Creative Parking Solutions / Civil Enforcement / Wright Hassall

Redfred2378

Hi, apaologies if the following has been covered already, I have been going through the Newbie section and reading all the various advice on here.

I was issued with a letter before action back on 30th August by a company called Civil Enforcement Ltd, for allegedly overstaying the grace period at a car park back on the 25th of May. I initially read online to just ignore this and there was nothing they could do. Outstanding "debt" at this point of £140.

As with many other people I started to panick so sent them a letter (recorded delivery), not admitting to any breach of contract, but asking for more info as this was the first I'd heard of it. No answers forthcoming, I wrote again on 20th Sept. Also sent recorded delivery. Also no response.

I then get a letter from another company ZZPS on 21st October advising that this has now passed to them and they are acting for Civil Enforcement to cover the unpaid debt that now stands at £200. Another letter on 4th November.
I emailed ZZPS On 24th November asking again for more information regarding this alledged incident. They informed me that this had now been passed to a solicitor.

I have now had a letter from Wright Hassall informing me the debt is now £236.

Through reading all the differing info I realised I had not received an official Notive to a Keeper, I emailed the British Parking Assosiation for advice on this but their response was this;
"We note you did not receive the correspondence which would have been issued prior to that point. Unfortunately unless recorded delivery is used we are unable to ascertain whether mail has or has not been received by either party. As it is not currently a requirement of the Code that the operator send mail recorded delivery, if they are able to provide details of the documents they advise have been sent, we cannot advise there to be a breach of the Code."

I have emailed the land owner and let them know what actions are taking place in their good name, in the hope that they may get involved and cancel the charge.
I am trying to put together a letter to send to the Right Hassle solicitors and not sure if I should bother outlining all of this or send an official appeal or am Too far outside of the time frame for any appeal to the parking charge notice that I didn't actually get in the first place. I've read on the BPA code of practice paragraph 22.1 That I should have had my communications dealt with promptly and fairly, 22.2 the Notice to Keeper should clearly outlinie the appeal procedure and 22.3 provide photographic evidence. If I didn't get the NTK how can I appeal?

Apologies if I've missed info feel free to ask questions. There is now a small trickle of blood coming from one ear from all the reading I've done this afternoon, there's a large trickle of blood coming from the other ear where the wife has clocked me one for thinking I could act like Rumpole of the Bailey and become some kind of legal expert with the power of Google.

Any and all advise welcome.

Carthesis

The random charge increases are specifically prohibited by POFA as "double recovery".

If the parking event was in late May and you didn't get an NtK until late August, then they haven't complied with the mandatory timescale for transfer of keeper liability under POFA, regardless of if they issued you with a windscreen ticket or not.

Was the original letter from Parking Eye as in the title of your OP, or from CEL? Two different companies.

Did you even receive any kind of documentation before the LBCCC from CEL? Anything at all?

Redfred2378

Hi Carthesis, no windscreen ticket was issued.

First contact came from CEL on the 30th Aug and mentioned Parking Eye. Looking back at the original letter I was wrong and assumed it was them who managed the Car Park but it quotes Parking Eye versus Beavis, so I now realise that this is a case often quoted.

As I say that was the first contact from anyone.

I have had a response from the Land Owner of car park in question and they say it's managed by a firm called Creative Parking Solutions. A quick look on the BPA members site shows these are linked to Civil Enforcement. I have just emailed back to the land owner with the following.


"I have looked at the information you have supplied and I have never received a Notice to Keeper regarding this, something that should have taken place within 28 days according to the British Parking Association code of practice, covered under POFA.

It appears that this has jumped straight to an elevated level of sending out a letter before action from Civil Enforcement Ltd, again something that is covered in the BPA Code of Practice POFA a practice known as double recovery.

I have taken a look at the site of the car park and in my opinion the site is not secure in that there are multiple entry and exits to the car park that are not covered by the ANPR camera that you mentioned. It is my opinion therefore that it is entirely plausible for a vehicle to enter the site by the main entrance and leave via a different route and return by that a same point but having not actually parked for any length of time on your site at all. Specifically the road that runs adjacent to the car park entrance that I believe services the Daniels group factory, offers several points of exit.

It appears that the company you have managing the site, Creative Parking Solutions are acting outside of the BPA code of practice. I have sent several letters to Civil Enforcement Ltd all recorded and all with no response. I feel that I am now the victim of an elaborate extortion racket whereby any unjust initial fine has been escalated without proper fair communication with myself as the vehicle owner, who has yet to be shown evidence of the alleged offence, also required under the BPA code of practice.

I raise these points with yourself as Creative Parking Solutions has been contracted by yourselves to act on your behalf, I am sure that your organisation does not act in such an underhand way, proven by your swift response to my email yesterday. But never the less this company does act in your name and I would like to assume that their actions fall below the standards of professionalism that you yourselves would expect.

I look forward to hearing back from yourselves regarding the points raised above. "

Just wondering is it worth me sending anything like this to Wright Hassall and see what they come back with. If I point out that this hasn't been handeled correctly form the start would they back off at all ???

Again thanks for the response and anyone who took the time to read this and the OP.

Fruitcake

It would be useful if you mended your title to give the correct PPC name.

Where no windscreen ticket was received (NTD) the POFA 2012 requires the NTK to be received by day 14, the date of the alleged event being day zero. Irrespective of what the old boys club (BPA) say, the Act of Parliament takes precedent.

Redfred2378

Hi Fruitcake, I will now look to change the title if I can work that out.

I just found this template letter form Carthesis that I'm thinking of sending to Wright Hassall,

“
Dear {name of PPC}

PCN number: {your PCN number here}

I write to challenge the above referenced PCN as the Registered Keeper of vehicle registration XX 22 XXX. I deny liability for any sum at all.

[for a windscreen PCN followed by a postal Ntk - DELETE AS APPROPRIATE]

I contend that you have failed to establish Keeper Liability, as you have not complied with the mandatory timescales laid out in 'The Protection of Freedoms Act (2012)' [PoFA(2012)], Schedule 4, Paragraph 8. This states that:

When a windscreen notice (a Notice to Driver or NtD) is issued, an application for Keeper details may be made with the DVLA following the expiration of the 28-day period beginning with the day after the day on which the NtD was issued. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) must then be delivered to the current address for the Registered Keeper within the relevant period, defined as the 28 days following the initial period of 28 days for the NtD. (para. 8, sub-paras. 4 and 5).

In this case, the timeline of events is as follows:

- date of alleged infraction / date on NtD: xx/yy/zzzz
- first date of Keeper data application: {+28 days}
- date by which NtK must be delivered for Schedule 4 to apply: {+56 days}
- date of NtK generation: xx/yy/zzzz (if known)
- date of NtK postage: xx/yy/zzzz (if known)
- actual date of reciept of NtK: aa/bb/cccc


[for a postal Ntk *ONLY* - DELETE AS APPROPRIATE]

I contend that you have failed to establish Keeper Liability, as you have not complied with the mandatory timescales laid out in 'The Protection of Freedoms Act (2012)' [PoFA(2012)], Schedule 4, Paragraph 9. This states that:

When a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK) is issued, an application for Keeper details may be made with the DVLA immediately, but the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must then be delivered to the current address for the Registered Keeper within the relevant period, defined as the 14 days beginning with the day after the day on which the alleged infraction occurred. (para. 9, sub-paras. 4 and 5).

In this case, the timeline of events is as follows:

- date of alleged infraction: xx/yy/zzzz
- date by which NtK must be delivered for Schedule 4 to apply: {+14 days}
- date of NtK generation: xx/yy/zzzz (if known)
- date of NtK postage: xx/yy/zzzz (if known)
- actual date of reciept of NtK: aa/bb/cccc

[END OF OPTIONAL SECTIONS]

As you have failed to comply with the mandatory timescales laid out in PoFA(2012), you have exhausted your options for transfer of liability to the Registered Keeper, and as such, can only pursue the driver.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. The case of Elliott -v- Loake (1982), as you are well aware, is not applicable, as this was a criminal case with abundant physical evidence which allowed the identity of the driver to be a finding of fact, hence not merely a 'presumption' in case law. I refer you to the recent cases of Excel v Mr C (C8DP37F1), Stockport, 31/10/2016, Excel v Mr L., Skipton, 17/11/2016 and VCS v Mr A. (C8DP70P3), Birmingham, 23/11/2016 which all found that E-v-L could not be applicable to private parking cases, and that there is no basis for pursuance of the Registered Keeper outwith the provisions of PoFA(2012).

Further, I draw your attention to the comments of Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) and Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA) Lead Adjudicator and Barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, who clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver." (p.12-13 POPLA Annual Report 2015).

As you have failed to establish Keeper Liability, to continue to process my data now that you have exhausted your only DVLA-allowed purpose (i.e. to invite me to name the driver, which I decline outright) would be wholly unreasonable and contrary to the Data Protection Principles. To share, sell, store or process my data at all now you are aware that you have no further excuse or reasonable cause, will be considered data misuse and will result in a complaint being filed with the Information Commissioner.

I require now that you issue me a letter stating that the charge has been cancelled; that no further action will be taken against me; and that you have now deleted all personal data which you may hold on me as you no longer have any requirement for it.

Do not send debt collector letters and do not add any costs, which would be a thinly-veiled attempt at 'double recovery' and is specifically prohibited by PoFA(2012) Schedule 4. I will not respond to debt collectors and to involve a third party would be a failure to mitigate your costs, as well as deliberate and knowing misuse of my data.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not consent to my data being further shared or processed by you or your agents.

You should consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days.

Yours faithfully,
”
Last edited by Carthesis; 02-12-2016 at 12:41 PM.
Quick Reply
Thank You4 QuoteMulti-quoteReportSpam

Fruitcake

To change the title, click edit, then Go Advanced.

Carthesis

There is no point sending that to WH. They'll just outright ignore it anyway. It might have gotten you a win as an initial appeal from them, had they sent you and NtK, and would almost certainly have gotten you a win at POPLA.

At this stage, you're as well just ignoring them until an actual MCOL from Northampton comes through, then you can request copies of the documentation you're supposed to have received from them, and then the mandatory POFA timescales goes in as defence point #1 (on top of subsequent defence points #2 thru' #xx)

Carthesis

Also, that letter to the landowner is a bit schizophrenic in some of the details, but unless the landowner is a parking law expert will probably do to scare them into a dialogue.

pappa_golf

enfasize that thier contract is with creative , and yet its a different company chasing you

Redfred2378

Thanks Carthesis,
What's the MCOL? And when should I expect it?

With regards the letter to landowner I'm just after someone to help deal with this as just hitting a brick wall with everyone else. I'm just and average bloke and certainly no parking legal expert myself in any way shape or form so I probably quote all the wrong things in my letter.

Fruitcake

MCOL, Money Claim OnLine. It will come if and when the scammers decide to go to court.