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
    • foofcat
    • By foofcat 18th Aug 17, 4:14 PM
    • 68Posts
    • 28Thanks
    foofcat
    Court proceedings for auto repair visit
    • #1
    • 18th Aug 17, 4:14 PM
    Court proceedings for auto repair visit 18th Aug 17 at 4:14 PM
    Update: The lovely forum regulars helped me craft my defence statement, which can be found in a link on page four (post #69) if you'd like to see it.

    Hello, I've read through the sticky and feel increasingly downhearted because I think I've done everything wrong so far. I've never posted on a forum before so please go easy on me - I'm happy to be corrected and edit this post as needed.

    Essentially the help I need is I'm not sure which basis would be the most effective in mounting my defence.

    Background:
    Earlier this year, someone knocked my wing mirror clean off while I was in Sainsburys. I sucked it up and took it to a garage but that ended up being difficult as I had to keep bringing and taking it back several times only for a solution that didn't last.

    One one such visit, the garage asked me to leave the car with them and told me they'd call me to pick it up when it was ready. I dropped it off around noon, hung out with my mum all day, and picked it up in the evening. I now know that PCM photographed it parked directly outside the garage's entrance - the PPC in question has one time of incident on their "pay my pcn" website, but the time on the original NTK is about 30 minutes later. I picked it up around two hours later.

    Several weeks later I received an NTK advising that I'd contravened their terms (date they posted it was three days after the alleged contravention). When I confronted the garage they showed me a binder full of similar such noticed received for their own vehicles and other customers and told me that if I didn't ignore it they would only get more insistent. This was my first mistake - I should have immediately researched it then but circumstances at the time left me feeling too depressed and tired to deal with it. Not an excuse I know!

    However when I received a letter from their debt collection agents, I caved and contacted them in writing advising that I wasn't the driver and that it was at the garage all day on the day in question. They told me due to PoFA 2012 (Schedule 4) it was too late for me to report the driver and that I was liable as the registered keeper. I didn't know what to do with that so I left it.

    I then received a letter from the solicitors stating that they intend to take it to court - again I ignored it (feeling very stupid as I type this). I have now received a County Court Business Centre claim form and I want to (finally) be proactive about this - I also don't have a choice now given what I've read on the sticky thread.

    Court Claim Form:

    I've filed an AOS online but didn't see this forum in time and ticked the "intend to contest the jurisdiction" box thinking I'd otherwise have to go to Northampton.

    I've now done some more research (including going to the site and taking pictures). It looks like the entire road is owned by Network Rail and therefore may not be enforceable by PCN, or at the very least I think PoFA 2012 might not apply in my case?

    I can provide all documentation and photographs if this helps but at the moment I'm overwhelmed and have some basic questions:

    1. Should I correct the jurisdiction issue on the AOS - if so, is it even possible now that I've submitted it?

    2. Should my defence be focused on the fact that I was unequivocally not even in possession of the car at the time of the contravention because it was with the mechanic (as is shown by their own photographs because it's parked right outside their entrance).

    3. OR should I instead focus on the fact that the entire road is owned by Network Rail and bylaw 14 applies (according to the Network Rail sign). I'm worried that it will undermine me in pointing out I wasn't driving.

    4. Is there any point in me writing to Gladstones directly to see if I can get them to drop it on the basis of bylaw 14? I genuinely wasn't driving at the time and this is all very stressful.

    5. If I'm correct in the above point 3, I'm considering counterclaiming a breach of DPA but I'm not clear on whether this is a separate process or if I can include it in the defence process. I don't like the idea of them holding my personal information based on a contravention that wasn't valid and that I wasn't even aware of.

    There is a lot of information available on these threads but I've got a case of information overload. If someone could at least nudge me in the right direction, I'd be extremely grateful. Thank you and sorry if this is too much information!
    Last edited by foofcat; 16-10-2017 at 12:14 PM. Reason: Renaming the title to be more descriptive
Page 4
    • foofcat
    • By foofcat 11th Sep 17, 11:36 PM
    • 68 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    foofcat
    It's linked in my post! Sorry for not making it more visible! Here it is just in case https://www.dropbox.com/s/fyga10jaztzqoog/MSE%20Defence%20Statement.pdf?dl=0
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 12th Sep 17, 11:02 AM
    • 823 Posts
    • 946 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    cant you post it here as text?
    Dropbox is blocked where I am
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 12th Sep 17, 11:09 AM
    • 6,333 Posts
    • 8,144 Thanks
    beamerguy
    cant you post it here as text?
    Dropbox is blocked where I am
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    Just looked at it, it's very long ... why are you blocked ?
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • foofcat
    • By foofcat 12th Sep 17, 12:38 PM
    • 68 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    foofcat
    Defence Statement
    Sure I can. I did Dropbox so that I wouldn't have to redo all the formatting on here. It is rather long (suggestions for making it more concise are welcome) but I didn't want to miss anything out and also added a fair amount of spacing to make it as readable as possible.

