District Enforcement - Staffs Uni - NTK

awilley

Hello All,

Thanks for your great help in the past, I am here again this time on behalf of my girlfriend and starting a new thread due to it regarding District Enforcement.

My girlfriend's car was parked on Staffs Uni (Leek Road) campus with a valid permit on display. The vehicle was parked in a non-obstructive, well mannered way, albeit not in a marked bay, next to a construction fence that blocks off one end of the car park. She has shown me photo's that there were no signs immediately present to the driver (although there are elsewhere on campus) and the vehicle was blocking nobody in, nor exit/entrances of any kind. The driver got a Windscreen ticket for - "Obstructive Parking". :mad:

We have not appealed this based on the windscreen ticket received on 13-Oct-15 and this week have received the NTK (dated 19-Nov-15).

I have compared it to Sched. 4, Para. 8 of POFA 2012 and the only discrepancies I can find with the NTK are:-

"When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10." Although Paragraph 10 is a little more confusing and therefore I don't think they have breached POFA.

Where do we stand with regards to appeals and what is the best practice with regards to next steps? I assume I complete the template and appeal direct to the PPC, to which they will reject... Then what? IAS / Obudsman then court? I read No GPEOL doesn't apply to District due to how they construct their 'contract'?

The fee is £70 and I feel the Misses is very unlikely to want to go to court and will pester me to pay up :rotfl:

Many Thanks in advance for your help / advice.

System

Get a pic of the signs plus a pic of the location. The signs are the contract so see if "obstructive parking" is on the signs. No "obstructive parking" = no contract.

You cannot contract for something that is not offered.

Fruitcake

Appeal AS KEEPER using the template letter in the NEWBIES thread exactly as it is.


Do not even think about paying.


If/when the appeal is rejected you can either ignore for six years or make an IAS appeal and then ignore for six years. (Read the NEWBIES thread for explanations about the IAS kangaroo court.
If you do appeal, add the template letter from the Parking-Prankster's BlogSpot from the 30th of October.

Umkomaas

DE are awkward. As an IPC member they're unlikely to be going down the PoFA route, they will argue 'a reasonable assumption that the keeper was also the driver'. They do court quite regularly.

But don't panic at this stage, they have been beaten at court before but you (or your g/f to be more precise) will need all the ducks in a row.

Is your g/f a student or member of staff? Has she complained to the Uni?

Dyl Kurpil is a graduate of the Uni and had start up support from them to set up his parking entrapment business. So they're quite definitely 'happy bedfellows'. The two other graduates who also set up the business have since left - once they got themselves proper jobs!

http://www.staffs.ac.uk/news/law-graduates-aim-to-clean-up-the-parking-industry-tcm4234703.jsp

The news headline in the above link missed out one important word 'Aim to clean up (from) the parking industry'!

As well as searching this forum for 'District Enforcement South Staffs' go over to PePiPoo and search similarly there. You will need to go through that research process to work out your strategy for dealing with this.

This won't be as easy a job as the one you've got dealing with UKPC.

The_Slithy_Tove

awilley wrote: »

I have compared it to Sched. 4, Para. 8 of POFA 2012 and the only discrepancies I can find with the NTK are:-

"When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10." Although Paragraph 10 is a little more confusing and therefore I don't think they have breached POFA.

Do both the NTD and NTK specify the period of parking (not just a single time)? Unlikely.

Do both the NTD and NTK clearly define who the creditor is (and that's not the same as saying "make cheques payable to XYZ")?

Both would make the notices non-compliant?

HO87

The signs at the Stoke campus are DE's standard sign (I'll try to post one up later). These make it clear that DE "manage" the parking on behalf of Staffs Uni - the landowner. However, the truth is that all PCN's are issued by the Uni security/estate staff - in other words it is a self-ticketing operation and all that DE do is to operate the backroom enforcement.

From memory the on-site road marking is at best inconsistent and has been carried out at various times in the past meaning that they ("yellow" lines and hatching) appear incomplete, at times contradictory and ultimately confusing - bay markings that overlap and at 90 degrees to markings above/below them?

