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
    • 360ollie
    • By 360ollie 12th Aug 17, 6:21 PM
    • 23Posts
    • 8Thanks
    360ollie
    Parking Tickets clarification, I have read the newbie form
    • #1
    • 12th Aug 17, 6:21 PM
    Parking Tickets clarification, I have read the newbie form 12th Aug 17 at 6:21 PM
    Good evening everyone,

    I have read the Newbie thread, but before taking any steps (step 1 (the appeal- BPA registered) and step 4 (regarding solicitors and formal demands- 'Notice of Impending legal action')

    Firstly I want to say thank you for taking the time to read this, just a heads up it may be a long read.

    So basically the issue I have is that I have Parking charge notices from 'Total Parking Solutions' (TPS).
    The question I'm putting forward is that 2/3 or the charges provide photo's however they are close ups of the registration/ number plates and the actual ticket on the windscreen.
    How could they provide evidence that it was on their property if all you can see from the photos is the vehicle? -
    So the question is could I provide a wider angled photo of the car parked at another car park which is unrelated to the company and provide that as evidence? I mean if there is no evidence of the surroundings which would suggest that it was on their property then what grounds do they have?

    The last Parking Notice is a bit different, basically its an educational organisation that employs TPS, to enter the ground you must go through a barrier which is operated by (presumed an employee of the company/ campus security). I needed to move my belongings out of campus and told the barrier operator that I wasn't going to be long (I had two witnesses in my car (helpers to move out)). On several occasions before they had given me a temporary notice to display in my car which entitles me to park for one hour. This time he didn't and he continued to let me through knowing I was moving out.

    Upon parking I saw 2 parking enforcers out doing their rounds, before parking I spoke to one of them, I asked "will you book me if I park here, I just need to load my car up" in which his reply was "No, but you should of been given a temporary parking notice though" I replied I hadn't and he went on to say some defamatory language towards the barrier operator/ college.

    He said he wouldn't book me if I wasn't long, I drove round to find a space which resulted in me parking behind the campus (still on their land) I went to pack and on return found that I had been issued a parking charge notice (presumed by the other warden on patrol).

    So my question to you for this parking fine is, because I had verbal consent from a warden himself and the barrier operator does that alter the contract terms for the parking clause? Surely if I was told I could park there and provide to witness statements then that would make this charge voidable?

    I have recently recieved 'Notice of Impending legal action' from 'I.E Legal Solicitors'
    Saying that I can still dispute (presumed to be limited to the 15th august 2017- which is the time they have given me to pay £110, from a £60 parking fine).

    Should I use step 1 to appeal to the solicitor firm (use the appeal provided in the newbie thread, or actually give my own account of what happened) or continue straight to step 4? And provide a larger photo as evidence to show that the surroundings were not of campus but indeed another car park or housing estate etc.. I want to stop it before It reaches the stage where I have to draft up a defence.

    Many thanks for your help and sorry for the long read! :beer:
    Last edited by 360ollie; 12-08-2017 at 6:29 PM.
Page 2
    • 360ollie
    • By 360ollie 13th Aug 17, 7:19 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    360ollie
    Thankyou, I will get on to writing my dispute up and will get back to you either later this evening or early tomorrow morning!
    As I have had to of the legal action letters how would I handle the other one (where you can only see the number plates and parking notice- nothing else which states that I am on private property?)

    Thanks again
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Aug 17, 7:52 PM
    • 50,061 Posts
    • 63,458 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Is the other one about a different PCN, different PPC? Start a new thread if so.
    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.