    Here's the text for anyone who can't access dropbox:

    IN THE COUNTY COURT
    CLAIM NO: XXXXXXX
    BETWEEN PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LIMITED (CLAIMANT)
    -and-
    XXXXXXXX (DEFENDANT)

    As the registered keeper of the relevant vehicle at the material time, the Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim, for each of the following reasons:

    1) The Defendant was not, and could not have been the driver during the time of the alleged contravention.

    a) At the material time, the Defendant was not in possession of the vehicle. The vehicle was with an auto repair garage on the day in question.

    b) The Court’s attention is drawn to the distinction between the ‘registered keeper’ (‘RK’) and ‘keeper’ as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘PoFA’), Sch4, para 2 which states:

    “Keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the “registered keeper.”

    c) PoFA 4.1 states: ‘The Creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the “keeper” of the vehicle.’

    d) The Defendant will prove by way of a valid receipt that the garage had possession of the vehicle at the time and was thus ‘the keeper’ pursuant to PoFA, para 2.

    e) This proof rebuts the presumption under PofA that the RK was ‘the keeper’ meaning the RK cannot be pursued even if the Claimant had complied with the Act – which is denied.

    f) The Claimant is put to proof that the Defendant was driving or the keeper (rather than registered keeper) at the time of the alleged contravention.

    2) Failure to comply with the conditions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, with regards to keeper liability and valid Notice to Keeper.

    a) Proceedings to recover the ‘unpaid parking charge’ were issued by the claimant on XXXX.

    b) In an email dated XXXX – three months before the Claimant had begun proceedings – the Defendant informed the Claimant’s Agent who the driver of the vehicle was at the time of the parking event. This removed any right the Claimant had to pursue the RK under the provisions of PoFA (Sch4, para 5.2).

    c) In their reply dated XXXX, the Claimant’s Agent gave false information to the Defendant stating it was ‘too late’ to name the driver and that the Defendant could still be pursued under PoFA. The Claimant themselves stated it was ‘too late’ in a letter sent to the defendant dated XXXX, four months before they filed proceedings.

    d) This selective citing of PoFA 2012 was a misrepresentation that can only be viewed as an attempt by the Claimant and their Agent to intimidate the Defendant into paying their baseless charge.

    e) The Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant has breached her right to data protection by passing the Defendant’s details on to Gladstones Solicitors after the Defendant had already discharged liability and named the driver.

    f) Such conduct by a professional parking company and serial litigant, with full knowledge of the relevant laws, is clearly vexatious and crosses the threshold for unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to CPR 27.14(g).

    g) The Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) dated XXXX did not specify the duration of time in which the parking event took place, a requirement of PoFA (Sch4, para 9). Further to this the timestamps on the evidence on the Claimant’s website read 16:36 and 16:37, yet the time of incident on the website is 17:11. The Defendant respectfully requests the Court ask the Claimant to clarify these discrepancies.


    3) Failure to comply with PoFA conditions regarding the location of the event and authority of the Claimant.

    a) PoFA stipulates that Sch4 only applies if the contravention took place on ‘relevant land’ pursuant to para 3.1.c of Sch4, wherein the following is not considered to be ‘relevant land’:
    Any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

    b) On the road in question, there is Network Rail signage which states “any parking is prohibited at all times in accordance with Railway Byelaw 14.’ As Byelaw 14 applies to the entire road, the Defendant has reason to believe that the location in question does not constitute ‘relevant land.’

    c) The Defendant has reasonable belief that Claimant is not the landowner – merely an agent claiming to act on behalf of the landowner. Civil proceedings in this case are moot, as it is for Network Rail (the landowner) to pursue the driver of the vehicle under Byelaw 14 within six months of the alleged contravention. The Claimant has no authority or right to issue charges on this land in their own name and they have no rights to bring this case.

    d) In the absence of strict proof from the Claimant, the Defendant submits that the Claimant was unauthorised to display their signs on this road, or to pursue either the registered keeper or whoever might have been driving at the time of the alleged contravention due to the conditions set out in PoFA, Sch4, para 3.1.c.

    e) The Claimant has reasonable belief that the Claimant initially breached the Defendant’s right to data protection by requesting details of the registered keeper of this vehicle from the DVLA in the first instance, as they had no authority to do so on the road in question.


    4) The Claimant did not have a valid contract with the driver at the time of the incident and cannot claim loss of any kind.

    a) The Claimant’s sign stipulates: ‘No parking or waiting in this roadway, paved or yellow lined areas either wholly or partially at any time.’ The Claimant’s own sign confirms that there was no contractual permission offered. Thus, there could not have been a contract – nor a breach of any such contract.

    b) In B4GF26K6 PCM (UK) v Mr B, B4GF27K3 PCM (UK) v Mr W, and B4GF26K2 PCM (UK) v Ms L, the judgment concluded in para 20 that ‘there was never any contractual relationship, whether one categorises it as a licence or simply some form of contractual permission, because that is precisely what PCM were not giving to people who parked on the roadway.’

    c) This case distinguishes itself from ParkingEye v Beavis because unlike that case, the Claimant made no offer (time-limited or otherwise) for drivers to park their vehicles in the location in question. The Claimant cannot claim loss of any kind.

    d) Further to this, the Claimant’s own photographs show that even with vehicles parked on both sides of the road, there was no obstruction to passing vehicles. The Claimant cannot claim loss on the basis of impediment to other vehicles.

    5) Inadequate Particulars of Claim.

    a) The Particulars of Claim fail to fulfil CPR 16.5 because they do not include a statement of the facts on which the Claimant relies, only referring to a parking charge with few specifics and little to no description. The Particulars fail to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.

    b) The Particulars of Claim do not specify whether they consider the Defendant to be the driver or simply the RK of the vehicle – notable through the generic usage of ‘and/or.’ As outlined above, the Defendant had already discharged liability and named the driver in accordance with PoFA before these proceedings were initiated. Had the Claimant instead pursued the correct party, the Particulars would have been able to specify whether the Claimant considers the Defendant to be the driver or the RK.

    c) There is no detail about why the Claimant is pursuing this course of action against the Defendant besides a generic allegation that the Defendant ‘breached the terms of parking.’ There is no detail about which terms were breached and how.

    d) The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge, including an additional £60 to the original alleged charge of £100 citing ‘damages and indemnity costs ‘if applicable,’ a legal fee of £50, and interest.

    e) In the absence of strict proof that such damages or indemnity costs were incurred, and in light of the above points that the Claimant was unauthorised to pursue this matter, the Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any such costs.

    f) It is believed that the Particulars of Claim are based on templates – to wit, use of terms such as ‘if applicable’ and ‘charge(s).’ It is the Defendant’s reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 in legal fees to pursue an alleged original debt of £100. The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

    6) For all the reasons outlined above the Court is respectfully invited to strike out this claim as being entirely without merit.

    The Defendant believes the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.


    [Signature]
    [Name]
    [Date]
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 12th Sep 17, 12:50 PM
    • 823 Posts
    • 946 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    I would move 5) to the top a sa preliminary matters section. Logically if their claim has crap foundations you talk abou thtose first, as it undermines everything

    "1) The Defendant was not, and could not have been the driver during the time of the alleged contravention.
    "
    I would say "The Defendant was neither the driver nor the keeper at the material time"
    That way you get it across youre dealing with both.
    • foofcat
    • By foofcat 12th Sep 17, 1:28 PM
    • 68 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    foofcat
    Ah, brilliant suggestions, nosferatu1001!

    Totally agree about moving section 5 to the beginning because ideally I'd like them to strike it out. I haven't seen any other Defence Statements that have a "preliminary matters" section, I'm guessing it doesn't need to be numbered and should be formatted like a preface?

    Also I'm not so confident about that section because it seems to me that Gladstones were careful to include certain required information in their (very brief) PoC. Does anyone have advice or experience about using CPR to get a strikeout? I've looked at the rules and Gladstones don't seem to have hugely violated them.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 12th Sep 17, 1:55 PM
    • 823 Posts
    • 946 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Number everything, if in doubt. Then it can be referred. to
    Ive seen a fair few on here which have "preliminary matters" at the top.

