District Enforcement / Staffordshire University (AGAIN!)

JackEdge

Hi all,

I've been reading various pages on this great forum about District Enforcements activities with my colleagues at the uni,

I have recently been sent an email from them threatening legal action for not displaying a valid parking permit (Which had ran out)

I really don't want them to win this as I feel quite angry that I have to pay to park to use my own works car park! and the amount that they charge for infringement is ridiculous £70!

I haven't responded at all yet as I am really confused which route to take, as other people in the same situation regretted responding as it means that they drove the car...

So what I need I guess is a little advice as to if I should just not respond at all, or if I should appeal etc?

Any help is very appreciated,
Thanks,

HO87

Email or letter? And from whom, the Uni or District Enforcement?

Coupon-mad

This is NOT a straightforward issue - DE are notoriously nasty. Who sent the email? Dyl Kurpil of DE?

Have you sent a formal complaint to the University yet about this harassment by their predatory agent? Please, please do so. Last time a FOI was obtained, the University said they had not had many formal complaints even thought we KNOW DE have ripped money from hundreds of students & staff at Staffs Uni (the Dean and Facilities Managers should be ashamed). Do not feel you are the one at fault, this business model is arguably not supported by current Consumer Contract Regs as it's neither transparent, clear or fair and you cannot dress up a 'charge for breach' to hide the fact it was for breach and pretend it was merely a fee/cost for parking.

DE sue EVERYONE if you lose on appeal (and you will lose on appeal...wonder why?!). DE normally win their small claim cases as they are plausible in court (ex copper). But do you know about this case - it is being appealed though, we understand:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/district-enforcement-lose-to-lecturer.html

HO87 can help if he has time, sadly I don't have much time myself right now. Can I just say DO NOT PAY, these are notorious and not worthy of your money. But do not ignore this either and be aware if you end up defending a small claim then you do not get an auto CCJ or anything, no effect on credit rating. Just you with a decent defence showing what is wrong with the business model and that the 'offer to park for a fee' is no such thing.

Folkiedave

Refer to the driver in the third person - "the driver did this", "the driver did that".

Say you are the registered keeper.

JackEdge

Thanks everyone for you help so far, in response to your questions:

- "Refer to the driver in the third person" - great advice, I created this account under a fake name to protect my identity (hopefully)

- It was via letter, and sent by DE not the uni

- Re the lecturer who won his case, yes I read this on here, however his was for parking not in a bay, where as my'n is for not having valid permit so I wasn't sure where to go next with it,

Coupon-mad

Same as any other appeal at this stage - I tried to explain that above. DO NOT SAY WHO WAS DRIVING! Yes we know you may think it's obvious. NOPE.

An appeal re a private parking charge (especially one from DE) is NOT about what happened and nor is a court defence. It's about where their business model makes the charge unrecoverable - it's about what they did wrong. Re-read what I said above - I didn't tell you to appeal about excuses re not having a permit - and please read the Newbies thread as well. This is an appeal saying the charge is not a genuine offer to park as that would be ludicrous when the University intends it as a deterrent system. As a deterrent the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, not a charge dressed up as if it is a core price term (against the UTCCRs and current Consumer law):

From the Office of Fair Trading’s 'Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999':
Group 5 : Financial penalties – paragraph 1(e) of Schedule 2:
5.1 “It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for a breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law.”
Group 18(a): Allowing the supplier to impose unfair financial burdens
'18.1.3 These objections are less likely to arise if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances. However, as already noted, transparency is not necessarily enough on its own to make a term fair. Fairness requires that the substance of contract terms, not just their form and the way they are used, shows due regard for the legitimate interests of consumers. Therefore a term may be clear as to what the consumer has to pay, but yet be unfair if it amounts to a 'disguised penalty', that is, a term calculated to make consumers pay excessively for doing something that would normally be a breach of contract.

19.14 The concern of the Regulations is with the 'object or effect' of terms, not their form. A term that has the mechanism of a price term...will not be treated as exempt if it is clearly calculated to produce the same effect as an unfair exclusion clause, penalty, variation clause or other objectionable term.'



The OFT's view on Bank Charges for default is also applicable (this is really for your court defence, not appeal stage - you WILL end up with an unfair small claim you know):

’1.19 In our view the basic principles set out here also apply to other analogous default charges in consumer contracts’’

" Attempts to restructure accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made should be viewed as disguised penalties and equally open to challenge where grounds of unfairness exist. (For example, a charge for 'agreeing to' or 'allowing' a customer to exceed his credit limit is no different from a charge for the customer's 'default' in exceeding his credit limit.) The UTCCRs are concerned with the intention and effects of terms, not just their mechanism."

3.2 The requirement of 'good faith' reflects the principle of fair and open dealing with consumers. It does not simply mean that terms must not be used deceitfully; it means that terms should be drafted in a way that respects consumers' legitimate interests. In assessing fairness we take note of not only how a term is used, but how it could be used.

New Consumer Rights:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/343753/bis-14-1430-misleading-and-aggressive-selling-rights-consumer-protection-amendment-regulations-2014-guidance.pdf

HTH, get complaining and challenging even though you KNOW you won't 'win an appeal' it is possible to win in small claims (and you don't get a CCJ as long as you defend and turn up - nor does the charge go up by huge solicitors' fees - but DE will try! They add £50 on each side of the claim forms for no reason = another defence point for you about their unreasonable claim).

HO87

Both C-M and I have a good knowledge of Staffs Uni cases and I endorse her comments.

Both we - and crucially DE themselves - are well aware of the existence of an email circulated to all students and staff in September 2013 which makes it clear that the "...parking enforcement management scheme" is intended to deter. This makes a complete nonsense of DE's case that theirs is a genuine offer to park - on yellow lines, without a permit etc etc - and to pay £70 for the privilege.

The judge in Gary Hudson's case saw through DE's claims and rubbished them. DE made a great fuss of applying then and there for leave to appeal - which was granted but... [surprise, surprise] they then failed to follow through on within the time allowed.

One wonders why?

Let us know how you get on but don't be surprised if your appeal is rejected.

JackEdge

Thanks for all the help so far,

I'm chatting to Gary Hudson currently to see where to go from here but it isn't looking good :mad: