Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Noree
    • By Noree 26th Apr 17, 9:30 PM
    • 36Posts
    • 14Thanks
    Noree
    NGP - Company Vehicle
    • #1
    • 26th Apr 17, 9:30 PM
    NGP - Company Vehicle 26th Apr 17 at 9:30 PM
    Hi all

    I've been reading this forum for a while now and have had two 'charges' in the past. They've previously been ignored and then have effectively disappeared. Information that I've read on here in the past has really helped, so many thanks!

    I've read the newbie section, but would like to see if anyone could assist on this occasion...

    I now have a company/lease vehicle and received an email from a colleague in the office regarding a charge from New Generation Parking.

    The notice is from the start of March, though I was only notified yesterday from work as they (apparently) knew nothing of it until yesterday. I would believe they had their details forwarded from the lease company from when the notice was originally sent out?! What is better is it's their final notice. So at some point, they must've perhaps sent the first invoice to the lease company, then now to my work.

    There wasn't any notice stuck on my windscreen from the date of NGP's notice.

    If it was my own vehicle, I couldn't care less and they could continue to bother me for as long as they wanted, but the newbie advice is to respond and fight back.

    Due to my circumstances of late notice (no pun intended) on this matter, any advice would be greatly appreciated.

    Shall I respond and give them my details as the keeper of the vehicle? This may then ensure the rest of the dialogue doesn't interfere with the lease company or my work?!

    Also, the pictures are really bad on the notice.

    Could I argue that there's insufficient proof that it's my vehicle. They haven't even verified the vehicle from its chassis number.

    These companies really are a jobsworth and bully many people into money. If I made a living off doing this, then I'd feel my earnings are tainted.

    Perhaps I should just charge them £200 admin fee for every email I send them?!

    Thanks in advance.
    Last edited by Noree; 27-04-2017 at 8:45 PM.
Page 2
    • Noree
    • By Noree 16th Jul 17, 10:10 AM
    • 36 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    Noree
    As per the blog (will again link on this post), it was noted NGP had a slap on the wrist regarding incorrect signage.

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/new-generation-parking-management-found.html

    Now if that's the case on this occasion, does it throw out their attempts 'charge' the keeper anything?

    Is it something best kept to the court date or would it be worth letting the likes of Gladstones know signage is incorrect?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 16th Jul 17, 10:46 AM
    • 15,490 Posts
    • 24,201 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    You can't use anything in court by way of 'ambush'. You are required to attempt to resolve this before reaching court. It's unlikely that you will succeed, but you must show that you have attempted to do so.

    Gladstones routinely ignore anything provided to them by way of you trying to be reasonable, but their unreasonableness will not help their case in court.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 16th Jul 17, 12:15 PM
    • 10,201 Posts
    • 9,345 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    Surely until Gladstones are instructed by the PPC, they are correct in stating they can not combine 3 separate parking events?

    Yes, I know that the PPC/Gladstones can act unprofessionally in not starting each action until the previous one is settled. Certainly it would benefit Gladstones financially.

    But, I think they are in the clear, legally, at present, unfortunately.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Jul 17, 6:28 PM
    • 51,504 Posts
    • 65,106 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Maybe but it is disingenuous and arguably unfair and an abuse of the court process, for the claimant parking firm not to show due diligence and check their data records and if/when approaching Gladstones to start a claim, combine all 'charges' at that stage.

    If more than one claim arrives, the OP needs to try to get a Judge to look at it and combine them.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 16th Jul 17, 9:44 PM
    • 10,201 Posts
    • 9,345 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    Maybe but it is disingenuous and arguably unfair and an abuse of the court process, for the claimant parking firm not to show due diligence and check their data records and if/when approaching Gladstones to start a claim, combine all 'charges' at that stage.

    If more than one claim arrives, the OP needs to try to get a Judge to look at it and combine them.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I agree entirely with you on this. The PPC should be in the frame here, but your post #17 laid the fault at Gladstones' door. At this point in time, I can't agree that they are at fault, not having been instructed - yet. The minute they are instructed, if there is more than one ticket for the same "offence", then I would agree with your post #17 100%.
    • Noree
    • By Noree 23rd Jul 17, 9:58 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    Noree
    Perhaps not always advised, but didn’t respond to the LBC. Not the end of the day I suppose.
    So I’ve been sent the a Claim Form and will be defending in full. I have completed the AOS on MCOL. Do I now have to click on “Start Defence” or wait until my defence is completed? Had a look about and couldn’t be sure whether to click on and proceed or not?

