Posting on the Parking Board – your help please

Coupon-mad

You are in Scotland. Neither appeal nor pay.

Why post here? Wrong thread.

Read the NEWBIES thread about Scotland. DO NOT try to post on it.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163

No need for a new thread - there is nothing you need to do - just read about Scotland on this forum. You could also search the board for 'Scotland' as a keyword (not the whole of MSE! Just this parking board posts).

twhitehousescat

Angie1162 wrote: »

[Hi
Can you please help .i parked my car in East Kilbride and payed £3.50 but I put in my old car regristration by mistake I got a penalty notice for £50 I contacted them and I did appeal telling them this . Do I have to pay.

please read posting above yours , the newbiesc thread is here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822 please read it it explains a lot

casement1992

Hi i got a letter today from drp and i phoned them and backed down to them and setup a payment plan and i went on internet and relised they didnt have a very good review are these scammers ? i have now cancelled my card that they had the long number off the front of am i doing the right thing ?

P.S i am petrified that they will come to my house and send balifs etc i dont want that

PLEASE HELP ME PUT MY MIND AT REST! and tell me i did the right thing

Coupon-mad

Why post here? Did you not see the answers above?

You are in the wrong place and a link shows you where to go.

Fancy agreeing to PAY Debt Recovery Plus...madness. Even phoning them is ridiculous.

Wookie

I am pleased to report that Asda in Coryton, Cardiff cancelled my parking charge today when I approached them and explained that I had an emergency on the day in question and had to leave my vehicle for a few hours, which had meant I went 1.5 hours over the max time allowed.
I showed them my receipts for shopping I had paid for and they cancelled the fine immediately. I took the name of the assistant in case there are any issues in the future.
I had expected to have a battle on my hands but was pleasantly surprised. :T

Kevinfox88

Hi
Just needing a little help. I parked in homebase car park and unbeknownst to me they were using ANPR system to monitor the car park. The time limit was an hour and I genuinely was in homebase shopping and spending money. On the schedule of information I stayed over an extra 22 minutes. First time I found out was when I received the later which I glanced at and shredded.

On the 14th April I received a letter saying I owed £326.72. Original parking fee was £100. I've been onto MCOL and acknowledged and clicked the dispute button. I've read countless threads and still a tad confused. I've copied and pasted bits that I found through the forums and came up with this - whether it applies to my circumstances I don't know. I can upload the paperwork if that will help. Thanks

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number ****
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited v ******
Defence Statement

I am ******* the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle *****. I currently reside at ***.

The Claim Form issued on the **** by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “The Legal Team”.

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each and every one of the following reasons:

1/ This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

2/ (a) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
(b) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.

3/ I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.
Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that “However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”

4/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(b) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(c) It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

5/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(b) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
(c) there is/was no compliant landowner contract.

6/ No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

7/ No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:


8/ The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

9/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

10/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge.

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

11/ Paragraph 7 of the Particulars of Claim refers to the British Parking Authority. There is no such body. I believe this is possibly a deliberate misrepresentation of the authority of the British Parking Association which is a mere trade association representing its members. These Particulars of Claim are signed by a solicitor who I believe has been involved with the Claimant for many years.


In the alternative, the Defendant is willing for the matter to be decided by POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) which will decide the dispute and limits any further costs to this claimant to £27, with no legal costs. This is the bespoke ADR for BPA members, is available at any time (not just the first 28 days) and has been used to settle private parking court claims on multiple occasions even after proceedings have commenced. POPLA has not been undertaken in this case nor was it mentioned in the recent sparse communications from this Claimant.

The Defendant invites the Court to use its discretion to make such an order, if not striking out this claim.

Signed
Date

Coupon-mad

Hi
Just needing a little help.

Welcome but please delete that post - but copy it first and paste it into a NEW THREAD. This is in the wrong place, you need the NEW THREAD button (on the first page above the NEWBIES and POPLA Decisions sticky threads).

Umkomaas

Not here fella - you need to start a brand new thread of your own. This is an information sticky thread, not a free-for-all, post any random case you like, and expect expert advice.

On your own thread, comments will be specific to your own particular case, and we will discourage (as I'm doing here) any 'interlopers' from airing their own issues on it.

More help to come - on your own thread, please.

James_Curtis_2

Hi All

We have received a parking charge for parking in the space that we own in the underground car park of our block in London. Unfortunately our permit slipped down the dashboard and got wedged between the windscreen and the dashboard so it was pretty much obscured. We received a fine for not displaying a valid permit, however on the evidence photos from the parking company "Parking Ticket Limited" you can see the outline of our permit, although it is obscured. a bit of an unfortunate circumstance.

Anyway we appealed and it was rejected because the permit wasn't visible.

Surely even if signs exist saying that the permit should be displayed at all times i cant be liable to pay a " parking charge" on a space that I own?

We have now received a note from a debt collection company requesting an even higher payment. I rang them however they cite the "Beavis supreme court case" as precedent for the validity of this fine and have suggested I will have to await a summons to appear at the small claims court. Having read the case summary it seems pretty irrelevant. to my situation.

Can anyone help/advise on this. Presumably they have no legal basis to fine us?

Any help would be much appreciated!

Coupon-mad

Why post here? You are in the wrong place and a link a few posts up, shows you where to go.

You need to read the NEWBIES thread (and not post there, please). My signature also tells you where to click to get back.