    • 360ollie
    • By 360ollie 13th Aug 17, 8:31 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    360ollie
    here is my draft for the notice regarding a verbal contract:

    Dear Sirs,
    Re Parking Notice:…
    I am responding to you and your client’s allegations holding the Keeper of the vehicle or any named driver liable for this Parking Charge Notice dated “…” on “…”.Your claim is misconceived and will fail on two separate grounds. The first being that: Two Verbal contracts had been created which was witnessed by myself and two Third Parties accompanying me and that Loading and Unloading is not considered Parking.
    On entry to the premises I was with two witnesses who were there to help me move my belongings. I had spoken to an employee working on behalf of TPS operating the access barrier regarding loading/ unloading personal belongings. He stated that “it was okay to enter but I would be limited to one hour for loading purposes”, in which I agreed to his verbal terms, I therefore continued to enter the premises WITHOUT being handed a Temporary Parking Notice. The first Verbal Contract had been created and witnessed by Third Parties.
    Upon entering a bay, I had seen two Traffic Wardens who were in the process of ticketing other vehicles. I had pulled up next to one of the two Wardens and questioned whether he would ticket me for not having a Temporary Parking Notice, in which he replied, “NO I will not ticket you, however you should have been given a Temporary Parking Notice by the barrier operator”. He continued to then make a defamatory remark against the barrier operator. At this point the second verbal contract had been created, witnessed by the Third Parties in the back of the vehicle.
    The Vehicle was parked round the back of the campus due to no availability of places to park in the main car park (which is still on the land owned by your client).
    Myself and the two witnesses went on to load my belongings. 15 minutes had passed and upon return I had been issued a Parking Charge Notice, despite being only 15 minutes within the 1-hour time limit and being verbally told on two occasions, that I would not be ticketed for loading purposes.
    In any event, it would be considered that not one, but two verbal contracts agreed upon from operators of Total Parking Solutions, witnessed by third parties would be sufficient evidence to void your claim against the keeper of the vehicle or any named driver. Furthermore, looking at the case of ‘JOPSON v HOME GUARD SERVICES’, Appeal case number B9GF0A9E on 29/9/2016, the Judge held that “loading/unloading is not parking”. As the vehicle was used for loading purposes, I strike out your claim as this judgement provides you no reasonable prospect of success.
    Any further threats of legal action regarding Parking charge notices from the firm you represent (I E Legal Solicitors) or your client (Total Parking Solutions) will be considered harassment/ Trespass in which I will sue.

    Regards
    Last edited by 360ollie; 13-08-2017 at 9:07 PM.
    • 360ollie
    • By 360ollie 13th Aug 17, 8:52 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    360ollie
    @coupon, similarly I have received two more Parking charge notices from the same company on later occasions, however the photos do not provide evidence that I was on private property- the photos only show the number plate and parking notice, - I have also received another legal action letter for one of the two latest PCN's.

    is there a defence I can draw upon for not providing adequate photographic evidence for parking on the property of should I incorporate these latest two in the previous charge regarding verbal agreement? the latest two happened about 15/20 days after my first PCN.

    firstly could my first dispute which states that further contact with me will be seen as a tortious act of trespass/ harassment stop them from proceeding with other legal action?
    or should I state that I entered into a verbal agreement with the barrier operator stating that upon entry he failed to provide me with a temporary parking notice on every occasion?

    Thanks!
    Last edited by 360ollie; 13-08-2017 at 9:09 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Aug 17, 9:19 PM
    • 50,061 Posts
    • 63,458 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    could I state that I entered into a verbal agreement with the barrier operator stating that upon entry he failed to provide me with a temporary parking notice on every occasion?
    Yes, if each occasion was an agreed brief stop for unloading or loading (not parking) and add that the PPC's own employee also had a conversation and made a promise that you would not be ticketed and acknowledged that the fault lay with the University security.

    Your defence - should you need a court defence - can include 'promissory estoppel' (search this forum for such a defence). There might be a relevant example already linked in post #2 of he NEWBIES thread, already written, that you can crib from, about someone relying on prior permission.

    However for now, work on that letter and see what others say, it need a bit of work, and should include wording about promissory estoppel (so search the forum for those words used by someone before you - change the search to 'show POSTS' never 'threads').

