District Enforcement - Staffs Uni - NTK

Coupon-mad

Do it if you like (and I would certainly complain) but they (Staffs Uni) don't care two hoots. Covered loads of times, if you've Googled the issue or searched the forum you will find you are on a hiding to nothing and DE sometimes sue. The Uni should be VERY ashamed by the fact their own staff and students have been taken to court over this scam.

Mark it a Formal complaint to the Uni and don't let it drop. District Enforcement won't stop unless the Uni will cancel it. They won't.

awilley

Please find below the letter I have drafted to send to the Vice Chancellor and Chief Executive of Staffordshire University (or rather his secretary). Do you recommend I include this within my appeal as it gives a better overview of the actual situation, rather that a copy paste template?

THANKS

Dear professor Michael Gunn,

I am writing to you, as a former student, on behalf of my partner, a current student, Miss xxxxxx.

Miss xxxxx has given me permission to communicate with Staffordshire University and District Enforcement, with which this letter is in reference, regarding the appalling manner in which District Enforcement is ‘managing’ the parking activities at Stoke Leek Road Campus.

Firstly, I would like to note that I understand there is a need for parking control at the Universities campus’, partly due to the inconsideration of some young people when parking their vehicles and partly due to the limited parking availability, which does not appear to be substantial enough for the vast amount of Students, Staff, Alumni and contractors on site at any one time. As a graduate of Staffordshire University I have seen a level of improvement in the quality of the parking conditions at Stoke campus and appreciate the need for control. However, what I do not agree with is ludicrous costs being forced upon students already paying for huge tuition fees and official parking permits at the merest hint of any wrongdoing. I hope therefore you can read this letter in the manner in which it is intended, a fair, reasonable request with an accompanying formal complaint against the actions of the private parking company the University has entrusted with their reputation.

With regards to my request, I would like to draw your attention to the attached Notice to Keeper from the University’s elected ‘Parking Specialist’ District Enforcement. This Notice to Keeper requests Miss xxxxxx, as keeper of vehicle registered MY00 xxx, to pay the astronomical sum of £70 for ‘Obstructive Parking’. My arguments as to why I am formally requesting this speculative invoice be squashed are as outlined below:-

1) Miss xxxxxx paid a nominal fee to Staffordshire University for the privilege of parking her car within a close proximity to her place of study. This fee was paid upfront and without question on-top of a circa £9000 per year tuition fee. It would therefore be reasonable that if any parking infringement did occur, the University may offer some sort of ‘first offence warning’ to the driver / keeper before placing said person in the perilous hands of District Enforcement.

2) Further to point 1) I have it on good authority that Staffordshire University do indeed issue ‘first offence warnings’ to individuals whom park their vehicles inappropriately. Yet it is questionable as to why this courtesy has not been granted to the driver of Miss xxxxxx's vehicle on DATE (TIME AM), when a Staffordshire University Employee issued a parking charge notice for ‘obstructive parking’, irrespective of the fact that Miss xxxxxx's vehicle had not been liable to any previous offences or infringements.

3) No parking infringement or offence occurred on DATE (TIME AM). As shown below, the signage on campus shows that a vehicle must not be “Parked as to cause obstruction or inconvenience to others or otherwise block any other vehicle’s path”. Photographs taken from the spot where the vehicle was parked on the day in question shows that there was no obstruction to other drivers, pedestrians or likewise. This is further negated by the fact there was a construction zone at the nose of where the vehicle was parked which in itself, is an obstruction. It must also be noted that obstruction is a subjective term and thereby incapable of being the basis for any contract.
Photo of sign (A) https://www.flickr.com/photos/137446170@N05/23468632036/in/dateposted-public
photo of parking location (b) https://www.flickr.com/photos/137446170@N05/23691444931/in/dateposted-public/
4) There is not a single sign present in the vicinity of where the vehicle was parked stating the contract conditions as seen in photos B, C, D & E. It therefore cannot be assumed that a reasonable person could see nor agree to any contract written upon signage that is not physically present

Photo of lack of signs and parking location with boards removed
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137446170@N05/23386256872/in/dateposted-public/ C
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137446170@N05/23386257102/in/dateposted-public/ D
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137446170@N05/22867616673/in/dateposted-public/ E


Using the points laid out above I request that Staffordshire University nullify, void & dismiss this parking charge notice from District Enforcement and apologise the for inconvenience caused by their actions.

With regards to my formal complaint, I believe it is pretty clear from the points laid out above that in this instance District Enforcement have not ‘managed’ the parking situation correctly and that their training of the Staffordshire University staff that issue these PCN’s falls short of meeting the expectations of the Students, Staff and Executives of the University that use the parking facilities.

I also find it outrages that District Enforcement are able, with your permission, to sparsely place signs around campus, give substandard training to the staff of the University responsible for issuing the tickets, post a couple of threatening letters and then reap profit from the already struggling students, which no doubt the University sees some sort of financial gain from. Surely given that the University is already doing most of the leg work that it should take over the parking control in a much fairer way, that not only allows 100% of the ‘profits’ to be kept within the University, it could also be redistributed into creating further parking or travel schemes that thereby irradiate the true root cause of the issue in the first place.

I therefore formally complain against Staffordshire University’s use of District Enforcement LTD services and request all ties be severed between an institution I am proud to have graduated from and a private parking company with a bad reputation, that threatens to take hard-working students, attempting to better themselves whilst being forced into thousands of pounds worth of debt for the opportunity, to court for allegedly parking obstructively when it is clear there was no issue present.

Yours Sincerely

System

Leaving aside Coupon's rant about the Uni, it is important to get the appeal in - even if it is ignored. In the event there is a claim issued, then your initial paperwork is very important.

Courts do not like ignorers and they can get punished even if they are in the right. It's all down to paperwork and signs, so get the paperwork in - but only to DE and not to the IAS.

Fruitcake

I couldn't work out what the photo's of the car park were trying to show. An individual explanation for each one might be needed.

awilley

Thanks, I'll add explanations to the photo's and update the complaint.

I'm getting the appeal sent in today.

Best advice - do I send the complaint as an attachment to the appeal or will this just pi$$ DE off more?

Thanks

Fruitcake

awilley wrote: »

Thanks, I'll add explanations to the photo's and update the complaint.

I'm getting the appeal sent in today.

Best advice - do I send the complaint as an attachment to the appeal or will this just pi$$ DE off more?

Thanks

There may be a character limit that means you will have to do an attachment. If the character limit allows, do both.
Make sure you take screenshots as proof of sending.

awilley

I think DE is by email as opposed to online so should be able to send what I want.

Ta

awilley

awilley wrote: »

NTD & NTK only specify single time...

NTK does not state whom the creditor is.

CORRECTION.

The NTK states that "We, the above named company, are the creditor."

Can this be right!?

Umkomaas

awilley wrote: »

CORRECTION.

The NTK states that "We, the above named company, are the creditor."

Can this be right!?

It can be, and at face value it satisfies the requirements of PoFA 2012. It has never been truly tested in a court, so for now there's no point in arguing it, only in the case where they did actually fail to identify any creditor.

Don't let this distract you now.

awilley

Appeal sent, with letter to Staffs Uni attached. Completely forgot to add the registered Keepers address, which the auto response reminded me about so ended up sending it again like a plonker.

Will wait and see what they come back with. I'm off to do more reading. Can't really be arsed to go to court but seriously don't want to pay.

Those who do go to court, do they pay for legal help or represent themselves?

Thanks