Mugging attempt by Highview Parking at Crawley retail park - Update, see first post.

Umkomaas

HV have not 'done court' previously, so unlikely to start now (but nothing can be guaranteed in this game).

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Highview_Parking.html

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203646572-Highview-Parking-Ltd

By not pursuing you under the auspices of PoFA, you are correct, they can only hold the driver liable. But many PPCs (particularly IPC members - although HV is a BPA AOS member) are pursuing on the assumption that the keeper was the driver, unless it can be proved to the contrary. That is why it is essential that the keeper never gives any indication as to who the driver might have been, and why we recommend the initial appeal from the newbies sticky is used, unaltered, then there can be no inadvertent slip-ups.

The 'moot' bit - as they are not (from reading their 'Charge Notice', not 'Notice to Keeper') claiming keeper liability, giving them a raft of reasons why their letter is not PoFA compliant and therefore the keeper is not liable seems to me a rather circular argument.

The_Deep

I would delete everything from "Drop hands Offer", you have enough, (probably too many), eggs in that pudding already.

ampersand

Just in, seepyj, so here's your pic:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/g3o4qp7kjti4w72/Highview%20PCN%20.jpg?dl=0#

[well done for being prompt on those excisions]
-the usual unconvincing, totally pointless, dark night-time shot :-))) Just what you want if push comes to shove, but ignore that for now.
#
As you see Umkomaas #10 and I are of same mind: less is more.

This is therefore welcome: 'I'm warming more and more to a simple soft appeal now that the initial emotion is draining from the situation.' Thought, hoped you would come to this before long:-)

re: 'Surely my only legal liability is to tell HV who the driver is'.

NO. Why do you think you are required to do so?

You made this clear and valid statement here[tweaked]: In any following correspondence, there will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.

That's why you master the relevant POFA sections cited ad infin. here, to throw at them if need be - which isn't yet.
More grammatical slips+some clumsy constructions I now see, but as you are almost persuaded to the 'soft appeal', I shan't do any further re-write now. If it comes to POPLA, that's where we demolish them, so don't back off.

Bear in mind that you are doing what that Managing Agent is paid to do, however affable they are, another reason to ensure your language in any correspondence reflects utmost killer courtesy.

Answer #8 ? re: franking please.

Ignore Matalan reply for now: it's standard no-gumption speak. Who is the actual Managing Agent to whom you refer? #1, para.3.
At this early stage[pre-POPLA], it is upon their principal, i.e. the land-owner or land-holder, that this initial pressure must be applied. They need to understand they are jointly liable for the actions of their Agent
Whoever hires a scumpany can also fire said scumpany.

So, are you soothed to Soft Appeal point yet, or do you need more persuasion?

seepyj

I wish there was a way to buy you all a beer purely for your efforts in less than 24 hours regardless of what follows.

Ok so soft appeal it is. Reason and common sense has outweighed emotion. I'll use the template and tack on the 'drop hands offer' unless anyone tells this too is a bad idea??

Umkomaas, The Deep and ampersand, thank you for your recent posts.

Umkomaas thanks for elaborating the keeper point for me, I'd seen from earlier research that HV don't follow the court route, but I totally get that by not admitting any liability it should never come to that.

ampersand I hope I haven't wasted your earlier time with your corrections for me, I will throw the two headed baby in the bin, and go for the sensible soft appeal. But I appreciate the first draft can be used as a framework for the POPLA appeal.

re: 'Surely my only legal liability is to tell HV who the driver is'.

NO. Why do you think you are required to do so?

What I meant was that if the POFA was fully complied with by HV then I legally had to tell them who was driving my car. Whereas if POFA was not complied with it gave me a straight defence to absolve me of this liability. I'm guessing from your reaction I'm committing a newbie error?

Reference the question on the franking. It came in pre printed pre franked envelope which I still have. It says 'Advanced Mail" followed by an alpha numeric code, and then pre printed second class stamp. There is no depot post mark but there is like a red ink barcode line on the envelope.

The management company is called JLL, but I've not entered into any further comms with them as I thought that it could be misconstrued against me and my POFA protection if they were to talk to HV and incorrectly ID me as the driver. I'm more than happy to annoy them until the cows come home once the charge is dropped. But now I've typed that I'm worried that the Matalan pressure could also work against me?

So I hit quick reply but that seems like a long one, hope I've answered everything. I'll get the soft appeal in the post tomorrow. Thanks all for humouring and guiding me.

ampersand

.......is the correct answer:-)
-for the moment. Let's hope it does the trick.
#
Continue to keep all p/w and envelopes, obviously.
You indicate, #1, you 'called' the MA, but 'comms'[^, para.8] suggests this was em, not voice?
JLL are Jones Lang LaSalle
http://www.jll.co.uk/united-kingdom/en-gb.