    And this isn't well worded; a plural should be followed by 'were' not 'was':
    The first being that: Two Verbal contracts had been created which was witnessed by myself and two Third Parties accompanying me and that Loading and Unloading is not considered Parking.
    I would also refer to the other 2 PCN numbers as well - in the heading - so the solicitor is aware there are 3 PCNS in play. You should state that any claim should be for all three charges in one claim, unless they are cancelled outright (as they should be). Otherwise, to pursue and attempt to recover three separate claims for essentially the same issue, would be a waste of the court's time and an abuse of court process, as well as harassment of, and extra costs caused, to a litigant in person.
    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.

    • 360ollie
    • By 360ollie 13th Aug 17, 9:50 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    360ollie
    excellent, thank you @Coupon, I will make the amendments tomorrow and will post the new template around 10am tomorrow!
    thanks for your help!
    • 360ollie
    • By 360ollie 14th Aug 17, 12:42 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    360ollie
    @Coupon here if the final draft, I have amended and added Promissory Estoppel as well as case law (judgement more relevant),
    my structure may be a little off,

    Dear Sirs,
    Re Parking Charge Notice’s: ...., ... and ....
    1.
    I am firstly responding to you and your client’s allegations holding the Keeper of the vehicle or any named driver liable for Parking Charge Notice’s dated ‘10/05/2017’ observed at the time of ’12:45’. Your claim is misconceived and will fail on two separate grounds. The first being that: a Verbal Contract had been created between me and the two Total Parking Solution (TPS) operatives, witnessed by two Third Parties accompanying me. The second being loading and unloading a vehicle is not considered Parking.
    On entry to the premises I was with two witnesses who were there to help me move my belongings. I had spoken to an employee working on behalf of TPS operating the access barrier regarding loading/ unloading personal belongings. He stated that “its okay to enter but I would be limited to one hour for loading purposes”, in which I agreed to his verbal terms, I therefore continued to enter the premises WITHOUT being handed a Temporary Parking Notice. The first Verbal Contract had been created and witnessed by Third Parties.
    Upon entering a bay, I had seen two Traffic Wardens who were in the process of ticketing other vehicles. I had pulled up next to one of the two Wardens and questioned whether he would ticket me for not having a Temporary Parking Notice, in which he replied, “NO I will not ticket you, however you should have been given a Temporary Parking Notice by the barrier operator”. He continued to then make a defamatory remark against the barrier operator. At this point the second verbal contract had been created, witnessed by the Third Parties in the back of the vehicle.
    The Vehicle was parked round the back of the campus due to no availability of places to park in the main car park (which is still on the land owned by your client).
    Myself and the two witnesses went on to load my belongings. 15 minutes had passed and upon return I had been issued a Parking Charge Notice, despite being only 15 minutes within the 1-hour time limit and being verbally told on two occasions, that I would not be ticketed for loading purposes.
    In any event, it would be considered that not one, but two verbal contracts agreed upon from operators of Total Parking Solutions, witnessed by third parties would be sufficient evidence to void your claim against the keeper of the vehicle or any named driver. Furthermore, looking at the case of ‘JOPSON v HOME GUARD SERVICES’, Appeal case number B9GF0A9E on 29/9/2016, the Judge held that “loading/unloading is not parking”. As the vehicle was used for loading purposes, I strike out your claim as this judgement provides you no reasonable prospect of success.

