Parking Tickets clarification, I have read the newbie form

Coupon-mad

Is the other one about a different PCN, different PPC? Start a new thread if so.

360ollie

here is my draft for the notice regarding a verbal contract:

Dear Sirs,
Re Parking Notice:…
I am responding to you and your client’s allegations holding the Keeper of the vehicle or any named driver liable for this Parking Charge Notice dated “…” on “…”.Your claim is misconceived and will fail on two separate grounds. The first being that: Two Verbal contracts had been created which was witnessed by myself and two Third Parties accompanying me and that Loading and Unloading is not considered Parking.
On entry to the premises I was with two witnesses who were there to help me move my belongings. I had spoken to an employee working on behalf of TPS operating the access barrier regarding loading/ unloading personal belongings. He stated that “it was okay to enter but I would be limited to one hour for loading purposes”, in which I agreed to his verbal terms, I therefore continued to enter the premises WITHOUT being handed a Temporary Parking Notice. The first Verbal Contract had been created and witnessed by Third Parties.
Upon entering a bay, I had seen two Traffic Wardens who were in the process of ticketing other vehicles. I had pulled up next to one of the two Wardens and questioned whether he would ticket me for not having a Temporary Parking Notice, in which he replied, “NO I will not ticket you, however you should have been given a Temporary Parking Notice by the barrier operator”. He continued to then make a defamatory remark against the barrier operator. At this point the second verbal contract had been created, witnessed by the Third Parties in the back of the vehicle.
The Vehicle was parked round the back of the campus due to no availability of places to park in the main car park (which is still on the land owned by your client).
Myself and the two witnesses went on to load my belongings. 15 minutes had passed and upon return I had been issued a Parking Charge Notice, despite being only 15 minutes within the 1-hour time limit and being verbally told on two occasions, that I would not be ticketed for loading purposes.
In any event, it would be considered that not one, but two verbal contracts agreed upon from operators of Total Parking Solutions, witnessed by third parties would be sufficient evidence to void your claim against the keeper of the vehicle or any named driver. Furthermore, looking at the case of ‘JOPSON v HOME GUARD SERVICES’, Appeal case number B9GF0A9E on 29/9/2016, the Judge held that “loading/unloading is not parking”. As the vehicle was used for loading purposes, I strike out your claim as this judgement provides you no reasonable prospect of success.
Any further threats of legal action regarding Parking charge notices from the firm you represent (I E Legal Solicitors) or your client (Total Parking Solutions) will be considered harassment/ Trespass in which I will sue.

Regards

360ollie

@coupon, similarly I have received two more Parking charge notices from the same company on later occasions, however the photos do not provide evidence that I was on private property- the photos only show the number plate and parking notice, - I have also received another legal action letter for one of the two latest PCN's.

is there a defence I can draw upon for not providing adequate photographic evidence for parking on the property of should I incorporate these latest two in the previous charge regarding verbal agreement? the latest two happened about 15/20 days after my first PCN.

firstly could my first dispute which states that further contact with me will be seen as a tortious act of trespass/ harassment stop them from proceeding with other legal action?
or should I state that I entered into a verbal agreement with the barrier operator stating that upon entry he failed to provide me with a temporary parking notice on every occasion?

Thanks!

Coupon-mad

could I state that I entered into a verbal agreement with the barrier operator stating that upon entry he failed to provide me with a temporary parking notice on every occasion?

Yes, if each occasion was an agreed brief stop for unloading or loading (not parking) and add that the PPC's own employee also had a conversation and made a promise that you would not be ticketed and acknowledged that the fault lay with the University security.

Your defence - should you need a court defence - can include 'promissory estoppel' (search this forum for such a defence). There might be a relevant example already linked in post #2 of he NEWBIES thread, already written, that you can crib from, about someone relying on prior permission.

However for now, work on that letter and see what others say, it need a bit of work, and should include wording about promissory estoppel (so search the forum for those words used by someone before you - change the search to 'show POSTS' never 'threads').