You need to speak with relevant head honcho there, using quiet, implacable insistence to do so :-). This has never failed for me on behalf of various peeps here. I insist on adequate[as asjudged by me] confirmation from the scumpany that it has obeyed MA's/landowner's or landholder's instruction to rescind the speculative invoice, then confirmation that this has been rcvd by Reg.Keeper. Penelope Keith R.P. voice helps:-)

Note all names, times of chat, agree bullet points and fact of cancellation, not good intention, nebulous promise. It joins the other p/w for 6 years. With all your reading, you'll know why.

Keep us updated please :-) [for &, un petit rouge. merci]

seepyj

ampersand a cheeky glass of red it is.:-)

Yes I spoke with gentleman from JLL responsible for the site, who accepted my duty of care arguement. He wanted a copy of my appeal to HV and I said I would provide this, but as I said by doing so am I not inviting misinterpretation that I was the driver. Would it not be best to go to POPLA first? Gentleman at JLL said he would speak to his contact at HV once he received my evidence package, which was to be the very first draft I posted, plus photos of the poor and misleading signage.

Here's the draft of the soft appeal with an amended drop hands.

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. ....................

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car and I will complain to the landowner, Aviva, and management company, JLL, about the matter if it is not cancelled.

I believe that the signs were not seen/are ambiguous and the terms unclear to drivers before they park. Further, I understand you do not own the car park and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. So please supply that policy as I believe the driver may well be eligible for cancellation.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

I remind you of your duty to mitigate loss and advise you that there are a number of POFA deficiencies in your notice to keeper. I offer you a formal drop hands offer at this stage where we have both incurred minimal costs. If you pursue this vexatious claim 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 which are likely to exceed £150. If you pursue me as the registered keeper you freely enter into this contract and expressly agree to the terms above.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

The_Deep

If you pursue me as the registered keeper you freely enter into this contract and expressly agree to the terms above.


Take this out, it is rubbish.

seepyj

Haha thanks The Deep, love the surgical critique. It is cut:)

ampersand

Just in, but out again in a mo. seepyj -

Presumably you now have a name at JLL.
Address any letter to this person, with their full title, capacity e.g.
James Bloggs, esq.,
Numpty Upcycling Co-ordinator-in-Ordinary,
JLL blah-di-blah.

Points from this para.[in red]:

He wanted a copy of my appeal to HV[why? you are doing JLL a kindness in pointing out taint/bad publicity by association]and by doing so am I not inviting misinterpretation that I was the drive?.[don't say anything like this. You could too easily end up snaring yourself. Rôle-play a shocked and concerned seepyj, pointing out error of JLL ways 'on behalf of someone who has been threatened by these shabby tactics, actually condemned in Parliament'[by porcine Pickles]
Would it not be best to go to POPLA first? [Don't mention this. Your direct approach seeks this and this only: ''Gentleman at JLL said he would instruct the HV minion to cancel this invoice immediately AND send proof of this completed action to me by close of day''[STRIKE]speak to his contact at HV once he received my evidence package, which was to be the very first draft I posted, plus photos of the poor and misleading signage.[/STRIKE] If JLL do, I allow you :Dto email night-time signage shots, 'which I have been put to the trouble and expense of visiting to locate and check.':D]

Anything to HV, simply To Whom It May Concern.

These days/this letter type, 'Dear Sirs', is redundant and borderline unacceptable.
#
[STRIKE]I believe that t[/STRIKE]No signs were seen. They are neither lit, nor obvious. These two breaches alone render them non-compliant. The Registered Keeper's own research shows the wording is ambiguous if legible at all. Darkness and/or poor weather[as apparent on the 18th December, 2015] ensure further failures. The BPA's requirements are precisely set out here:
BPA Code of Practice 2012 - Version 6, October 2015

At any time,the signs are unclear to drivers before they park.
#
Have to go, back later.

zebedee70

A bit of a shock to find this thread here - I've just got home to find a Charge Notice from Highview delivered today, for the same carpark at roughly the same time (19.57 - 23.16) on 22 December.

Same situation as Seepyj - document received in a pre-paid 2nd class envelope with no franking (notice dated 31/12 - so no doubt held up due to New Year holiday) and delivered outside of 14 days. More or less identical ANPR photos where the number plate can't be seen in the larger picture, but is displayed more clearly in the smaller inset pictures.

My guess is that the drivers of both of our vehicles were enjoying the new Star Wars movie in the adjacent cinema, but couldn't get a space in the free parking on that site?

I have not been back to Crawley to check, but am assured that no clearly lit signage was in evidence. While one might privately acknowledge overstaying a 2-hour free-parking limit), clearly the best route to challenge is the soft appeal, with the justification that 'the driver overstaying the 2 hours has resulted in a punitive charge which isn't commensurate to any assumed loss to the retailers at the location, since they're all closed after 8pm, and the carpark is therefore 99% empty.'

I get that there might be an argument that the time limit is there to avoid congestion during trading hours - but surely POPLA would side with the 'no financial loss to the landowner', even there may be POFA contraventions too?

I've not sent my response to HV as yet - pondering on whether this is the best first response for both myself and Seepyj?