    2.
    My response to Parking Charge Notice: ... (12/05/2017 observed at the time of 12:15) and .... (31/05/2017 observed at the time of 15:05)
    Both the Keeper of the Vehicle and Named Driver (s) deny all liability to both Parking Charge Notices and that your claim is misconceived and will fail on the grounds that: A verbal agreement was made with the barrier operator, operating the barrier on behalf Total Parking Solutions. Stating that the driver would not be issued a PCN for loading purposes, this was witnessed by two Third Parties. As well as reminding you that loading/ unloading is not considered parking, stated by the judge in the case of ‘JOPSON v HOME GUARD SERVICES’, Appeal case number B9GF0A9E on 29/9/2016, where “loading/unloading is not parking”.
    Furthermore I will add, that the driver(s) depended on an implied promise stated by the barrier operator operating on behalf of TPS, in the case of‘Hughes v Mertropolitan railway (1877)’ Lord Cairns states “-if the parties to a contract- enter upon a course of negotiation which has the effect of leading one of the parties to suppose that the strict rights arising under the contract will not be enforced, or will be kept in suspense, or held in abeyance, the person who otherwise might have enforced those rights will not be allowed to enforce them where it would be inequitable having regard to the dealings between those parties.”
    The statements made by the Barrier Operator working on Total Parking Solutions premises were clear and unambiguous; they were relied upon by the driver(s) (Promisee).
    3.
    In addition to the above disputes I argue that any claim should be for all three charges in one claim, unless they are cancelled outright (as they should be). Otherwise, to pursue and attempt to recover three separate claims for essentially the same issue, would be a waste of the court's time and an abuse of court process, as well as harassment of, and extra costs caused, to a litigant in person.
    Regards


    1) is for the first PCN regarding verbal agreements with wardens and barrier operator
    2) is also the same on two other occasions, however it only includes the barrier operator working on the premises of TPS

    Many Thanks!
    Last edited by 360ollie; 14-08-2017 at 12:53 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Aug 17, 3:55 PM
    • 50,061 Posts
    • 63,458 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Change:

    Traffic Wardens
    to

    your employees



    and change:

    (which is still on the land owned by your client).
    to

    (which is still on the land where your client purports to have authority to operate).



    and change:

    As the vehicle was used for loading purposes, I strike out your claim as this judgement provides you no reasonable prospect of success.
    to

    Given the fact that the vehicle was used for loading purposes and was authorised to do so without a permit, should your clients proceed with a vexatious and misconceived claim, I will ask the Court of its own initiative, to exercise its inherent powers to summarily dispose of issues which do not need full investigation and trial, pursuant to CPR Rule 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1, namely to strike out the claim under CPR Rule 3.4 or, in the alternative, to summarily adjudge it pursuant to CPR Rule 24.



    and change

    statements made by the Barrier Operator working on Total Parking Solutions premises were clear and unambiguous; they were relied upon by the driver(s) (Promisee).
    ...to remove talk of it being TPS' premises. We are willing to bet that they do NOT own the land.

    Now you know that TPS are not the landowners (they never are) you may be able to amalgamate the points so you don't need #1 and #2, because essentially your defence is the same to all.

    You could end it more strongly (this only has legs if they obtained your data as keeper from the DVLA, not if you gave them your name/address in some very early appeal):

    Kindly ensure that your client is informed that I was at ALL times, authorised to park for an hour to unload. Take note that it is my intention to counter-sue, if these unwarranted charges are not cancelled forthwith. Should your client proceed with this claim, which patently has no basis in law and displays a negligent want of any cause of action against me, I will file a counter-claim for not less than £500 (per PCN incident) in compensation for distress caused by their unwarranted demands arising from misuse of my data, obtained from the DVLA without reasonable cause.

    Further, I would like to draw your attention to a judgment at the Leeds County Court, 3SP00071 - Blamires v LGO. This was a claim for damages including a matter of a breach of the DPA, for which an award of £2,500 was granted as compensation for distress. As is now relatively well known, the DPA’s original drafting appeared to preclude compensation for distress alone, but the Court of Appeal, in Vidal Hall & ors v Google [2015] EWCA Civ 311, it was held that this was contrary to the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and that, accordingly, there was a right under the DPA to claim compensation for “pure” distress.