And this isn't well worded; a plural should be followed by 'were' not 'was':

The first being that: Two Verbal contracts had been created which was witnessed by myself and two Third Parties accompanying me and that Loading and Unloading is not considered Parking.

I would also refer to the other 2 PCN numbers as well - in the heading - so the solicitor is aware there are 3 PCNS in play. You should state that any claim should be for all three charges in one claim, unless they are cancelled outright (as they should be). Otherwise, to pursue and attempt to recover three separate claims for essentially the same issue, would be a waste of the court's time and an abuse of court process, as well as harassment of, and extra costs caused, to a litigant in person.

360ollie

excellent, thank you @Coupon, I will make the amendments tomorrow and will post the new template around 10am tomorrow!
thanks for your help!

360ollie

@Coupon here if the final draft, I have amended and added Promissory Estoppel as well as case law (judgement more relevant),
my structure may be a little off,

Dear Sirs,
Re Parking Charge Notice’s: ...., ... and ....
1.
I am firstly responding to you and your client’s allegations holding the Keeper of the vehicle or any named driver liable for Parking Charge Notice’s dated ‘10/05/2017’ observed at the time of ’12:45’. Your claim is misconceived and will fail on two separate grounds. The first being that: a Verbal Contract had been created between me and the two Total Parking Solution (TPS) operatives, witnessed by two Third Parties accompanying me. The second being loading and unloading a vehicle is not considered Parking.
On entry to the premises I was with two witnesses who were there to help me move my belongings. I had spoken to an employee working on behalf of TPS operating the access barrier regarding loading/ unloading personal belongings. He stated that “its okay to enter but I would be limited to one hour for loading purposes”, in which I agreed to his verbal terms, I therefore continued to enter the premises WITHOUT being handed a Temporary Parking Notice. The first Verbal Contract had been created and witnessed by Third Parties.
Upon entering a bay, I had seen two Traffic Wardens who were in the process of ticketing other vehicles. I had pulled up next to one of the two Wardens and questioned whether he would ticket me for not having a Temporary Parking Notice, in which he replied, “NO I will not ticket you, however you should have been given a Temporary Parking Notice by the barrier operator”. He continued to then make a defamatory remark against the barrier operator. At this point the second verbal contract had been created, witnessed by the Third Parties in the back of the vehicle.
The Vehicle was parked round the back of the campus due to no availability of places to park in the main car park (which is still on the land owned by your client).
Myself and the two witnesses went on to load my belongings. 15 minutes had passed and upon return I had been issued a Parking Charge Notice, despite being only 15 minutes within the 1-hour time limit and being verbally told on two occasions, that I would not be ticketed for loading purposes.
In any event, it would be considered that not one, but two verbal contracts agreed upon from operators of Total Parking Solutions, witnessed by third parties would be sufficient evidence to void your claim against the keeper of the vehicle or any named driver. Furthermore, looking at the case of ‘JOPSON v HOME GUARD SERVICES’, Appeal case number B9GF0A9E on 29/9/2016, the Judge held that “loading/unloading is not parking”. As the vehicle was used for loading purposes, I strike out your claim as this judgement provides you no reasonable prospect of success.

2.
My response to Parking Charge Notice: ... (12/05/2017 observed at the time of 12:15) and .... (31/05/2017 observed at the time of 15:05)
Both the Keeper of the Vehicle and Named Driver (s) deny all liability to both Parking Charge Notices and that your claim is misconceived and will fail on the grounds that: A verbal agreement was made with the barrier operator, operating the barrier on behalf Total Parking Solutions. Stating that the driver would not be issued a PCN for loading purposes, this was witnessed by two Third Parties. As well as reminding you that loading/ unloading is not considered parking, stated by the judge in the case of ‘JOPSON v HOME GUARD SERVICES’, Appeal case number B9GF0A9E on 29/9/2016, where “loading/unloading is not parking”.
Furthermore I will add, that the driver(s) depended on an implied promise stated by the barrier operator operating on behalf of TPS, in the case of‘Hughes v Mertropolitan railway (1877)’ Lord Cairns states “-if the parties to a contract- enter upon a course of negotiation which has the effect of leading one of the parties to suppose that the strict rights arising under the contract will not be enforced, or will be kept in suspense, or held in abeyance, the person who otherwise might have enforced those rights will not be allowed to enforce them where it would be inequitable having regard to the dealings between those parties.”
The statements made by the Barrier Operator working on Total Parking Solutions premises were clear and unambiguous; they were relied upon by the driver(s) (Promisee).
3.
In addition to the above disputes I argue that any claim should be for all three charges in one claim, unless they are cancelled outright (as they should be). Otherwise, to pursue and attempt to recover three separate claims for essentially the same issue, would be a waste of the court's time and an abuse of court process, as well as harassment of, and extra costs caused, to a litigant in person.
Regards


1) is for the first PCN regarding verbal agreements with wardens and barrier operator
2) is also the same on two other occasions, however it only includes the barrier operator working on the premises of TPS

Many Thanks!

Coupon-mad

Change:

Traffic Wardens

to

your employees



and change:

(which is still on the land owned by your client).

to

(which is still on the land where your client purports to have authority to operate).



and change:

As the vehicle was used for loading purposes, I strike out your claim as this judgement provides you no reasonable prospect of success.

to

Given the fact that the vehicle was used for loading purposes and was authorised to do so without a permit, should your clients proceed with a vexatious and misconceived claim, I will ask the Court of its own initiative, to exercise its inherent powers to summarily dispose of issues which do not need full investigation and trial, pursuant to CPR Rule 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1, namely to strike out the claim under CPR Rule 3.4 or, in the alternative, to summarily adjudge it pursuant to CPR Rule 24.



and change

statements made by the Barrier Operator working on Total Parking Solutions premises were clear and unambiguous; they were relied upon by the driver(s) (Promisee).

...to remove talk of it being TPS' premises. We are willing to bet that they do NOT own the land.

Now you know that TPS are not the landowners (they never are) you may be able to amalgamate the points so you don't need #1 and #2, because essentially your defence is the same to all.

You could end it more strongly (this only has legs if they obtained your data as keeper from the DVLA, not if you gave them your name/address in some very early appeal):

Kindly ensure that your client is informed that I was at ALL times, authorised to park for an hour to unload. Take note that it is my intention to counter-sue, if these unwarranted charges are not cancelled forthwith. Should your client proceed with this claim, which patently has no basis in law and displays a negligent want of any cause of action against me, I will file a counter-claim for not less than £500 (per PCN incident) in compensation for distress caused by their unwarranted demands arising from misuse of my data, obtained from the DVLA without reasonable cause.

Further, I would like to draw your attention to a judgment at the Leeds County Court, 3SP00071 - Blamires v LGO. This was a claim for damages including a matter of a breach of the DPA, for which an award of £2,500 was granted as compensation for distress. As is now relatively well known, the DPA’s original drafting appeared to preclude compensation for distress alone, but the Court of Appeal, in Vidal Hall & ors v Google [2015] EWCA Civ 311, it was held that this was contrary to the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and that, accordingly, there was a right under the DPA to claim compensation for “pure” distress.

The award in Blamires was of “Vidal Hall” compensation, with the judge saying there was ''no doubt in my mind that the data breaches have caused distress to the claimant in their own rights as well as as a result of the consequences that flowed.'' The judge awarded a further £2,500 aggravated damages because of the manner in which the Defendant conducted its case, including the fact that, notwithstanding being told by the Claimant that its conduct/data was wrong, it took nearly two years for the Defendant to admit the mistake.

As you will be aware, the general costs rule in Small Claims is that there is no costs order. However, in support of my own counter-claim, I must remind you that under CPR Rule 27.14(2)(g):

''costs can be awarded where a party behaves unreasonably''.

I refer your client to paragraph 16 of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct:
''a party who has not complied with its pre-action obligations can be ordered to pay costs (even if the party has succeeded in its claim/defence) and there is also a power to remit/increase interest.''

