Author Topic: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge  (Read 4323 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
« on: »
I entered the car park, parked up and looked at the signage.

I tried to download a required app and it wouldn't download. After several attempts I gave up and decided to move to a different carpark.

Time of entry to exit of the car park was less than 6 minutes.

I've been issued with a PCN demanding £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.

What would my next steps be?

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
« Reply #1 on: »
Less than six minutes but more than five minutes?

Come on, please stop being vague!

Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
« Reply #2 on: »
What would my next steps be?
READ THIS FIRST - **BEFORE POSTING YOUR CASE!**, 
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/

post up the pcn redact personal details leave in times.
use an external host
Quote from: andy_foster
Mick, you are a very, very bad man

Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
« Reply #3 on: »
Pictures of the PCN




Signage at the site, from Google Street View:


The problem I had is that it doesn't accept cards and I couldn't download the parking App despite numerous attempts

The site is also very tight to manoeuvre with one way in and one way out, which added to my time:
« Last Edit: January 15, 2025, 08:26:36 am by ngms27 »

Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
« Reply #4 on: »
My advice is to ignore them. Ignore everything you get, reminders and especially debt collector letters. Eventually you will receive a Letter of Claim (LoC). When you receive that, come back and show us.

They will eventually issue a court claim which is very easily defended and they will discontinue in due course.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
« Reply #5 on: »
My view is slightly different - if you have a meritoious defence (ie that the driver read the terms, sought to pay, couldn't and therefore left to park elsewhere), then there's certainly no harm in pointing this out to the parking company.

If you do, show us what you plan to send before appealing, and appeal only as the registered keeper, giving no hint as to who was driving.

They'll reject of course, but if they then go on to issue a court claim it can be painted as rather unreasonable (alongside other available defences).

Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
« Reply #6 on: »
Yes... but I Park Services use DCB Legal as their bulk litigator of choice which means that no matter what has gone before, as long as the claim is defended, no matter with what. Even a nursery rhyme will suffice, and it will be discontinued before they have to pay the trial fee.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
« Reply #7 on: »
Well indeed. I just take a general approach of setting out ones stall through an initial appeal, partly because there's no harm, and means if they were to suddenly change approach and start mitigating in house for example, the defendant has already made their case, potentially making any claim seem unreasonable.

Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
« Reply #8 on: »
What do you think of a reply such as:

As the registered keeper of the vehicle I wish to appeal the Parking Charge.

Upon entering the car park the driver took some time to manoeuvre into a parking space given how tight the parking spots are and the requirement to let other vehicles past. The driver then went to look at the signage and saw that there was no option to pay by card and didn’t have any cash for the machine.

At this point several attempts were made to download the bespoke uncommon application to enable payment to be made via card / google pay. This ultimately failed. The driver then got back into the car and exited the carpark. According to your cameras this was timed as 5m:42s

Passengers did not get out of the car and no business was carried out. Given this and the total time elapsed from entering to exiting the car park no parking fee was due and the parking charge is invalid.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2025, 06:13:24 am by ngms27 »

Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
« Reply #9 on: »
I will place odds of 1,000:1 that whatever you put in your appeal, it will be rejected. By appealing with whatever you put, you are laying a trap for yourself. KISS

If you’re going to waste time and effort on an exercise in futility, try this:

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. I Park Services 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. I Park Services have no hope at IAS, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
« Reply #10 on: »
That's fine, just concerned if it did go to court I'd be seen as none co-operative and weaken my case

Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
« Reply #11 on: »
It will go to court... as in they will issue a claim. However it will never get to a hearing. hey will discontinue.

If it were to ever get as far as a hearing, why do you want to give them evidence to use against you? The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the defendant.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
« Reply #12 on: »
Hi,

I've now received a letter of claim from DCBLegal giving me 30 days to make payment or complete a reply form and financial statement.

What do I do now?

Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
« Reply #13 on: »
Although we see them all the time, since you’re going to make a formal response to the Letter of Claim it could help if you show it to us. But it’s all part of the normal process, for which you will get advice for every step here.

Re: I Park Services - Jubilee Road - Wadebridge
« Reply #14 on: »
Just respond to the LoC by email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself:

Quote
Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents/information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol.

As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; for how long it is claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said contract.
7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
9. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged contravention.
11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Yours faithfully,

[Your name]
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain