Non-standard appeal to IAS - advice welcome

xilverhawk

Hi guys...Yes, i know who the landowner is. I believe it's a Croydon based investment group that owns the whole block.. The name was mentioned to us before by the head teacher and it's consistent.

Agreed that their lease may give them these rights, so i think we should likely press on with addressing the school directly. It *is* the Old Palace school of John Whitgift, BTW. The bricked area is the pavement and anything between that & the boundary wall is the school/PPC territory....

nigelbb

Croydon council would be within their rights to give tickets to cars parked on that tarmac strip as it's part of the public footway just as in the famous case of Camden Council & Dr Dawood http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8388077.stm
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/12/02/article-1232506-076C6028000005DC-255_468x315.jpg

xilverhawk

They might be, but I've never seen it happen and i go there a lot 😁

xilverhawk

Hi all. As I mentioned before, I know who the landowner is and I do have a business address for them. I'd like to be proactive at this point to see if we might be able to stop this in its tracks so was wondering if it would be a good idea to use a combo of Umkomaas and LOC's ideas, addressed to the landowner, CCing the school. I feel like the angle of MIL having a potentially life-threatening medical condition and the school's (via the FM) lack of compassion/consideration might have the desired impact.

All in all, we're not really asking for special privileges on an ongoing basis, just not to be penalised for the two unavoidable incidents last year and a bit of consideration for any future unavoidables. On a day to day basis, we make other arrangements for parking and they don't seem at all bothered on the weekend, which really makes me think that it's the school's facilities team that are reporting cars - something which I think the head did mention in the previous meeting...

pould

Most private schools are actually charitable trusts. This means that the trustees are liable for the actions of the trust including employees of the trust.

What that means in short is that the Governors of the school (if they are the trustees) are responsible for this parking contract. If the parking contract is in fact based on a bogus claim to freehold, you could reasonably issue a tort for the distress caused by their actions.

If their lease doesn't give them the rights of the freeholder to issues claims (or those claims have not been transferred in the correct manner to the PPC) then ALL the hassle you have had over this is their (the Trustees) fault.

xilverhawk

The list of governors is easily found online... Includes the Vicar & the Bishop of Croydon and at least one councillor. I reckon they might take a dim view of all this kerfuffle.

I'm going to try drafting a letter tomorrow, will post it for a few pointers.

xilverhawk

Hi guys...here's an early draft...just need to get a bit of feedback so I can get it tighter. Feel free to rip it apart or up and start again. Thanks again for all the help so far!

To Whom It May Concern

Dear <>

I am writing to appeal PCNs issued by UK Car Park Management on behalf of Old Whitgift school. The charges were issued dates 25-11-2016 and 07-12-2016 and while we fully appreciate the need to manage the area so the school can safely transport students via coach, we feel our situation is worthy of consideration. My mother-in-law, <MIL>, has lived at <address> for almost 30 years and has a medical condition, <something>, that requires constant vigilance due to a complication known as <other thing>. This complication can flare up without warning and when it does, causes a great deal of discomfort and can be potentially life-threatening.

My wife is her carer and due to the nature of <MIL’s> condition, may occasionally have to attend the house urgently to assist. Unfortunately, this means parking wherever is convenient and without hindrance to the flow of traffic – hence occasionally parking in the managed area. Historically, it is my understanding is that <MIL> and the caretaker at the time have had an informal understanding that our family parking there occasionally would be tolerated. I know there is no official permission given, but there is a precedent to consider.
In the interests of transparency and openness, please find enclosed <medical documentation, carers documentation> for your scrutiny.

My reasons for writing to you as the governors of the school are:
1. To highlight that the parking company contracted to manage the area in question are issuing tickets based on little to no observation period. If there are conditions that form a contract to park, surely there needs to be enough time to observe these conditions then choose to move the car? In addition, they are a member of a trade body that has been known not to operate with a fair and independent appeals process. <maybe cite some publicly available examples>

2. To advise that I contacted the school directly to discuss our situation and try to lay out <MILs> condition, however the FM was not interested in letting me explain or even complete a sentence. <some more expansion needed?>

3. To request again that these tickets be cancelled in the light of the situation as explained above. The incidents in question were unavoidable due to a carer having to respond to a potential medical emergency. This should not be punished by a ticketing scheme that does not allow for any period of stopping – I was advised during a phone call to UK CPM that they could issue charge notices based on photo evidence showing one moment in time and not highlighting any observation period.

<needs ending>

xilverhawk

Hello all

It's been a while since I updated on this case...but nothing has happened until noW Plus, we've been busy sorting out a house purchase (yes, it really is stressful!)

Long story short, I've now received a Letter Before Claim from Gladstones on behalf of the PPC - it looks as dodgy as you like, poor print quality (cheap inkjet printer)...but I think I need to respond ASAP. see here: https://1drv.ms/b/s!AhGXOuhzU5XGgfFB7D0qxZ6AU4kmGQ
Unfortunately, the letter as dated 21st June (wednesday), but we didn't receive it until Sat 24th...so I'm not sure how the ticking clock of 14 days is to be applied here.

Annoyingly, we took our case to the school, but after lots of back and forth and sympathy from the head's PA, the head herself eventually toed the party-line by saying that they were not prepared to offer us any consideration of special circumstances - a story for another day.

Any assistance welcome with regards to a letter back to Gladstones - the fact the the original notice to owner letter was not received has got to be a factor here - UK CPM seem to have ignored this completely!

Thanks all

Umkomaas

This seems to be a formal Letter Before Claim and needs a response.

How to deal with a LBC is dealt with in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2. If you are posting your response, obtain a free certificate of posting from the Post Office counter clerk.

xilverhawk

Thanks Umkomass. I'm writing a response based on Loadsofchildren123's template...modified to stress that as we never received the NTK letters, the whole thing is null and void as it doesn't comply with POFA sched 4. If anyone has anymore information on whether POFA requires a letter be SENT or RECEIVED, it'd be interesting. They state that the sent this letter, but can't prove that it was delivered. We had an email from DRPL stating that the POFA wording makes an assumption that a sent letter is as good as a delivered letter, however there's enough readily available stats to prove that a few letters do get lost in the post....

I've written this up and will send it out today or tomorrow, first class recorded (evidence!)

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter dated 21st June which was received on Saturday 24th June.

When your client's debt collectors first started contacting me, I expressly stated that we had received no NTK in the post and therefore the procedure was not compliant with provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. I was advised your client’s debt collectors by email on the 9th March that a letter that has been sent is presumed to have been delivered the 2nd working day after being posted. However, this document requests information from and makes several choices available to the Keeper. As such, it surely needs to have been delivered to the Keeper within a specific timeframe, not merely assumed to have been delivered. Subsequent successfully delivered letters from your client used a basic, non-tracked mail service. As such, please show proof that the letter was successfully delivered and that their continued pursuance of this claim is justified.

You have now sent a Letter Before Claim. However, your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and does not contain any mention of what evidence your client intends to rely on, or enclose copies of such evidence. It is also ambiguous in that it does not specify when the 14-day time limit is to start from and whether they are working days or calendar days.

This action on the part of your client is a clear breach of its pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, with which as solicitors you must surely be familiar (and with which your client, a serial litigator of small claims, must also be familiar). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction binds all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.

Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction. I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:
1. What the specifics of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)
2. A copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
3. A copy of any alleged contract with the driver
4. A plan showing where any signs were displayed
5. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
6. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16. I will draw to the court the fact that I have repeatedly confirmed that I have never received the Notice To Keeper document in the post and your client has never been able to prove otherwise, despite advising that such a document has been produced and sending a digital copy in March.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Yours faithfully


Roston King

comments welcome!