    Yes, of course they violated them

    There is no Cause of Action listed
    there is no certainty given - they go after the defendant who was the driver and or keeper, and usually have something about they complied with POFA or the defendant is the driver, etc.

    They dont include a copy of the written contract they are reliant upon.
    They dont include sufficient detail of the claim to enable someone to defend it. they never do. You also state how many characters of the allowed 1080 they have used, to point out that even if they blame MCOL box being small, they could have written more in!
    • foofcat
    • By foofcat 12th Sep 17, 11:38 PM
    • 68 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    foofcat
    Okay, I see. I'm going to spend a bit of time tonight digging out some other examples to help me figure out the formatting.

    And thank you (broken record) - that's made me feel a bit more confident about the basis of requesting a strike out based on the PoC. I'll spend a bit of time tomorrow redoing it to really stress that point.

    Thanks again so much for the help
    • foofcat
    • By foofcat 14th Sep 17, 4:44 PM
    • 68 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    foofcat
    Defence Statement filed
    Okay, so I realised that my deadline is on Sunday, and ended up submitting my statement based on the revision suggestions from nosferatu. I'm up against it currently with work things so instead of posting/formatting the text here, I'm going to paste the dropbox link here in case it's of use to anyone else (though it's still far too lengthy for my liking).

    Here is the link.

    Can't thank everyone enough for the help so far. Sadly I think you've not seen the last of me yet because from reading other posts this seems likely to go all the way to court and I'm sure I'll need guidance for my witness statement and preparing for court... if anyone's willing and able to advise!

    Thank you again
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 14th Sep 17, 6:08 PM
    • 1,165 Posts
    • 2,319 Thanks
    Lamilad
    Okay, so I realised that my deadline is on Sunday, and ended up submitting my statement
    If you're deadline for submission falls on a weekend or bank holiday you have until 4pm the next working day to submit, so you needn't have panicked.

    Doesn't matter that it's lengthy, better to have a thorough defence than the '2 liner' we heard about the other week [ needless to say, that person lost in court

    I'll be surprised if they don't discontinue this - they have no chance IMO. What's the situation with the garage owner - will he write a statement admitting he/one of his employees parked the vehicle?
    • foofcat
    • By foofcat 14th Sep 17, 6:40 PM
    • 68 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    foofcat
    If you're deadline for submission falls on a weekend or bank holiday you have until 4pm the next working day to submit, so you needn't have panicked.
    Oh dear... but in a way, I'm relieved because I was having anxiety dreams about missing the deadline (haha) and at least I can relax after work tonight for the first time in weeks (for now at least).

    Doesn't matter that it's lengthy, better to have a thorough defence than the '2 liner' we heard about the other week [ needless to say, that person lost in court
    2 lines!? That's made me wince...No, I'm such a wordy git, that would never be a problem for me anyway.

    I hope they do discontinue it. If they do, I'll start looking into the DP breach aspect properly. In terms of the garage owner, I can ask but I'm skeptical he'll be willing to provide anything that includes / admits to the name of their (ltd) company so it may be more damaging than helpful to submit anything from them... I'll have a think about it.

    Thanks again Lamilad. I'm boggled by how generous you've been with your time, and very grateful.

    By way of a proper "thank you" to this forum, would it be helpful for me to create and share a defence statement template that automatically takes care of formatting aspects? I could have a field at the top for people to enter their claim number, and some dummy text that people could easily replace..? One thing that took up some time was trying to get my numbering to do what I wanted it to do (alignment, formatting etc). so I wondered if it would take some of the faff out of that side of things. Just a thought .
    • foofcat
    • By foofcat 14th Sep 17, 6:47 PM
    • 68 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    foofcat
    One more thought: I was reading the IPC Codes of Practice and suspect the PPC may have made a serious enough breach of dp (effectively by operating on land they're not authorised to operate on and pursuing RKs) that they may be eligible for a sanction... is it worth pursuing?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th Sep 17, 7:25 PM
    • 15,432 Posts
    • 24,135 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Once all your ducks are in a row, yes, go for it. Unless it results in an outright suspension you will never know whether any, or some sanction points are issued.