    I will be drafting a defence in the next couple of days and will post on here for your kind selves to critique/advise.

    Here are some POFA 2012 and other possible reasons in defence:
    1. Paragraph 9 of POFA 2012 - “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”. No ‘period of time’ parked mentioned, only the time photos were taken.

    2. Only received a PCN, then a LBC letter sent, followed by court claim papers. No “Final Notice”.

    3. Not the driver, but would be pending that POFA has been followed on their side.

    4. After coming across the following, http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/new-generation-parking-management-found.html, visited the site of the alleged offence and noticed signs with BPA and Safe Contractor logo on some signs. They were found at both the entrance and exit of the site. Pictures & videos taken with proof of date for authenticity. Other signs had stickers with IPC and not all signs clearly visible. As per http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/New_Generation_Parking_Management.html, they changed from BPA to IPC on 30/12/2015, so some of the signage is well out of date!

    5. I have let Gladstones know about the incorrect signage but not heard anything back. Offered my transparency and any further help on matters.

    6. Did not appeal as thought to be a scam and another ‘roboclaim’. Was half-minded about taking this seriously. COULD SOMEONE DEFINE THE TERM “ROBOCLAIM” PLEASE SO I CAN ADD TO MY DEFENCE? Thanks!

    7. Two other PCN’s against myself, both sent after realisation of first PCN. This case is regarding the first PCN. Only one PCN has final notice and no other LBC’s sent.

    8. Communicated with Gladstones to combine all three cases with NGP. Also copied in NGP on email for transparent dialogue.

    9. Likely to waste time/money/effort of courts as likely to have to repeat these processes three times (this court claim is only for one case).

    10. As for the ‘balance of likelihood’ being the hirer of this lease vehicle, more than one person has access to drive. This is more likely on weekends, which when this alleged offence took place. The identity of the driver on this date and time cannot be confirmed. First notice sent over 2 months from alleged offence and due to the time taken to be made aware of offence, the hirer cannot remember who would’ve been driving. More than one driver authorised to drive lease vehicle.

    11. PCN was addressed “Notice to Owner”. Not to Keeper, or Driver. The “Notice to Owner” would be for the attention of the lease company. I am the “hirer” of the vehicle. See paragraph 2 of POFA 2012.
    Feedback on these points would be very much appreciated. I do understand that some may be clutching at straws, but thought it may be worth including in case there’s something to work with.
    Would it be worth contacting the lease company to see if they can tell me when the PCN was first sent to them?

    I also have a link of the original PCN they sent myself, plus the signage. http://imgur.com/a/eqBg9

    Checking the old PCN sent to my work address, the final notice was under 6 weeks from the alleged offence. Is this too soon? As mentioned, I haven’t received a final notice for this same PCN. Odd?!

    It may be a fact that on the other 2 occasions, they didn’t get the information on the (same) vehicle from DVLA.

    From the Parking Cowboys website:

    “We are aware of anecdotal evidence that some parking companies have not met this requirement; they have got keeper data via other means. For example, reusing keeper data from other tickets issued to that vehicle, or assuming the keeper’s details from the vehicle livery (e.g. a company van). If the parking company used another means to get the keepers details, other than making an application to the Secretary of State (via its agents at the DVLA), then arguably there is no keeper liability.”

    May be worth asking the lease company to find out if the registered keeper details have been obtained and how many times?
    Last edited by Noree; 23-07-2017 at 10:01 PM.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 23rd Jul 17, 10:03 PM
    • 16,504 Posts
    • 20,667 Thanks
    Redx
    you dont start adding any defence at all for the moment

    you have extended the period for drafting from 14 days to 28 days

    when the defence is complete , you save it as a pdf and EMAIL it to the CCBC with the mcol reference etc in the title

    post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread explains the procedures
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Noree
    • By Noree 23rd Jul 17, 10:37 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    Noree
    Noticed on another thread that also this particular sign states a Parking Tarif Notice may be issued. Not had any of those in the post, only PCN's. Can this invalidate the whole thing, along with the incorrect signage at the entrance and exit?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 23rd Jul 17, 10:44 PM
    • 16,504 Posts
    • 20,667 Thanks
    Redx
    its merely an invoice , so NOTHING "invalidates" it

    they simply call these things pcn for convenience , because its similar wording to a council pcn , and NTK just means a Notice To Keeper, there are no defining statutes that outline how it must be laid out or what it may say (or what it is called)

    they could say an INVOICE will be issued , and leave it at that

    I have been coming here almost 5 years , and NEVER seen a private parking ticket that was "invalid or invalidated"
    Last edited by Redx; 23-07-2017 at 10:46 PM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Noree
    • By Noree 24th Jul 17, 1:30 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    Noree
    Yea it's what I'd have thought, but suggested anyhow.