    The award in Blamires was of “Vidal Hall” compensation, with the judge saying there was ''no doubt in my mind that the data breaches have caused distress to the claimant in their own rights as well as as a result of the consequences that flowed.'' The judge awarded a further £2,500 aggravated damages because of the manner in which the Defendant conducted its case, including the fact that, notwithstanding being told by the Claimant that its conduct/data was wrong, it took nearly two years for the Defendant to admit the mistake.

    As you will be aware, the general costs rule in Small Claims is that there is no costs order. However, in support of my own counter-claim, I must remind you that under CPR Rule 27.14(2)(g):

    ''costs can be awarded where a party behaves unreasonably''.

    I refer your client to paragraph 16 of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct:
    ''a party who has not complied with its pre-action obligations can be ordered to pay costs (even if the party has succeeded in its claim/defence) and there is also a power to remit/increase interest.''

    It is my intention to claim punitive costs, pursuant to CPR Rule 27.14(2)(g) and I will not restrict those costs to £19 per hour (the usual LiP rate). I intend to seek recompense for the hours I have wasted on this at a rate of £60 ph (being approximately 50% of costs of a grade D fee earner) which I consider to be eminently reasonable, given the circumstances described in dealing with three series of unwarranted threats of court, causing significant distress.

    Your client has hereby been informed that their claim is misconceived, bound to fail and that they are wrong to continue to process my data.

    I expect to hear from you within 14 days to confirm that all charges are withdrawn. All letters exchanged will be used in evidence in court.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 14-08-2017 at 4:23 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.

    • 360ollie
    • By 360ollie 14th Aug 17, 4:59 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    360ollie
    Amendments made and information added, we had not given any details to them regarding information about names and addresses, it must have been all obtained through the DVLA so I have added that section to the dispute!
    so the last thing I need to do now is email this to I.E Legal Solicitors and wait for there response?
    I have only been issued 2 threats for legal action, however they have sent me 3 PCN final demands, should I keep it at three because I have no doubt they will send me the 3rd/final one soon

    Thanks for your help @Coupon, you've been brilliant!!