When did your gf obtain her permit? There was a great deal of confusion about the way in which "enforcement" commenced or not at the two different campuses and so the date could be important.

As well as following the other good advice you have been given get your gf to return at some point to get some pictures showing the view from where she parked and the sort of view that she may have had of any signs.

awilley

Thanks for all the responses, please find info to each question below:-

Umkomaas wrote: »

DE are awkward. As an IPC member they're unlikely to be going down the PoFA route, they will argue 'a reasonable assumption that the keeper was also the driver'. They do court quite regularly.

But don't panic at this stage, they have been beaten at court before but you (or your g/f to be more precise) will need all the ducks in a row.

Is your g/f a student or member of staff? Has she complained to the Uni?

Dyl Kurpil is a graduate of the Uni and had start up support from them to set up his parking entrapment business. So they're quite definitely 'happy bedfellows'. The two other graduates who also set up the business have since left - once they got themselves proper jobs!

http://www.staffs.ac.uk/news/law-graduates-aim-to-clean-up-the-parking-industry-tcm4234703.jsp

The news headline in the above link missed out one important word 'Aim to clean up (from) the parking industry'!

As well as searching this forum for 'District Enforcement South Staffs' go over to PePiPoo and search similarly there. You will need to go through that research process to work out your strategy for dealing with this.

This won't be as easy a job as the one you've got dealing with UKPC.

Girlfriend is a student of Staffs Uni and as not made a complaint as of yet, I will be writing it for her and not got around to it yet due to work commitments, this is also the case with further research on PePipoo which I need to pull my finger out and get done.

She has said that it is even more unfair that some other students have been given "warnings" and she has got a PCN first time she was forced to park slightly wonky.

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Do both the NTD and NTK specify the period of parking (not just a single time)? Unlikely.

Do both the NTD and NTK clearly define who the creditor is (and that's not the same as saying "make cheques payable to XYZ")?

Both would make the notices non-compliant?

I will be double checking the documentation but the NTK only states date and time, not duration, I think. From memory I believe both documents only state one time but both state creditor.

HO87 wrote: »

The signs at the Stoke campus are DE's standard sign (I'll try to post one up later). These make it clear that DE "manage" the parking on behalf of Staffs Uni - the landowner. However, the truth is that all PCN's are issued by the Uni security/estate staff - in other words it is a self-ticketing operation and all that DE do is to operate the backroom enforcement.

From memory the on-site road marking is at best inconsistent and has been carried out at various times in the past meaning that they ("yellow" lines and hatching) appear incomplete, at times contradictory and ultimately confusing - bay markings that overlap and at 90 degrees to markings above/below them?

When did your gf obtain her permit? There was a great deal of confusion about the way in which "enforcement" commenced or not at the two different campuses and so the date could be important.

As well as following the other good advice you have been given get your gf to return at some point to get some pictures showing the view from where she parked and the sort of view that she may have had of any signs.

Signage around the campus below - it does mention obstruction... However, please also see images of where the car was parked, I do not see how this is an obstruction given there was a bloody big wall there and now the wall has come down there is bollards!

The car was parked where the star is in the last photo, therefore at the time of parking it was not causing obstruction to anyone, the fence and building zone did that by itself.

Edit- apologies, I cannot get the images to embed using [IMG etc.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/137446170@N05/23468632036/in/dateposted-public

https://www.flickr.com/photos/137446170@N05/23386256872/in/dateposted-public/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/137446170@N05/23386257102/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/137446170@N05/22867616673/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/137446170@N05/23386449072/in/dateposted-public/

awilley

Hello All,

Leaving it late as ever, please can you advise if this is the correct email to be sending DE for first stage appeal. I am planning to remove point 3 as the vehicle needs the permit to be able to park, which in itself is a contract, correct?

Thanks in advance

I can also include photos from the previous post on the email, to prove it was not obstructing and there was no signs. Please advise, I think I'm on day 26...