    As for the start of my defence, any help on the 11 points + extra info and pictures would be great.

    Many thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Jul 17, 8:56 PM
    • 51,504 Posts
    • 65,106 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    1. Paragraph 9 of POFA 2012 - “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”. No ‘period of time’ parked mentioned, only the time photos were taken.
    Hmmm...that's something and nothing, IMHO...what about the fact you are a lessee/hirer and the Notice completely failed to comply with para 13/14, for Notices to Hirer documents.

    2. Only received a PCN, then a LBC letter sent, followed by court claim papers. No “Final Notice”.
    Not important. The lack of Notice to HIRER and accompanying documents set out in 13/14 of Sch 4, IS important.

    Google roboclaims, or just split the word, isn't it obvious what it means?

    As for the photos, use the first one (BPA logo is wrong) not the second one, in evidence (your evidence and WS follows, later on, before a hearing).

    For now we need you to show us your draft defence, all your arguments and points, and include mention of the NGPM criminal case and point out to the court that you have evidence that NGPM have done the same at this location.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Noree
    • By Noree 25th Jul 17, 6:27 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    Noree
    Many thanks for all the help. Defence draft to be put together ASAP!

    I've now (finally) got a LBC for the other two mentioned before on this thread.

    Can they seriously expect me to do this twice? I expect I'll be getting a second court claim in the coming weeks. Ridiculous and a waste of time.

    Would it be worth responding via email to Galdstones referring to POFA 2012 para 13&14?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 25th Jul 17, 9:11 PM
    • 51,504 Posts
    • 65,106 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I've now (finally) got a LBC for the other two mentioned before on this thread.

    Can they seriously expect me to do this twice? I expect I'll be getting a second court claim in the coming weeks.
    No, not really, that's (arguably, and you MUST argue) an abuse of process and against the overriding objective, and ultimately a waste of court time as well as yours.

    Include mention of the other LBC in your defence as well to point out how G's have disregarded their first duty to the court and shown no due diligence in ensuring all their client's charges are included in one claim seeing as they are essentially about the same matter and following a similar timeline.

    Invite them to amend the claim to include all of the charges, or else hold the LBC one in abeyance, pending this claim outcome. If they fail to do so then you will immediately ask the courts to strike out the second claim as an abuse of the court process and/or require that the charges are amalgamated into one case to be heard at one hearing, and you will NOT be agreeing for any such case to be 'heard on the papers' so finish by telling them to spare you their template robo claim rubbish.

    Once defended, please complain to your MP about this diabolical harassment by G's, who also run the IPC and IAS 'appeals' (or at least they had the same Directors until they recently artificially separated them to make it appear there is no connection nor conflict of interests).
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 25-07-2017 at 10:16 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Noree
    • By Noree 25th Jul 17, 9:47 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    Noree
    DRAFT DEFENCE.

    Please critique/advise.

    ************************************************** *

    I am xxxxxxxxxx, Defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the hirer of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

    The Defendant denies any debt in its entirety and asserts that the Claimant has no cause for action. The Defendants reasons for such are as follows –

    1. The particulars of claim submitted by the Claimant have completely failed to comply with the strict and clear legislation of POFA 2012, which the Claimant mentions in their Final Notice. Refer to Schedule 4, paragraphs 13 and 14. The Defendant has not received any Notice to Hirer documentation.

    2. Paragraph 13 clearly states that the Claimant must have all relevant documentation from the vehicle hire-firm in place before attempting to recover any parking charges. No indication the claimant has any of the following:
    (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
    (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and
    (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

    This includes all specifics in Paragraph 13



    3. Paragraph 14 shows that the Claimant are in breach of POFA 2012 again. Before sending/forwarding any documents to the Defendant, they must adhere to the following conditions:
    (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;
    (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; and
    (c)the vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.