    final draft with amendments:
    Dear Sirs,
    Re Parking Charge Notice’s:....
    1.
    I am firstly responding to you and your client’s allegations holding the Keeper of the vehicle or any named driver liable for the Parking Charge Notice’s. Your claim is misconceived and will fail on two separate grounds. The first being that: a Verbal Contract had been created between me and the two Total Parking Solution (TPS) operatives, witnessed by two Third Parties accompanying me. The second being loading and unloading a vehicle is not considered Parking.
    On entry to the premises I was with two witnesses who were there to help me move my belongings. I had spoken to an employee working on behalf of TPS operating the access barrier regarding loading/ unloading personal belongings. He stated that “it’s okay to enter but I would be limited to one hour for loading purposes”, in which I agreed to his verbal terms, I therefore continued to enter the premises WITHOUT being handed a Temporary Parking Notice. The first Verbal Contract had been created and witnessed by Third Parties.
    Upon entering a bay, I had seen two of your employees who were in the process of ticketing other vehicles. I had pulled up next to one of the two Wardens and questioned whether he would ticket me for not having a Temporary Parking Notice, in which he replied, “NO I will not ticket you, however you should have been given a Temporary Parking Notice by the barrier operator”. He continued to then make a defamatory remark against the barrier operator. At this point the second verbal contract had been created, witnessed by the Third Parties in the back of the vehicle.
    The Vehicle was parked round the back of the campus due to no availability of places to park in the main car park (which is still on the land where your Client purports to have authority to operate).
    Myself and the two witnesses went on to load my belongings. 15 minutes had passed and upon return I had been issued a Parking Charge Notice, despite being only 15 minutes within the 1-hour time limit and being verbally told on two occasions, that I would not be ticketed for loading purposes.
    In any event, it would be considered that not one, but two verbal contracts agreed upon from operators of Total Parking Solutions, witnessed by third parties would be sufficient evidence to void your claim against the keeper of the vehicle or any named driver. Furthermore, looking at the case of ‘JOPSON v HOME GUARD SERVICES’, Appeal case number B9GF0A9E on 29/9/2016, the Judge held that “loading/unloading is not parking”. Given the fact that the vehicle was used for loading purposes and was authorised to do so without a permit, should you clients proceed with a vexatious and misconceived claim, I will ask the Court of its own initiative, to exercise its inherent powers to summarily dispose of issues which do not need full investigation and trial, pursuant to CPR Rule 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1, namely to strike out the claim under CPR Rule 3.4 or, in the alternative, to summarily adjudge it pursuant to CPR Rule 24
    Furthermore I will add, that the driver(s) depended on an implied promise stated by the barrier operator operating on behalf of TPS, in the case of‘Hughes v Mertropolitan railway (1877)’ Lord Cairns states “-if the parties to a contract- enter upon a course of negotiation which has the effect of leading one of the parties to suppose that the strict rights arising under the contract will not be enforced, or will be kept in suspense, or held in abeyance, the person who otherwise might have enforced those rights will not be allowed to enforce them where it would be inequitable having regard to the dealings between those parties.”
    2.
    In addition to the above disputes I argue that any claim should be for all three charges in one claim, unless they are cancelled outright (as they should be). Otherwise, to pursue and attempt to recover three separate claims for essentially the same issue, would be a waste of the court's time and an abuse of court process, as well as harassment of, and extra costs caused, to a litigant in person.
    Kindly ensure that your client is informed that I was at ALL times, authorised to park for an hour to unload. Take note that it is my intention to counter-sue, if these unwarranted charges are not cancelled forthwith. Should your client proceed with this claim, which patently has no basis in law and displays a negligent want of any cause of action against me, I will file a counter-claim for not less than £500 (per PCN incident) in compensation for distress caused by their unwarranted demands arising from misuse of my data, obtained from the DVLA without reasonable cause.
    Further, I would like to draw your attention to a judgment at the Leeds County Court, 3SP00071 - Blamires v LGO. This was a claim for damages including a matter of a breach of the DPA, for which an award of £2,500 was granted as compensation for distress. As is now relatively well known, the DPA’s original drafting appeared to preclude compensation for distress alone, but the Court of Appeal, in Vidal Hall & ors v Google [2015] EWCA Civ 311, it was held that this was contrary to the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and that, accordingly, there was a right under the DPA to claim compensation for “pure” distress.
    The award in Blamires was of “Vidal Hall” compensation, with the judge saying there was ''no doubt in my mind that the data breaches have caused distress to the claimant in their own rights as well as as a result of the consequences that flowed.'' The judge awarded a further £2,500 aggravated damages because of the manner in which the Defendant conducted its case, including the fact that, notwithstanding being told by the Claimant that its conduct/data was wrong, it took nearly two years for the Defendant to admit the mistake.

    As you will be aware, the general costs rule in Small Claims is that there is no costs order. However, in support of my own counter-claim, I must remind you that under CPR Rule 27.14(2)(g): ''costs can be awarded where a party behaves unreasonably''. I refer your client to paragraph 16 of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct: ''a party who has not complied with its pre-action obligations can be ordered to pay costs (even if the party has succeeded in its claim/defence) and there is also a power to remit/increase interest.'' It is my intention to claim punitive costs, pursuant to CPR Rule 27.14(2)(g) and I will not restrict those costs to £19 per hour (the usual LiP rate). I intend to seek recompense for the hours I have wasted on this at a rate of £60 ph (being approximately 50% of costs of a grade D fee earner) which I consider to be eminently reasonable, given the circumstances described in dealing with three series of unwarranted threats of court, causing significant distress.
    Your client has hereby been informed that their claim is misconceived, bound to fail and that they are wrong to continue to process my data.
    I expect to hear from you within 14 days to confirm that all charges are withdrawn. All letters exchanged will be used in evidence in court.
    Regards
    Last edited by 360ollie; 14-08-2017 at 7:57 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Aug 17, 12:55 AM
    • 50,061 Posts
    • 63,458 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I have only been issued 2 threats for legal action, however they have sent me 3 PCN final demands, should I keep it at three because I have no doubt they will send me the 3rd/final one soon
    Yes, include all three.

    I saw a typo here:

    should you clients proceed with a vexatious and misconceived claim, I will ask the Court of its own initiative,
    And this bit - below - is a bit buried, it is important and should be the start of a new paragraph, and you need a line gap between paragraphs to break up your wall of text a bit, throughout:

    It is my intention to claim punitive costs,

    And as we are a community of pedantic gits here, please remove the greengrocer's apostrophe here because it makes me say 'ouch'!
    Parking Charge Notice’s
    My adult kids got me this book as a stocking filler last Xmas, how we laughed...

    https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/!!!!ing_Apostrophes.html?id=qyxQDQAAQBAJ&source=kp _cover&redir_esc=y

    ''the perfect gift for any pedant''

    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.

    • 360ollie
    • By 360ollie 15th Aug 17, 7:57 AM
    • 23 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    360ollie
    Excellent! I have sent an email to them, now just need to wait for their reply! Will keep you updated on how it goes!

    Thank you for your help!
    • 360ollie
    • By 360ollie 31st Aug 17, 9:54 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    360ollie
    Update.

    Hi Coupon,
    So the solicitors have sent me another letter through which was the same as the previous 2 (which I have not heard from since) should I reply with the same email as previously sent? Or should this be the next stage for me to take action against them?
    Thank you!
    Last edited by 360ollie; 31-08-2017 at 9:56 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 31st Aug 17, 11:45 PM
    • 50,061 Posts
    • 63,458 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes, send the same email and give them 14 days to reply about ALL 3 PCNs, and remind them that if a claim is commenced, in the interests of justice and to remove an unnecessary burden on the courts, it must be one single claim for all similar charges, since they are essentially about the same facts/private land/car and Defendant.

    Word it in the same assertive way as before, finishing by saying that any claim would be utterly without merit, misconceived and vexatious, and attach a copy of your costs so far* and tell them you will claim for punitive costs on top, should they commence proceedings, wholly unreasonably in this case.


    *like here, only not using the word 'discontinue' because that relates to a live claim ended:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73059674#post73059674
    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.

    • 360ollie
    • By 360ollie 16th Sep 17, 9:04 AM
    • 23 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    360ollie
    Good morning Coupon,
    An update.
    I have sent in total 3 E-mails over the time period (all within the dates stated that I had to respond by) as well as 2 different contact E-mail addresses (debt collecting- the email address stated at the bottom of every letter) and (enquiries- asking them to forward onto the relevant department - this was to be sure that someone from their firm would at least receive my Email).

    I have now received a 'pre court notice'. (Similarly to another thread updated recently regarding The parking firm, their solicitors and a N180)...

    When responding to the letters it is literally like replying to a computer as they do not seem to bother reading the emails and continue to send out more letters.
    I know that an Email is a viable way to respond to a dispute as it is still a written form of communication, so for evidence purposes I am saving the emails to print off if needed at a later date, as well as keeping all received letters.

    Anyway, because I have obviously been disputing with the solicitors and getting no where. Should I directly Email TPS (parking firm) my dispute in the hope that they will cancel the fine or should I continue with the next stage of disputing a 'Pre court Notice'...

    If needed I can upload the 'pre court notice' letter at a later date to show you - if the other thread hasn't already taken theirs down.

    But it's along the lines of "We note that you have ignored our previous correspondence concerning the unpaid parking charge for the vehicle..." (which I haven't, I have replied on all accounts) and "our client may then issue a county court claim against you"... Further going on to say, what I would have to submit to a court if their suggested debt was not paid etc... Presuming to be all scare tactics.

