District Enforcement - Court

Marktheshark

Can you send this to this E-mail addresses
foi@staffs.ac.uk
s.l.howlett@staffs.ac.uk

Demand for freedom of information request :

I demand that Staffordshire University makes available a copy of its private parking services contract with the company District Enforcement Limited or Civil Enforcement Limited.
The company in question is prosecuting me in the civil courts for a parking charge claiming that the contract they hold with Staffordshire University also includes myself as a extended party to this contract.
Therefore I demand that this contract be produced for my examination.
Failure to produce the contract will result in a information commissioners investigation, where "commercial sensitivity" has been used to conceal extended contracts that include members of the public visiting the site this has been found to be an invalid reason for concealment.
Therefore I demand you produce the parking contract as a public funded body.


Copy the letter by certified post to : Information Protection and Security Manager
Staffordshire University
College Road
Stoke on Trent
Staffordshire ST4 2DE

bazster

enfield_freddy wrote: »

now I read somewhere that even tho clamping had been outlawed it was still legal to move a vehicle that was parked on private land that was causing an obstruction , "if" the vehicle was indeed causing an "obstruction" why did they not mitigate there loses , and remove the obstruction by simply relocating the vehicle?

That's not true. It is a misunderstanding that has come about as a result of some people misreading PoFA 2012 55(3)(b).

55(3)(b) is not to be read in isolation because what it actually does is to amend Section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. So if you read Section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and apply the amendment enacted by PoFA 2012 55(3)(b), the result is that the powers of the police and local authorities to relocate vehicles causing an obstruction are extended to private land. It does not give landowners or their agents carte blanche to shift vehicles around the place.

nigelbb

bazster wrote: »

That's not true. It is a misunderstanding that has come about as a result of some people misreading PoFA 2012 55(3)(b).

55(3)(b) is not to be read in isolation because what it actually does is to amend Section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. So if you read Section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and apply the amendment enacted by PoFA 2012 55(3)(b), the result is that the powers of the police and local authorities to relocate vehicles causing an obstruction are extended to private land. It does not give landowners or their agents carte blanche to shift vehicles around the place.

Interestingly as an anti-clamping measure POFA 2012 has been amazingly effective. I have not heard of a single case where anyone has been clamped nor of any prosecutions for offences introduced by POFA 2012 e.g. blocking in a vehicle. Does anyone know what the penalty is if a landowner or their agent were convicted of shifting a vehicle? £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days?

Marktheshark

Can you PM (private message) me the particulars of claim statement from the claim form so I can write a defence and return it by PM.

HO87

Pasadena - you have a PM

Much of the detail of DE's relationship with Staffs Uni is already known and covered in the various threads. In particular we have obtained an email circulated by Uni staff to all students making it plain that the parking enforcement scheme is intended to deter the very parking that DE purport to offer a contract for. In turn it is this type of parking that the Uni instituted the parking scheme for having been threatened with action by the fire service. So on the one hand you have the Uni stating that they wish to eliminate parking otherwise than in its spaces whilst on the other, and with the full involvement of the UNi you have DE offering you the opportunity to park across a fire exit, for example, provided you pay them a fat charge.

The contractual relationship between SU and DE is clearly one of agent and principal. The only involvement DE has is to pursue the PCN's actually issued by Uni security staff and often in relation to the supposed non-display of permits that are issued by the self same staff.

DE are now declining to take part in ADR other than their own offer to call one of the junior members of staff at Gladstones to "discuss the matter". They also avoid at all costs disclosing anything other than their entirely formulaic claims - Part 18 requests have been rebuffed on the basis that Part 18 doesn't apply to small claims track cases ( but at points before matters are allocated); they disbelieve that the request is genuine or the defendant is simply looking to cause difficulties. Ultimately they will simply refuse to comply and invite defendants (inevitably students with nil funds available) to make full applications.

And all this at a so-called seat of learning.

Bear in mind that the sole remaining director of the original trio from DE is himself an alumnus of the Staffs Uni Law School. You couldn't make it up.

Castle

Half_way wrote: »

Which pretty much highlights the sheer ridiculousness of it all.
therefore it cant be a genuine contractual agreement, but intended as penalty/ punishment.
plus without looking into it further could you pay £100 to block the entrance/cause an obstruction once and forever more?

Or just £60 if you pay within 14 days

nigelbb

HO87 wrote: »

Much of the detail of DE's relationship with Staffs Uni is already known and covered in the various threads. In particular we have obtained an email circulated by Uni staff to all students making it plain that the parking enforcement scheme is intended to deter the very parking that DE purport to offer a contract for. In turn it is this type of parking that the Uni instituted the parking scheme for having been threatened with action by the fire service. So on the one hand you have the Uni stating that they wish to eliminate parking otherwise than in its spaces whilst on the other, and with the full involvement of the UNi you have DE offering you the opportunity to park across a fire exit, for example, provided you pay them a fat charge.

Someone with some spare cash could have some fun here calling DE's bluff & insisting on paying £60 for the privilege of obstructing a fire exit or fire lane. Then when inevitably the Fire Brigade insist that the vehicle is removed there would be a case against DE for breach of contract.