Parking LBCCC - merits of making a 'without prejudice offer'

ordinaryJoe

Like many of us on this forum, I have received 2 PCNs, which I ignored as per earlier advice, and have now also received an LBCCC, which I understand should NOT be ignored.

In my particular case, a member of the family was the driver, and the charge was £60 rising to £100 after 2 weeks, for overstaying for 22 minutes, based on the ANPR data. So in some ways this is not as clear cut as some other posters, as the grace period is 20 minutes; but, having said that, the time printed on the ticket will always be later than the time ANPR shows for arrival, which is another flaw in the system operated by PE.

Unfortunately we no longer have the ticket, so we don't know how much time elapsed between entering the car park and buying the ticket, although there must be a good chance that it was more than 2 minutes.

My thoughts initially were that I should offer to pay for the 22 minutes at the current charge rate, or, more realistically, for an hour. In any event I can't see how PE can realistically justify charging any more than, say, £10. But I have no idea how to go about preparing a covering letter to go with the cheque that might ensure no comebacks from PE.

On another thread, zzzLazyDaisy indicated that she would be preparing some guidance on making a 'without prejudice offer', which is what I think may be my best solution from here. Any help on this would be very much appreciated.

Finally, I have also suggested that people affected by PE's aggressive policies might vote for the government e-petition on Parking Eye's unethical business practices which can be found on epetition.direct.gov.uk forward slash petitions forward slash 45444.

Thanks
Joe

Umkomaas

ordinaryJoe wrote: »

Like many of us on this forum, I have received 2 PCNs, which I ignored as per earlier advice, and have now also received an LBCCC, which I understand should NOT be ignored.

In my particular case, a member of the family was the driver, and the charge was £60 rising to £100 after 2 weeks, for overstaying for 22 minutes, based on the ANPR data. So in some ways this is not as clear cut as some other posters, as the grace period is 20 minutes; but, having said that, the time printed on the ticket will always be later than the time ANPR shows for arrival, which is another flaw in the system operated by PE.

Unfortunately we no longer have the ticket, so we don't know how much time elapsed between entering the car park and buying the ticket, although there must be a good chance that it was more than 2 minutes.

My thoughts initially were that I should offer to pay for the 22 minutes at the current charge rate, or, more realistically, for an hour. In any event I can't see how PE can realistically justify charging any more than, say, £10. But I have no idea how to go about preparing a covering letter to go with the cheque that might ensure no comebacks from PE.

On another thread, zzzLazyDaisy indicated that she would be preparing some guidance on making a 'without prejudice offer', which is what I think may be my best solution from here. Any help on this would be very much appreciated.

Finally, I have also suggested that people affected by PE's aggressive policies might vote for the government e-petition on Parking Eye's unethical business practices which can be found on epetition.direct.gov.uk forward slash petitions forward slash 45444.

Thanks
Joe

Have you told PE who the driver was? If not, as the RK, you are entitled to do that, and, importantly, this will reset the clock, PE has to purse the driver and the appeals procedure will be available to the driver and, with our help, via POPLA, it's very likely the charge will be killed off.

zzzLazyDaisy

Umkomaas wrote: »

Have you told PE who the driver was? If not, as the RK, you are entitled to do that, and, importantly, this will reset the clock, PE has to purse the driver and the appeals procedure will be available to the driver and, with our help, via POPLA, it's very likely the charge will be killed off.

This ^^^^^^

If the RK receives a LBCCC / LBA and was not the driver ALWAYS ALWAYS write back and identify the driver. This discharges the RK's obligations under PoFA 2012 and they cannot pursue legal action against the RK.

The PPC must then send a fresh PCN to the driver, who then has the opportunity to go through the appeals procedure and kill the charge stone dead. It is an easy and painless procedure, and if you follow the advice of the regular posters on the threads you have a pretty much 100% chance of success at POPLA.

The beauty of it is that although POPLA decisions are binding on the PPC, they are NOT binding on the motorist, so in the very unlikely event that you lose at POPLA, you are in no worse a position than you are now.

Daisy

Edit - for the sake of anyone attracted to this thread by the title, I will come back shortly and explain how a 'without prejudice offer' made under the Court Procedure Rules works, and how it can be used with care as part of the 'arsenal' against the PPCs, where a LBCCC / LBA has been received.

ordinaryJoe

Even though the driver lives at the same address as the RK?

zzzLazyDaisy

ordinaryJoe wrote: »

Even though the driver lives at the same address as the RK?

Yes. Absolutely.

The point is that the charge is based on an alleged breach of contract. The alleged contract was allegedly entered into by THE DRIVER who allegedly saw the allegedly compliant signs and chose to ignore them.

Pre PoFA 2012 the PPC could only pursue the actual person who actually entered into the contract (allegedly), which was the driver. Since the PPC could never know who the driver was unless the RK identified the driver, they were up a gum tree.

Enter PoFA 2012, which allows the PPC to pursue the RK - but ONLY if they don't know the identity of the driver. Once the RK has identified the driver then the PPC MUST pursue the driver as s/he is the person who (allegedly) entered into the contract in the first place.

The fact that the driver lives at the same address as the RK is irrelevant.

However, in order to rely on Sched 4, para 5 (discharging your obligations as RK by identifying the driver) you MUST notify the PPC of the drivers identity and address BEFORE legal proceedings are started.

SO DO IT NOW!

Daisy

Coupon-mad

Yes - because the driver is a different person and would not have opened your post. But if this were me I would give a different address for service for that driver, just to make it separate and (perhaps) more likely for the PPC to issue a Notice to Driver with less quibble. Give a family address, work address where the driver can get post easily?

But you don't have to give a different address (just saying that I WOULD to give the PPC less wriggle room!). In the VCS v Ibbotson case the PPC went for the husband, took him to court where he was able to show the driver was his wife at the same address (this was pre-POFA when only the driver was liable). VCS had to start again (again, this was before POPLA was around so they didn't have to bother with offering an appeal) and this time went for Mrs Ibbotson instead...and VCS lost, as we know from the case linked under 'VCS' in the PPC letter chains sticky thread of letters.

The good thing now is that POPLA exists and a PPC now has to rewind the charge back even further, to Notice to Driver stage which re-sets the POPLA clock.

ordinaryJoe

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

If the RK receives a LBCCC / LBA and was not the driver ALWAYS ALWAYS write back and identify the driver. This discharges the RK's obligations under PoFA 2012 and they cannot pursue legal action against the RK.

I know you're the legal person and I'm not, but looking at poFA 2012, doesn't para 5 (2) overrule that?

"Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper."

That seems to me to mean that once PE have begun proceedings against the keeper (ie.e sent an LBCCC) then it doesn't matter whether they know the identity of the driver or not. Please can you explain?

Thanks
Joe

P.S. This is exactly the sort of doubt and lack of confidence and/or understanding of legal documents that makes people like me give in and pay up rather than spend hours trying to understand and do the right things.

Coupon-mad

Nope because a LBCCC isn't a stage where proceedings 'have begun' (as I am sure zzzLazyDaisy will confirm). LBCCC is specifically BEFORE claim and that's why the advice is to simply send a short response giving the driver's name and an address for service, urgently!

ordinaryJoe

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Nope because a LBCCC isn't a stage where proceedings 'have begun' (as I am sure zzzLazyDaisy will confirm). LBCCC is specifically BEFORE claim and that's why the advice is to simply send a short response giving the driver's name and an address for service, urgently!

Thanks for the clarification - I thought I'd read somewhere in one of the threads that the LBCCC was the document that initiates the proceedings, but presumably I got that wrong.

However, the complication is that the driver starts at university in 2 weeks, and the last thing a student starting to live away from home for the first time in their life needs, surely, is to have to deal with a load of legal (or illegal) rubbish from PE.

Coupon-mad

My daughter is off to Uni in 2 weeks as well.

So in your case I would actually use the same postal address (yours) and use a particular spelling of the driver's name (or maybe a wrong initial?) in your reply, so that when the PPC respond you can tell their letters a mile off each time!

Then YOU do the challenge then the POPLA appeal, in the name of the 'driver'. It's all done by post anyway.

zzzLazyDaisy

ordinaryJoe wrote: »

I know you're the legal person and I'm not, but looking at poFA 2012, doesn't para 5 (2) overrule that?

"Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper."

That seems to me to mean that once PE have begun proceedings against the keeper (ie.e sent an LBCCC) then it doesn't matter whether they know the identity of the driver or not. Please can you explain?

Thanks
Joe


P.S. This is exactly the sort of doubt and lack of confidence and/or understanding of legal documents that makes people like me give in and pay up rather than spend hours trying to understand and do the right things.

The clue is in the title of the Practice Direction:

Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct

The LBCCC is the start of the pre-action conduct procedure which must be carried out before the Claimant starts proceedings.

However, if you miss a deadline set by the Claimant during the pre-action process, they can then start proceedings without further notice. So you are teetering on the brink here...

Here is a letter for you to send:

---

ParkingEye Ltd
Legal Department
[Insert Address]

[Insert Date]

[Insert the reference quoted on their LBCCC]

Dear Sir

Vehicle Registration Number [insert reg number]


I am the registered keeper of the above mentioned vehicle.

I am writing to acknowledge the letter before county court claim dated [insert date] and to inform you that I was not the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged 'parking event'. Therefore you must pursue the driver, whose details are:

[INSERT NAME]

[INSERT ADDRESS]

Please note: this discharges my obligation as Registered Keeper under PoFA 2012 and any court proceedings will be defended on that basis.

Yours faithfully

PRINT NAME

---

Send the letter by webmail, and also by first class post from a post office, and get a (free) certificate of posting.

Then start reading up about how to appeal to the PPC and get a POPLA code, and then how to make a successful appeal to POPLA

Daisy