It is my intention to claim punitive costs, pursuant to CPR Rule 27.14(2)(g) and I will not restrict those costs to £19 per hour (the usual LiP rate). I intend to seek recompense for the hours I have wasted on this at a rate of £60 ph (being approximately 50% of costs of a grade D fee earner) which I consider to be eminently reasonable, given the circumstances described in dealing with three series of unwarranted threats of court, causing significant distress.

Your client has hereby been informed that their claim is misconceived, bound to fail and that they are wrong to continue to process my data.

I expect to hear from you within 14 days to confirm that all charges are withdrawn. All letters exchanged will be used in evidence in court.

360ollie

Amendments made and information added, we had not given any details to them regarding information about names and addresses, it must have been all obtained through the DVLA so I have added that section to the dispute!
so the last thing I need to do now is email this to I.E Legal Solicitors and wait for there response?
I have only been issued 2 threats for legal action, however they have sent me 3 PCN final demands, should I keep it at three because I have no doubt they will send me the 3rd/final one soon

Thanks for your help @Coupon, you've been brilliant!! :beer:

final draft with amendments:
Dear Sirs,
Re Parking Charge Notice’s:....
1.
I am firstly responding to you and your client’s allegations holding the Keeper of the vehicle or any named driver liable for the Parking Charge Notice’s. Your claim is misconceived and will fail on two separate grounds. The first being that: a Verbal Contract had been created between me and the two Total Parking Solution (TPS) operatives, witnessed by two Third Parties accompanying me. The second being loading and unloading a vehicle is not considered Parking.
On entry to the premises I was with two witnesses who were there to help me move my belongings. I had spoken to an employee working on behalf of TPS operating the access barrier regarding loading/ unloading personal belongings. He stated that “it’s okay to enter but I would be limited to one hour for loading purposes”, in which I agreed to his verbal terms, I therefore continued to enter the premises WITHOUT being handed a Temporary Parking Notice. The first Verbal Contract had been created and witnessed by Third Parties.
Upon entering a bay, I had seen two of your employees who were in the process of ticketing other vehicles. I had pulled up next to one of the two Wardens and questioned whether he would ticket me for not having a Temporary Parking Notice, in which he replied, “NO I will not ticket you, however you should have been given a Temporary Parking Notice by the barrier operator”. He continued to then make a defamatory remark against the barrier operator. At this point the second verbal contract had been created, witnessed by the Third Parties in the back of the vehicle.
The Vehicle was parked round the back of the campus due to no availability of places to park in the main car park (which is still on the land where your Client purports to have authority to operate).
Myself and the two witnesses went on to load my belongings. 15 minutes had passed and upon return I had been issued a Parking Charge Notice, despite being only 15 minutes within the 1-hour time limit and being verbally told on two occasions, that I would not be ticketed for loading purposes.
In any event, it would be considered that not one, but two verbal contracts agreed upon from operators of Total Parking Solutions, witnessed by third parties would be sufficient evidence to void your claim against the keeper of the vehicle or any named driver. Furthermore, looking at the case of ‘JOPSON v HOME GUARD SERVICES’, Appeal case number B9GF0A9E on 29/9/2016, the Judge held that “loading/unloading is not parking”. Given the fact that the vehicle was used for loading purposes and was authorised to do so without a permit, should you clients proceed with a vexatious and misconceived claim, I will ask the Court of its own initiative, to exercise its inherent powers to summarily dispose of issues which do not need full investigation and trial, pursuant to CPR Rule 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1, namely to strike out the claim under CPR Rule 3.4 or, in the alternative, to summarily adjudge it pursuant to CPR Rule 24
Furthermore I will add, that the driver(s) depended on an implied promise stated by the barrier operator operating on behalf of TPS, in the case of‘Hughes v Mertropolitan railway (1877)’ Lord Cairns states “-if the parties to a contract- enter upon a course of negotiation which has the effect of leading one of the parties to suppose that the strict rights arising under the contract will not be enforced, or will be kept in suspense, or held in abeyance, the person who otherwise might have enforced those rights will not be allowed to enforce them where it would be inequitable having regard to the dealings between those parties.”
2.
In addition to the above disputes I argue that any claim should be for all three charges in one claim, unless they are cancelled outright (as they should be). Otherwise, to pursue and attempt to recover three separate claims for essentially the same issue, would be a waste of the court's time and an abuse of court process, as well as harassment of, and extra costs caused, to a litigant in person.
Kindly ensure that your client is informed that I was at ALL times, authorised to park for an hour to unload. Take note that it is my intention to counter-sue, if these unwarranted charges are not cancelled forthwith. Should your client proceed with this claim, which patently has no basis in law and displays a negligent want of any cause of action against me, I will file a counter-claim for not less than £500 (per PCN incident) in compensation for distress caused by their unwarranted demands arising from misuse of my data, obtained from the DVLA without reasonable cause.
Further, I would like to draw your attention to a judgment at the Leeds County Court, 3SP00071 - Blamires v LGO. This was a claim for damages including a matter of a breach of the DPA, for which an award of £2,500 was granted as compensation for distress. As is now relatively well known, the DPA’s original drafting appeared to preclude compensation for distress alone, but the Court of Appeal, in Vidal Hall & ors v Google [2015] EWCA Civ 311, it was held that this was contrary to the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and that, accordingly, there was a right under the DPA to claim compensation for “pure” distress.
The award in Blamires was of “Vidal Hall” compensation, with the judge saying there was ''no doubt in my mind that the data breaches have caused distress to the claimant in their own rights as well as as a result of the consequences that flowed.'' The judge awarded a further £2,500 aggravated damages because of the manner in which the Defendant conducted its case, including the fact that, notwithstanding being told by the Claimant that its conduct/data was wrong, it took nearly two years for the Defendant to admit the mistake.

