is not much time left for them to transfer the liability. If CPM were really so stupid to refuse to accept a transfer of liability, they are in breach of PoFA, KADOE and the BPA CoP.

14
Private parking tickets / Re: QDR Solicitors - parking violation / CCJ
« on: Yesterday at 02:55:52 pm »
Quote from: Iahst on Yesterday at 02:27:35 pm
Thank you! Would you bother sending a “prove the debt” letter to try and get the whole claim dropped (if they have nothing)?

Would prefer it gone, rather than just ignoring it!

Unfortunately a very naive attitude and gives the suggestion to the debt collector that you are indeed ripe for the picking off the gullible tree. By contacting a third party that has zero skin in the game and operate on a no-win, no-fee basis for their client as a scare tactic to pester you into paying something that you are not liable for and they have no contractual connection to, simply marks you as a "mug".

By contacting them, you can guarantee, 100%, that this not only won't simply "go away" but will result in even more harassment and communication. If that is what you want, so be it.

By ignoring it and getting on with your life, you win. They will eventually tire of sending you letters and will move on in search of lower hanging fruit to puck off the gullible tree. You have nothing to worry about so stop worrying and enjoy the fact that t is costing them to send you all the comms which you put to good use as emergency toilet paper, or whatever.

The advice "IGNORE" is your best guarantee that this will go away. Ignore that advice and you can guarantee that it will persist for much longer and they will find other excuses to chase you as you will not be marked as a "mug" ripe for picking.

15
Private parking tickets / Re: ParkingEye-Barnet Hospital-PCN
« on: Yesterday at 02:46:01 pm »
Here is a suggested initial appeal to PE:

Quote
Subject: Formal Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice [PCN Reference Number]

I am appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle in relation to the above-referenced Parking Charge Notice (PCN), which was issued for an alleged parking contravention at Barnet Hospital on 30th September. The Notice to Keeper (NtK), dated 7th October, does not provide sufficient evidence of a parking contravention at a specific location or indicate a clear breach of terms and conditions.

Grounds for Appeal:

1. Payment Was Made for Parking:

A payment of £2.15 for parking was made, as reflected in a bank statement dated 2 October. This payment covered the appropriate parking duration. The payment was made in accordance with the pay-on-exit system at the hospital, where the vehicle registration number is entered, and the fee is calculated accordingly. The lack of a receipt function at the payment machines makes it impossible to provide additional documentation, but the bank statement confirms that the relevant parking fee was paid.

2. Confusing Signage and Unclear Markings:

The parking layout at Barnet Hospital consists of a complex network of interconnected spaces with inconsistent signage. While some areas are designated for staff parking, these zones are not clearly separated from public parking areas, and the signage is not always prominently displayed. Any alleged contravention would likely be due to the confusing and inadequate signage rather than a deliberate breach of parking terms.

3. Lack of Evidence of a Specific Contravention:

The images provided in the PCN show the vehicle in motion but do not demonstrate that it was parked in a prohibited area or indicate the specific location where the alleged contravention occurred. Without evidence showing a clear breach of parking terms and conditions, there is no basis for holding the registered keeper liable for the charge.

4. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA):

The PCN fails to comply with the requirements set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, specifically paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), which mandates an explicit invitation for the registered keeper to either pay the unpaid parking charge or provide the name and address of the driver. The notice does not contain any such invitation or equivalent wording. Instead, it merely outlines the consequences if the charge is not paid, which does not satisfy the legal requirement. As the registered keeper, I am not liable under PoFA for this parking charge due to this non-compliance.

Request for Evidence and Cancellation of the PCN:

In light of the above points, I respectfully request that the charge be cancelled. Should you reject this appeal, I request the following:

• Clear evidence of the location where the vehicle was allegedly parked in breach of terms.

• Photographic evidence of relevant signage in the area, showing the restrictions in place.

• A copy of the parking terms and conditions applicable at the time of the alleged contravention.

• A detailed explanation of how the charge is justified despite the payment made.

If the appeal is not upheld, please provide a POPLA code so that I may escalate this matter to the independent appeals service.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 122