    A copy of the documents from paragraph 13(2) have not been sent to the Defendant. I have evidence of a notice to keeper/owner referring to the same alleged parking offence addressed differently three times. These haven’t been forwarded in the manner of which is stated in POFA 2012.



    4. The signage at the site is thoroughly inadequate to form a contract with the motorist. There is photographic and video evidence to clarify. Signage states the Claimant is part of BPA’s Code of Practice. This is not the case. Having looked on the Claimant’s website, New Generation Parking are part of IPC. It is believed the Claimant changed from BPA to IPC on 30/12/2015 and were ordered to change their signs. The signage is furthermore inadequate as it also displays the Safe Contractor logo. Following diligent and thorough research, the Defendant can find no information whatsoever to suggest that the Claimant is any way linked to the aforementioned Safe Contractor approved. It is believed this expired in 2010. I will use these pictures and videos as proof in evidence. In BPA’s Code of Practice it states entrance signs “must always mention that terms and conditions apply and say where drivers can find more details”. This information is completely invalid due to the incorrect signage.

    5. The Claimant have recently fallen foul of their signage and as mentioned in point 2, they have fallen foul of this again. Please see the following link: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/new-generation-parking-management-found.html


    6. The Defendant has two more cases of the same nature at the same site and has also requested that these are to be condensed. As of yet, the Defendant has received two separate Letter Before Claims and it is believed that the Claimant are going to attempt a second ‘cycle’ of these processes with another Court Claim. The Defendant requested that all three cases are combined. This was rejected by the Defendant’s solicitors. The Claimant were included in the email loop but never offered a response. This is seen to be a waste of time, effort and stress to the Defendant and also a waste of the courts’ time. The Claimant’s solicitors have disregarded their first duty to the court and shown no due diligence in ensuring all their client's charges are included in one claim seeing as they are essentially about the same matter and following a similar timeline.

    7. Paragraph 9 of POFA 2012 states “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”. No ‘period of time’ parked mentioned, only the time photos were taken. This is a clear breach (again) of POFA 2012.


    8. As for the ‘balance of likelihood’ being the hirer of this hire vehicle, more than one person has access to drive it. This is more likely on weekends, which when this alleged offence(s) took place. The identity of the driver on this date and time cannot be confirmed. First notice sent over 2 months from alleged offence and due to the time taken to be made aware of offence, the hirer cannot remember who would’ve been driving. More than one driver authorised to drive lease vehicle.



    9. The Claimants solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals service have identified many poorly produced claims. As a result, it is believed that the solicitors conduct in many of these cases has come under scrutiny. It has also been insinuated that their business model seemed to scare people into paying up before the case went to court and claiming additional money that they knew they would not have any right to in a court. Please see the following link: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/judge-fed-up-with-gladstones-behaviour.html

    10. The Claimant may rely on the POFA in order to chase the Defendant for the alleged debt, however, in order to do this the ‘Notice to Keeper’ document must comply with the strict rules of the POFA Schedule 4. These rules state that the maximum amount that can be sought from the keeper is the same as that detailed in the initial ‘Notice to Driver’. The additional fees added have breached the terms set in POFA and as a result the Claimant cannot seek any charge from the Defendant. The Defendant also has reasonable belief that any added legal fees are completely fanciful.

    11. I did not appeal as thought to be a scam and another ‘roboclaim’. Was half-minded about taking this seriously. There are various threads referring to both the Claimant and their solicitors that questioned the full credibility of this alleged offense.


    Statement of truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

    Name:


    Date:


    Signature:
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Jul 17, 1:09 AM
    • 51,504 Posts
    • 65,106 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Looks to cover the bases.

    I would move #7 up to be with the other points about the POFA as it reads in a slightly disjointed way, where it is.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Noree
    • By Noree 27th Jul 17, 8:50 AM
    • 36 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    Noree
    Thanks for the feedback! Having read it back, I may tidy it up a tad and re-post. It started to boggle my brain (and eyes) a bit after a while of research and 'moulding' my defence!!

