Parking Ticket Help

bazster

Anjunadeep wrote: »

Try actually reading the thread, it may help you understand.

Just ignore him. Occasionally one of these wanders in from the main motoring forum where they are generally more interested in scoring points off other posters than they are in helping anyone.

Anjunadeep

My reply:

Dear


Please see below some relevant extracts of POFA 2014 Section 4:


8(4)(b) The notice must be given by...sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

8(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.

11(1)The third condition is that—

(a)the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor) has made an application for the keeper’s details in relation to the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate;

(b)the application was made during the relevant period for the purposes of paragraph 8(4) (where a notice to driver has been given) or 9(4) (where no notice to driver has been given);


You contacted the DVLA for the registered keepers details before the relevant period of 28 days, which to be clear is following the 28 days the apparent Notice to Driver was given. You have not met the conditions for Section 4 therefore cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper. I hope this clears up the situation and results in you no longer harassing me and wasting my time. If you have an interpretation of the act which differs to the above, please explain this to me clearly (if you are genuinely committed to the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct you shall do so in order resolve this without legal action).


For the avoidance of doubt - there was no valid contract anyway as there was no express consent obtained and a lack of information provided (and not by any durable medium). The method used was at best, reliant upon implied consent from signs and does not meet the new 'Information' and 'express agreement' criteria for UK consumer contracts. This changed in June 2014 with the introduction of the Consumer Contracts (Information Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. I am sure you should be familiar with that legislation and have read the Law Society's practice note on the Regs since this also affects Solicitor/Client contracts, especially those not concluded face to face:

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/advice/practice-notes/consumer-contracts-regulations-2013/

Without express consent for an immediate 'service contract', and without the level of information required by statute, any consumer contract is unenforceable. There are few exemptions and parking contracts are not exempt. I suggest you refer to the EU Guidance Notes on the original Directive, to see that a service contract offering a parking space is covered by the regulations that your client appears to have breached. As such, I hereby cancel the alleged contract so that all obligations on both sides are terminated.

If the significance of this statement escapes you, I suggest you should read the Regulations in full and take on board the current drive by the EU within the Consumer Rights Directive, to bring all consumer contracts under one umbrella of protection for the consumer.

I look forward to their reply...

fisherjim

sparky260500 wrote: »

I really don't understand why so many people are trying to get off these parking tickets you knew that you were parked in a staff only car park so just pay the fine and stop trying to find ways of getting out of it.

If you don't understand (and you clearly don't by calling it a fine), why not keep your ill-informed opinions to yourself!

Coupon-mad

Any update, Anjunadeep?

We have a similar new thread now here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5133003

Anjunadeep

After sending my reply back on the 30th of October, I haven't received a response. I'm assuming they realised they have no case and have dropped the matter. So thanks to everyone that helped :beer:

Anjunadeep

Sorry to bring up this rather old post, but I just got a reply from Trethowans, over a YEAR since my last reply! I'm assuming they do this at the start of every year with any previously unsuccessful cases they still have?

I write further to your email below and apologise for the delay in coming back to you.



I am aware of the relevant parts the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 but as I have previously explained, I do not consider that contacting you before the 28 day period renders the debt unenforceable. In addition, a letter before action was sent to you within the relevant period.



I appreciate your interpretation of the Act however my client’s position remains the same and they are not prepared to cancel this notice because of a procedural disagreement. In any event, the question of whether you are liable to pay the breach of contract notice will ultimately be for a Judge to decide.



The contract is valid. The terms and conditions of parking form the contract and are displayed on signs at the entrance to and throughout the hospital site. By entering the car park and parking your vehicle the driver agreed to adhere to the terms and conditions. The driver breached the contract by parking in a staff car park without displaying a permit or ticket.



I do not consider the Consumer Contracts (Information Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 applicable to this contract. These govern contracts between a consumer and trader. A trader is defined in regulation 4 as “a person acting for purposes relating to that person’s trade, business, craft or profession, whether acting personally or through another person acting in the trader’s name or on the trader’s behalf”. The Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust is not a person under these Regulations. Furthermore regulation 9(2) states that the information requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply to a contract which involves a day-to-day transaction and is performed immediately at the time when the contract is entered into. My client considers parking to fall under this schedule in the event that the regulations did apply.



My client again requests payment of £50.00 within 21 days by no later then 28.01.16.

I think I'll just totally ignore this. Any thoughts?

Ralph-y

just more debt crawlers stuff

just think .... you have another four years of this ..... before the magic 6 ends it all

god luck

Ralph:cool:

Anjunadeep

Urgh 4 years?!

I'm considering complaining to the SRA now...

Coupon-mad

Trethowans are a solicitor who do try court occasionally and will have resurrected this because of the Beavis case, along with other ones they are scraping the barrel over. I would not ignore Trethowans.

First, urgently email the DVLA if you haven't already tried that option of a complaint a year ago, telling them this:

{they} contacted the DVLA for the registered keepers details before the relevant period of 28 days.

Email an urgent complaint about that to david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk explaining that the threats have been resurrected and Trethowans have now described getting the keeper data before 28 days as 'a procedural disagreement'.

Anjunadeep

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Trethowans are a solicitor who do try court occasionally and will have resurrected this because of the Beavis case, along with other ones they are scraping the barrel over. I would not ignore Trethowans.

First, urgently email the DVLA if you haven't already tried that option of a complaint a year ago, telling them this:



Email an urgent complaint about that to david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk explaining that the threats have been resurrected and Trethowans have now described getting the keeper data before 28 days as 'a procedural disagreement'.

Done, thank you!

I also replied to Trethowans asking them to confirm the date they applied for registered driver details via the DVLA. They have confirmed the date (it was not after 28 days, as thought). I then replied asking why they did not comply with POFA Schedule 4... No reply to that question funnily enough.