As you will be aware, the general costs rule in Small Claims is that there is no costs order. However, in support of my own counter-claim, I must remind you that under CPR Rule 27.14(2)(g): ''costs can be awarded where a party behaves unreasonably''. I refer your client to paragraph 16 of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct: ''a party who has not complied with its pre-action obligations can be ordered to pay costs (even if the party has succeeded in its claim/defence) and there is also a power to remit/increase interest.'' It is my intention to claim punitive costs, pursuant to CPR Rule 27.14(2)(g) and I will not restrict those costs to £19 per hour (the usual LiP rate). I intend to seek recompense for the hours I have wasted on this at a rate of £60 ph (being approximately 50% of costs of a grade D fee earner) which I consider to be eminently reasonable, given the circumstances described in dealing with three series of unwarranted threats of court, causing significant distress.
Your client has hereby been informed that their claim is misconceived, bound to fail and that they are wrong to continue to process my data.
I expect to hear from you within 14 days to confirm that all charges are withdrawn. All letters exchanged will be used in evidence in court.
Regards

Coupon-mad

I have only been issued 2 threats for legal action, however they have sent me 3 PCN final demands, should I keep it at three because I have no doubt they will send me the 3rd/final one soon

Yes, include all three.

I saw a typo here:

should you clients proceed with a vexatious and misconceived claim, I will ask the Court of its own initiative,

And this bit - below - is a bit buried, it is important and should be the start of a new paragraph, and you need a line gap between paragraphs to break up your wall of text a bit, throughout:

It is my intention to claim punitive costs,

And as we are a community of pedantic gits here, please remove the greengrocer's apostrophe here because it makes me say 'ouch'!

Parking Charge Notice’s

My adult kids got me this book as a stocking filler last Xmas, how we laughed...

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/!!!!ing_Apostrophes.html?id=qyxQDQAAQBAJ&source=kp _cover&redir_esc=y

''the perfect gift for any pedant''

360ollie

Excellent! I have sent an email to them, now just need to wait for their reply! Will keep you updated on how it goes!

Thank you for your help!