    Will also sort point #7.
    • Noree
    • By Noree 31st Jul 17, 9:31 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    Noree
    Hi all. I have put a little extra 'meat on the bones' after doing some more research etc. Please feedback and critique! Hopefully it makes a very good read?! One feels more confident with the following

    ************************************************** *****

    I am xxxxxxxxxx, Defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the hirer of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

    The Defendant denies any debt in its entirety and asserts that the Claimant has no cause for action.
    The Defendants reasons for such are as follows –

    1. The particulars of claim submitted by the Claimant have completely failed to comply with the strict and clear legislation of Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 (Schedule 4), which the Claimant mentions in their “Final Notice” document. The Defendant has not received any Notice to Hirer documentation. Please refer to section POFA Schedule 4, paragraphs 13 & 14 for full compliance required by the Claimant. This has not been met and clearly shows a breach of this legislation.

    2. Paragraph 13 clearly states that the Claimant must have all relevant documentation from the vehicle hire-firm in place before attempting to recover any parking charges. There is no indication the Claimant is in possession of the following:
    (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
    (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and
    (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

    This includes all specifics in Paragraph 13



    3. Schedule 4, paragraph 14 shows that the Claimant are in breach of POFA 2012 again. Before sending/forwarding any documents to the Defendant, they must adhere to the following conditions:
    (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;
    (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; and
    (c)the vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.

    A copy of the documents from paragraph 13(2) have not been sent to the Defendant. I have evidence of a “Notice to Owner” referring to the same alleged parking offence addressed differently three times. The original notice to owner/keeper haven’t been forwarded in the manner of which is stated under POFA 2012. After notifying the Claimant that I, the Defendant hire the vehicle, it appears they have ‘latched’ onto myself and have subsequently fallen short on following the strict protocol of POFA 2012. Also, part C, Section 4 of the IPC Code of Practice states:
    “4.1 Where a creditor receives notification from a vehicle hire company that at the
    specified time the relevant vehicle was under a hire agreement then a Notice to Hirer
    must be sent to the hirer”
    The Defendant puts the Claimant to proof that any “Notice to Hirer” documents have ever been sent.

    4. The signage at the site is thoroughly inadequate to form a contract with the motorist. There is photographic and video evidence to clarify. Signage states the Claimant is part of BPA’s Code of Practice. This is not the case. Having looked on the Claimant’s website, New Generation Parking are part of IPC. It is believed the Claimant changed from BPA to IPC on 30/12/2015 and were ordered to change their signs. The signage is furthermore inadequate as it also displays the Safe Contractor logo. Following diligent and thorough research, the Defendant can find no information whatsoever to suggest that the Claimant is any way linked, approved or affiliated to the aforementioned Safe Contractor. It is believed this expired in 2010. I will use these pictures and videos as proof in evidence. In BPA’s Code of Practice it states entrance signs “must always mention that terms and conditions apply and say where drivers can find more details”. This information is completely invalid due to the incorrect signage.

    5. With the Claimant being part of IPC’s Code of Practice (not BPA), they must have written authority that they can operate on the private land of the alleged offence. Quoting Part A, Section 1 of the IPC Code of Practice:

    “If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges.”

    As the defendant, I wish to put the Claimant to proof on this matter.

    6. The Claimant have recently fallen foul of their signage and as mentioned in point 4. Please see the following link: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/new-generation-parking-management-found.html
    In this particular case they have (again) fallen foul of this incorrect practice.


    7. The Defendant has two more cases of the same nature at the same site, from the same Claimant and has also requested that these are to be condensed. As of yet, the Defendant has received two separate Letter Before Claims and it is believed that the Claimant are going to attempt a second ‘cycle’ of these processes with another Court Claim. The Defendant requested that all three cases are combined. This was rejected by the Defendant’s solicitors. The Claimant were included in the email loop but never offered a response. This is seen to be a waste of time, effort and stress to the Defendant and also a waste of the courts’ time. The Claimant’s solicitors have disregarded their first duty to the court and shown no due diligence in ensuring all their client's charges are included in one claim seeing as they are essentially about the same matter and following a similar timeline.

    8. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 from POFA 2012 states “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”. No ‘period of time’ parked mentioned, only the time photos were taken. This is a clear breach (again) of POFA 2012. As Part B, Section 15 of the IPC Code of Practice states:

    “15. Grace Periods
    15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so
    they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.
    15.2 Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site after a
    pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.
    15.3 The reference to 10 minutes in 15.2 above shall not apply where the period of pre-paid
    or permitted parking does not exceed 1 hour providing that the signage on the site
    makes it clear to the motorist, in a prominent font, that no grace period applies on that
    land.”

    And in Part C, 2.1:

    “(d) Identify the period of parking to which the charge relates and the
    circumstances by which the charge became payable.”

    I put the Claimant to proof that any grace period has been given to the driver at the time of the alleged offense. I have photographic evidence supporting that signage doesn’t mention “no grace period applies on that land”. For that reason, there should be a grace period given.


    9. As for the ‘balance of likelihood’ being the hirer of this hire vehicle, more than one person has access to drive it. This is more likely on weekends, which when this alleged offence(s) took place. The identity of the driver on this date and time cannot be confirmed. First notice sent to the hirer was received over 2 months from alleged offence and due to the time taken to be made aware of offence, the hirer cannot remember who would’ve been driving. More than one driver authorised to drive lease vehicle.

    10. The Defendant has no liability as they are the keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant has failed to comply with the strict provisions of POFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges. The driver has not been evidenced on any occasion. There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is the keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Please see POFA 2012 for principles of ‘keeper liability’, as set out in Schedule 4.


    11. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals service have identified many poorly produced claims. As a result, it is believed that the solicitors conduct in many of these cases has come under scrutiny. It has also been insinuated that their business model seemed to scare people into paying up before the case went to court and claiming additional money that they knew they would not have any right to in a court. Please see the following link: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/judge-fed-up-with-gladstones-behaviour.html

    12. The Claimant may rely on the POFA in order to chase the Defendant for the alleged debt, however, in order to do this the ‘Notice to Keeper’ (or similar (such as Notice to Owner)) document must comply with the strict rules of the POFA Schedule 4. These rules state that the maximum amount that can be sought from the keeper is the same as that detailed in the initial ‘Notice to Driver’. The additional fees added have breached the terms set in POFA and as a result the Claimant cannot seek any charge from the Defendant. The Defendant also has reasonable belief that any added legal fees are completely fanciful.


    13. I did not appeal as thought to be a scam, commonly known as a ‘robo-claim’. Was half-minded about taking this seriously. There are various (easily accessible) online threads referring to both the Claimant and their solicitors that questioned the full credibility of this alleged offense.


    14. I believe that such ‘robo-claims’ are against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant. Especially with a second LBC issued to the Defendant after this Court Claim. I’d suggest that parking companies who breach legislation (POFA 2012), their Code of Practice and display invalid/incorrect signage, along with being largely unresponsive is not something the courts should be seen to support.



    15. The Defendant would like to ask the Claimant to prove they have obtained the Registered Keeper details from DVLA on all three occasions, for all three respective notices/invoices. It is strongly believed the Claimant must obtain the Registered Keeper details on every occasion for every PCN issued. As Part C of the IPC Code of Practice states:

    “1.7 Where you are provided with keeper details in relation to a parking charge, the details
    must only be used in relation to the enforcement of that charge. They must not be
    used in order to enforce any other parking charge(s).”

    And:

    “1.10 Failure to abide by any applicable laws relating to data handling may be considered an
    issue of non-compliance.”

    16. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.



    Statement of truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

    Name:


    Date:


    Signature:
    • Noree
    • By Noree 4th Aug 17, 1:05 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    Noree
    Hello all. I am wandering if anyone could offer feedback regarding my defence draft? It is the last post before this one.

    I'd just like to make sure I'm wording it correctly and not being unreasonable in any manner.

    Thoughts much appreciated.
    • Softwaremad
    • By Softwaremad 4th Aug 17, 4:47 PM
    • 34 Posts
    • 109 Thanks
    Softwaremad
    Regarding the Signage and the criminal case in magistrates - might be worthwhile you filing a complaint with trading standards in your area regarding this. NGPM have been spending a good few quid in South Wales replacing all their out of date signs - make sure your evidence is time and date stamped.

    They have replaced all signs locally now removing the BPA and safe contractor logo - it has absolutely not teeth other than showing the company are not as decent as they try to show.

    Have had a lot of cases discontinued when denoting the IPC/Gladstones conflict of interest as a reason for not appealing
    • Noree
    • By Noree 13th Aug 17, 12:19 AM
    • 36 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    Noree
    Yes I've had a look and bookmarked some information regarding PIC & G's.

    May look to submit my defence this week. Deadline is close.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

156Posts Today

1,667Users online

Martin's Twitter