District Enforcement

retsbed

Hi all,

Your advice is greatly appreciated.... keep up the good work!

At the company I work for I usually appeal parking tickets on behalf of our drivers and manage to get about 99% of them cancelled :j

In this case I need a little advice....

The facts.......:

Day 1 - driver received a windscreen ticket from District Enforcement (DE) whilst working on site at our customer. Customer said he is happy to verify it and I should ask DE to contact him so we can get it cancelled. I couldn't get through to DE on any telephone numbers provided.

Day 22 - I lodged an appeal within their 28 day window using mitigating circumstances and the 'not a genuine pre-estimate of loss' route.

Day 65 - Received a Notice to Hirer rather than a Notice to Keeper. They obviously obtained our details from the company we lease the vehicle from. They sent a NTK to the leasing company on day 37.
Before I embarrass myself do I have a leg to stand on with the fact that we only received the Notice to Hirer on day 65 which falls outside the POFA 2012 rules of 56 days?

Thanks in advance.

Castle

Did you ever get a reply to your appeal?

retsbed

Yes I did - they rejected it.

This is the gist of their reply:

Signage states that the land is privately owned and subject to parking conditions displayed. Conditions state that a charge is due by any driver satisfying the conditions as displayed.

Chargeable condition covered by the term 'no ticket' and they believe the charge was correctly issued as they have photographic evidence (which I have not yet seen).

"Our charges are a fee for a service delivered (incidentally they are inclusive of VAT) and as such form a core term of our contract with the motorist. They do not stem from a breach of contract and therefore are not required to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Although a complex area of law, we have the benefit of testing our charging model through the courts and are confident of our method of construction. As such the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulation Act 1999 does not apply in this case."

The_Slithy_Tove

retsbed wrote: »

Before I embarrass myself do I have a leg to stand on with the fact that we only received the Notice to Hirer on day 65 which falls outside the POFA 2012 rules of 56 days?

Irrelevant as you appealed the NTD. Complain to BPA that you original appeal was ignored.

Umkomaas

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Irrelevant as you appealed the NTD. Complain to BPA that you original appeal was ignored.

They're one of The Red Cow Yardies, so BPA not appropriate. They recently lost a court case. I'll do a search and update when I find it.

ETA 1

Here's one, but I think there is another more recent. Back to my search.

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

ETA 2

Got it!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5268594

retsbed

Since post #3 I replied a couple of days after receiving their rejection.
I informed them that I would like to use the Consumer Ombudsan rather than the IAS as I believe that there is a conflict of interest. Will Hurley & John Davies run the IAS but are also listed as directors for Gladstone Solicitors. I believe the IAS have financial interest in failing appeals so they can lure parking operators into filing court claims.

I understand that the DVLA are currently investigating this (?)

I have had no reply to my letter in September and then in today's post guess what I received?....... a Letter before Claim from Gladstone Solicitors!

I am going to reply to Gladstone today and will enclose a copy of the above letter I sent to DE. What do you guys think?

Redx

perhaps read pranksters 30th oct 2015 blog about ADR and the IAS etc too ?

Edna_Basher

retsbed wrote: »

I am going to reply to Gladstone today and will enclose a copy of the above letter I sent to DE. What do you guys think?

Given that you only received Gladstone's letter today, I don't think that you should be in such a rush to be sending a response (act in haste etc.). Instead, I think you should wait to receive further advice from this forum and also check out the pepipoo forum too.

Out of interest, is Gladstone's LBC addressed to your company? If so, your company will have strong defence on the basis that the Operator failed to comply with POFA 2012 (there will be several reasons for non-compliance), thereby limiting the scope of their claim only to the driver. Of course, there is no possibility that your company could have been the driver.

System

Out of interest, is Gladstone's LBC addressed to your company?

If they are sending it to a company then DE will select the court (Stoke). If you want it to be your choice then name the driver and get DE to chase them instead.

retsbed

Edna_Basher wrote: »

Given that you only received Gladstone's letter today, I don't think that you should be in such a rush to be sending a response (act in haste etc.). Instead, I think you should wait to receive further advice from this forum and also check out the pepipoo forum too.

Out of interest, is Gladstone's LBC addressed to your company? If so, your company will have strong defence on the basis that the Operator failed to comply with POFA 2012 (there will be several reasons for non-compliance), thereby limiting the scope of their claim only to the driver. Of course, there is no possibility that your company could have been the driver.

Gladstone's letter said to respond / acknowledge their letter within 14 days so I'll take your advice and wait a little longer.

Gladstone's letter is address to the company. We won't reveal the identity of the driver to them, I don't think we legally have to anyway do we?

System

I don't think we legally have to anyway do we?

No you don't but they will hold the company liable - whether this is true or not - as it's all hassle. Fleets are particularly good value as most pay and recharge the driver.

I assume nipping down to Stoke is not an issue for you.