WY Parking PCN

pappa_golf

situation-observer wrote: »

If this is Gladstones actually acting on behalf of the PPC (i.e. they're not just acting as debt collectors who've bought the debt), you may wish to send them a S10 DPA notice. Depends on what the letter says - does it just chase up the 'debt' (that we know is invalid and dismissed by the POPLA appeal) or does it actually say anything like 'letter before action' or 'we will take court action after 14 days' or mention any kind of Civil Procedure Rules, Practice Direction and so on? A picture would be useful.

In any case, they should long know that there's no valid 'debt' and so they have no reason whatsoever to be processing your data. Depending on how they proceed or react to any S10 notice, you may or may not have a DPA claim.

Good luck - you're in a strong position no matter what.

gladstones solisitors do NOT buy debts

send them what you want , robots cannot read

jorge_gills

hxxp://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/BlueGills93/orca-image-1511036143761.jpg_1511036143977.jpeg

Just acting as debt collectors I believe.

Umkomaas

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/BlueGills93/orca-image-1511036143761.jpg_1511036143977.jpeg

Photobucket no longer works for me (I’m not sure about others) comes up with a ‘parse error’. I’ve converted to a live link, but unfortunately I, for one, can’t view it.

Coupon-mad

Yes that's a debt letter as if refers to DRPlus.

Situation-observer seems obsessed with DPA claims, which most cases don't lend themselves to.

jorge_gills

I have contacted the BPA who have looked into the case. Unfortunately they will not take any action as if you read above, I was issued two PCNs which I appealed but only used one POPLA code as I only saw one in my inbox (due to the confusing way my emails are shown in my inbox). They are therefore saying that one PCN is still valid. The operator has also provided the BPA with their landowner authority which was the grounds for the POPLA appeal being successful.

I still have the arguments that the remaining PCN did not comply with PoFA (no NTK ever received) and was for the same alleged breach of contract as the PCN which has been successful with POPLA (as one PCN was in the evening and the other the morning after - the car wasn't moved between these times). Is it worth continuing to argue directly with the BPA?

nosferatu1001

No, because you wont get anywhere
Save your energy for the potetnial LBA or claim form. Read post 2 pof the newbies thread so you are forewarned.

jorge_gills

I have received a letter titled Letter Before Claim, however I wanted to check whether you think they actually intend to proceed with a court claim:

dropbox.com/s/ebrkspg2r8pzneh/Screenshot_20180722-111222.png?dl=0

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

KeithP

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ebrkspg2r8pzneh/Screenshot_20180722-111222.png?dl=0

That's a Letter Before Claim.

You need to respond as described in post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

jorge_gills

I have drawn up this reply based on a few different letters I have seen:

Dear Sirs,

I am in receipt of your Letter Before Claim of 17th July 2018.
I deny any debt to your client. I will not be telephoning you but require further information in writing.

The driver is not identified in your letter and you have written to me as the registered keeper. I am not liable because I do not believe that your client invoked Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 with fully compliant documents.

You cannot presume that I am possession of the evidence referred to in your letter and I require a copy of the Notice to Driver and Notice to Keeper to inspect so that I can make an informed decision. Please send copies of these and any documents that will be produced in the event of your threatened action, including copies of all photographs taken and evidence of the contract itself (clear evidence of the terms on the signs at the time).
Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires your client to provide.

Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.

As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter (and your client, as a serial litigator of small claims, should likewise be aware of them). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind 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. It is astounding that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and unevidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.

I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. What the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
7. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1;establishing yourself as the creditor
8. A plan showing where any signs were displayed
9. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form


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 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Furthermore, I exercise my right under Article 15 of the General Data Protection Regulation to be granted access to all personal data of mine that your client holds as a data controller. I expect this to include:

- The categories of personal data concerned
- The recipients or categories of recipient your client discloses my personal data to
- The necessary processing agreement between UK Parking Limited CSB solicitors, to ensure you are handling my data in a legally compliant manner
- Your clients retention period for storing my personal data
- The existence of my right to request rectification, erasure or restriction or to object to such processing
- My rights to lodge a complaint with the ICO.
- Information about the source of the data your client holds on me
- Information about the existence of automated decision-making (including profiling)
- The safeguards your client provides if they transfer personal data to a third country or international organisation.


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


Anything more/less at this stage?