    I'd copy everything in to David Dunford of the DVLA so that he knows what's going on. I'm keener than ever that he is made aware of every legitimate issue people are having where there is some breach of a Code of Practice or the Law.
    Last edited by MSE ForumTeam2; 16-10-2017 at 11:23 PM.
    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.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 14th Sep 17, 8:58 PM
    • 1,165 Posts
    • 2,319 Thanks
    Lamilad
    would it be helpful for me to create and share a defence statement template that automatically takes care of formatting aspects? I could have a field at the top for people to enter their claim number, and some dummy text that people could easily replace..? One thing that took up some time was trying to get my numbering to do what I wanted it to do (alignment, formatting etc). so I wondered if it would take some of the faff out of that side of things. Just a thought .
    Yeah, why not. Put something together and we'll have a look at it.

    Formatting and layout is discussed in the NEWBIES thread so whatever you produce needs to be in line with that - e.g 1.5 line spacing. Sub paras might be tricky to include in a 'template'

    !I was reading the IPC Codes of Practice and suspect the PPC may have made a serious enough breach of dp (effectively by operating on land they're not authorised to operate on and pursuing RKs)!
    If you have a strong case for DPA breach then you should definitely pursue it. It can be very lucrative for you and damaging for the PPC - not just financially but by way of sanctions - as mentioned by Umkomaas above. Doesn't cost much to start a claim (which is why the PPCs abuse the system).

    Let's get the current issue dealt with first, but if and when you start your own claim, this forum will assist, hopefully with the support of our legally qualified regulars
    • foofcat
    • By foofcat 14th Sep 17, 10:14 PM
    • 68 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    foofcat
    Once all your ducks are in a row, yes, go for it. Unless it results in an outright suspension you will never know whether any, or some sanction points are issued.

    I'd copy everything in to David Dunford of the DVLA so that he knows what's going on. I'm keener than ever that he is made aware of every legitimate issue people are having where there is some breach of a Code of Practice or the Law.
    Yep. I think I need to park it and any DP claim for well after this particular issue is resolved. I wouldn't have thought to cc David Dunford, so thanks for that - definitely will make sure I do.


    Yeah, why not. Put something together and we'll have a look at it.

    Formatting and layout is discussed in the NEWBIES thread so whatever you produce needs to be in line with that - e.g 1.5 line spacing. Sub paras might be tricky to include in a 'template'
    Okay great, I'll take a stab at something and post it here - unless you think it's better to start a new thread. Will make sure I cross reference with the Stickies thread as advised. I misremembered the spacing as double spacing rather than 1.5 when I submitted my defence - probably made it look even longer! I was thinking with the sub paras, I'll avoid indenting them to keep things simple and clean looking. If whoever uses the template wants to have any sub-sub paras they'd have to do a bit more 'manual' formatting.

    I'll see if I can whip something user friendly up. Worst case scenario is it's too clunky / unusable but it's worth a try I think.

    If you have a strong case for DPA breach then you should definitely pursue it. It can be very lucrative for you and damaging for the PPC - not just financially but by way of sanctions - as mentioned by Umkomaas above. Doesn't cost much to start a claim (which is why the PPCs abuse the system).

    Let's get the current issue dealt with first, but if and when you start your own claim, this forum will assist, hopefully with the support of our legally qualified regulars
    Yes, need to first establish whether I have a case, but even doing the defence statement has left me feeling a bit drained so will park all this until I've put this claim to bed.
    • foofcat
    • By foofcat 13th Oct 17, 7:48 PM
    • 68 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    foofcat
    An FOI update
    Hello everyone,

    Just a quick update. Gladstones has sent me their version of the DQ, predictably asking for a paper trial, but also saying they're not offering mediation (as if I'd agree anyway!). The court also sent me my DQ but no copy of the "no hearing" form that was in Gladstones' letter asking for a paper trial. So I think that means I need to take the blank "No Hearing" form that Gladstones sent me and fill in that to send along with my DQ. The top half that the court is meant to fill in is completely blank but I've emailed the court to ask if they want me to fill it in for them, or just do my part.

    In other news, I've received an intriguing reply from Network Rail. I don't have access to redacting software currently so I'm going to copy and paste, with apologies for the bad formatting:

    I have processed your request under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). I can confirm that we hold part of the information you requested. Perhaps the most straightforward way of addressing your request is to look at it question by question:

    1. Does Network Rail have a legal agreement or contract with Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd to enforce parking on [Name of Road]?

    2. If Network Rail does have a legal agreement or contract with this private parking company, please may I be supplied with a copy of the contract by email?

    There is no contract between Network Rail and Parking Control Management (PCM) in connection with [Name of Road]. I realise this appears at odds with the facts that a) it is our land and b) PCM enforce the parking regulations that pertain to it. To explain a little further, we have a contract in place with a company called Interserve for the management of the site, they have then subcontracted the management of the parking to PCM.