    They have given me until the 18th to reply which I will do so, to show that I have complied with their time scales while disputing through the emails (will print off all emails as evidence if it continues to escalate further).

    All received letters are in the car owners name, however as the named driver. If push comes to shove would I be able to stand in the shoes of the car owners name, as I experienced all 3 PCN agreements?

    The letters are a little frustrating now, and as I'm heading back to uni next week. I may not be able to read any further letters from them :/

    Any way thanks for being patient with me! Hope to hear back soon!
    Last edited by 360ollie; 16-09-2017 at 9:21 AM.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 16th Sep 17, 10:16 AM
    • 32,794 Posts
    • 16,822 Thanks
    Quentin
    Please give word for word what they say about court

    From your precis it does look like just another threatening debt collectors letter which you can ignore

    You do need to ensure your mail is redirected to you though so that you don't miss any proper court correspondence should they take legal action against you
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Sep 17, 2:37 PM
    • 50,061 Posts
    • 63,458 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    All received letters are in the car owners name, however as the named driver. If push comes to shove would I be able to stand in the shoes of the car owners name, as I experienced all 3 PCN agreements?
    No. If it goes to a claim, the defendant is the keeper, not you. At a hearing you can be their Lay Representative and speak for them but the Defendant remains the person who must turn up as well, with you.

    Ask the keeper to send you all letters and not to panic if a court claim arrives (honestly, these are defendable. No CCJ).

    Sounds like this correspondence is taking place with a debt collector section of the Solicitors, so please show us the entire letter as a link (if you can't post working links here yet, post a broken link with the http removed or changed to hxxp).

    And why not send a letter this time in the post, attaching a copy of all the previous emails you sent.

    I hope you've been sending these emails in the keeper's name throughout, not saying who the driver was, and replying in the RIGHT NAME? Not your name, you are unrelated to the claim.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 16-09-2017 at 2:40 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.

    • 360ollie
    • By 360ollie 16th Sep 17, 8:05 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    360ollie
    Hi coupon,
    I have left all names out of the replies, only finishing the letters off with just "regards"
    But also highlighting in all replies the stated PCN reference. - they have the owners information through the DVLA
    All letters they have sent are addressed to the owner of the car.

    I will print off all emails and send it to them in a letter for as well as adding in the email about incurring costs they have put me through.

    In all emails I have stated that no liability is held by either owner/ keeper or named driver. Like I said all emails have ended with just "regards".

    Will the written letter need to be signed by just the owner of the vehicle? Or both of us?... I'm not sure if signing it would accept liability (which we do not accept)

    Thanks Coupon
    Last edited by 360ollie; 16-09-2017 at 9:49 PM.
    • 360ollie
    • By 360ollie 16th Sep 17, 9:46 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    360ollie
    I will upload the picture shortly
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 16th Sep 17, 9:56 PM
    • 3,635 Posts
    • 1,852 Thanks
    KeithP
    Will the written letter need to be signed by just the owner of the vehicle? Or both of us?... I'm not sure if signing it would accept liability (which we do not accept)
    Originally posted by 360ollie
    "Both of us?" Are you considering identifying the driver?

    Surely not?

    All they know at the moment is who the registered keeper is. Keep it that way.
    Last edited by KeithP; 16-09-2017 at 9:59 PM.
    .
    • 360ollie
    • By 360ollie 16th Sep 17, 10:26 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    360ollie
    Okay, so leave it with just "regards", no signature included?
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

560Posts Today

4,974Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Shana tova umetuka - a sweet Jewish New Year to all celebrating. I won't be online the rest of t'week, as I take the time to be with family

  • Dear Steve. Please note doing a poll to ask people's opinion does not in itself imply an opinion! https://t.co/UGvWlMURxy

  • Luciana is on the advisory board of @mmhpi (we have MPs from most parties) https://t.co/n99NAxGAAQ

  • Follow Martin