15/12/15


Dear Sir or Madame

Re: PCN No. XXXXXXXXXX (reference number removed)

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on these main grounds:

a). The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified.
b). As keeper I believe that the signs were not seen, the wording is ambiguous and the predominant purpose of your business model is intended to be a deterrent.
c). There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.
d). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.
e). There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.

Your clients should be thoroughly ashamed of the shoddy way you treat consumers visiting their premises. The landowner will be made fully aware of this matter and your response, which I will forward to their CEO when I complain in writing and via social media, as appropriate. Parking firms like yours fail to demonstrate even a basic understanding of customer service. The reputation of your business model appears to be more akin to a protection racket than 'parking management'. Your ATA may offer sound-bites about driving up standards or fight for motorists' rights but in reality they are not a regulator; they merely exist to represent the interests of paying members, in order to gain access to DVLA data. The public have no faith in the private parking industry and, as far as I have seen, your firm has not shown itself to be any different than the ex-clampers with whom you share a membership.

The purpose of this communication is:

1. Formal challenge
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. As such, you must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I suggest you uphold this challenge now or alternatively, send a rejection letter - subject to accepting my claim for costs as clearly stated below, since you have no case.

2. ''Drop hands'' offer
The extravagant 'parking charge' is baseless but I realise that you may have incurred nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs to date, for researching the law and responding to your junk mail dressed up to impersonate a parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15. Therefore, this is a formal “drop hands” offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days without further expense and I will not pursue you for my costs. If you persist then I will charge in full for my time at £18 per hour plus my out-of-pocket expenses and damages for harassment.

[STRIKE]3. Notice of cancellation of contract
I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered by you and certainly was not expressly agreed. This 'contract' is hereby cancelled and any obligations now end. If you offer - and if I decide to use - IAS or POPLA, then the contract ends immediately on the date of their decision (whatever the outcome) so my notice of cancellation still applies. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations apply now to every consumer contract, save for a few exemptions, which parking contracts are not. It is the will of Parliament following the EU Consumer Rights Directive, that express consent is obtained for consumer contracts now - not implied consent - and that information is provided in a durable medium in advance.

You have failed to meet these requirements. The foisting of unexpected contracts like this on consumers, by stealth, is a thing of the past.[/STRIKE]

4. The reason for issue of the Parking charge notice is “obstructive parking” yet there is no evidence of the vehicle being parked in an obstructive manor. There is no signage surrounding where the vehicle was parked and therefore a driver cannot be expected to read signage that is not visible. Furthermore, there have been several reports of ‘first offence warnings’ being issued to vehicles deemed to be in breach of your signage, yet the vehicle in question has never been offered a ‘first offence warning’ and was not in breach of any signs. I find this type of discrimination and clear lack of process appalling and will be notifying the Vice Chancellor and Chief Executive - Professor Michael Gunn

By replying to the challenge you are acknowledging receipt and acceptance of points 2 and 4 above. If you decide to persist with this unwarranted threat, I will be put to unnecessary expense and hours of time in appealing or defending this matter. As such, you will be liable for my costs and a pre-estimate of my loss - and in contrast with yours, mine is genuine - is that this sum will be likely to exceed £100.

I have kept proof of submission of this challenge. I look forward to your considered reply within 35 days.

Yours faithfully,

awilley

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Do both the NTD and NTK specify the period of parking (not just a single time)? Unlikely.

Do both the NTD and NTK clearly define who the creditor is (and that's not the same as saying "make cheques payable to XYZ")?

Both would make the notices non-compliant?

NTD & NTK only specify single time...

NTK does not state whom the creditor is.

System

Add in there was no obstruction - a subjective term and incapable of being the basis for any contract.

awilley

Something like this?

e). The parking charge notice was issued due to ‘obstructive parking’ yet the vehicle was causing no obstruction, which in itself is a subjective term and incapable of being the basis for any contract.

I've also started the letter to the Vice Chancellor of the uni and was planning on sending a copy along with the appeal if I can get it finished tonight. Good or bad idea?