    We have considered whether in effect the contract between Interserve and PCM is signed by Interserve on our behalf and, in consequence, whether Interserve holds the agreement on our behalf. We have concluded, however, that the contracts Interserve signs in fulfilling its obligations to us are sufficiently separate to mean that, as per the Information Commissioner’s guidance, it holds the information in its own right.

    3. Who is the Train Operating Company for [NAME OF ROAD]?
    The franchisee is Abellio Greater Anglia.

    4. Who is the landowner?
    We are the landowner.

    5. Is the roadway subject to byelaws? If so, what impact does this have on any contract Network Rail has with the aforementioned private parking company?

    I can advise that our land, no matter who operates it, is subject to Railway Byelaws. The British Transport Police enforce these byelaws as required on any station infrastructure. As regards the second part of this question, as explained previously, we have no contract with PCM.

    I am sorry I have not been able to supply you with all of the information you were looking for but I hope the explanation and information I have provided are useful to you. If you have any enquiries about this response, please contact me in the first instance at FOI@networkrail.co.uk or on 01908 782405. Details of your appeal rights are below.

    Please remember to quote the reference number at the top of this letter in all future communications.
    • foofcat
    • By foofcat 13th Oct 17, 7:51 PM
    • 68 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    foofcat
    Also re: the template, it needs simplifying (and having some technical issues) but I'm hoping to post something here for others to use if it's approved by the regulars once i get some time off work

    And I nearly forgot... I received a letter from the DVLA last month that shows this PPC accessed RK details via DVLA two days after the parking event - their enquiry reason is listed as "Breach of terms and conditions of a private car park"

    The letter also says the request was made electronically, with no supporting evidence provided by PCM. I'll scan the letter at some point because it's long (and a bit defensive to my eyes)

    And last, last thing for now - I've requested Edmonton County Court.
    Last edited by foofcat; 13-10-2017 at 8:27 PM.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 14th Oct 17, 12:37 AM
    • 1,165 Posts
    • 2,319 Thanks
    Lamilad
    That is a significant piece of evidence from NR. Well played!

    It pretty much nails the point that there is no contract with the landowner.

    You can now start working on a 'drop hands offer' to Gladstone's - letting them know that you have this evidence without actually showing them it.

    It would be foolhardy to say the least for them to continue with this case... Then again GS are so mind-numbingly incompetent I wouldn't put anything past them.

    The letter also says the request was made electronically, with no supporting evidence provided by PCM. I'll scan the letter at some point because it's long (and a bit defensive to my eyes)
    No need, we've seen loads of these pathetic responses from the DVLA. It's well known that are in bed with the big PPCs and fully support the parking scam.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 14th Oct 17, 7:02 AM
    • 1,686 Posts
    • 3,086 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    That is a significant piece of evidence from NR. Well played!
    A redacted version will be of great use as there will be lots of others with tickets for this road.
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.

    Send them that costs schedule though, 24 hours before the hearing, and file it with the court. Take with you evidence that you have sent the costs schedule to them and when.
    LoC
    • foofcat
    • By foofcat 14th Oct 17, 12:44 PM
    • 68 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    foofcat
    I'd be happy to share the redacted version with everyone - it's the least I can do. (Might not be till the tail end of next week because I need access to Acrobat which is at work).

    And that's great to hear. Question: if I do write them a drop hands letter, does that mean it's harder for me to start a claim against them for DP breaches?


    letting them know that you have this evidence without actually showing them it.
    Re: not showing it to them - Is that because it's not air tight? Or is it because there's nothing to be gained by showing it?

    I'm definitely going to include it in the letter I write to the IPC (cc David Dunford as was recommended by someone in this thread).

    I'll have a trawl through the Newbies sticky later to see if I can find an example of a drop hands letter but for now, I'm guessing it's just basically telling them I have confirmation from the landowner that they don't have a contract with PCM and suggest that they drop the case. Planning to end it with the annoying phrase they used at me when requesting a paper trial: "We trust you agree."

    The court has said I need to return DQ and give GS a copy by 19 October which is coming up quite soon so I should probably get a rig on!

    Thanks Lamilad for your help
    Last edited by foofcat; 14-10-2017 at 12:50 PM.
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

189Posts Today

1,411Users online

Martin's Twitter