Court proceedings for auto repair visit

foofcat

One specific point that I could use some help on:

I discharged liability by naming the auto repair shop that was in possession of the vehicle on 19 May last year (by emailing the debt collector and telling them who had the car). The LBC was not issued until 25 July. I am assuming perhaps falsely that PoFA 5.1.2 is referring to court proceedings rather debt recovery proceedings (aka via debt collector). Does anyone know what the definition of "proceedings" is within that part of PoFA? If the former, then I'm fine - if the latter, then I've lost a key point of defence (i.e that I disclosed who had the car at the time before they began proceedings).

Does it matter that it was the debt recovery agents that I discharged liability to, rather than PCM directly?

I think not, because the debt recovery chap's reply was simply that it was too late to transfer and that I was responsible for the debt due to PoFA... rather than telling me to tell PCM that... so I think they were for all intents and purposes acting as PCM's agent / main point of contact at that stage, but I'd appreciate your views on it!

I've just done a timeline from the date of the incident until the claim form was issued and am now going to work on my own version of LOC's PoFA crib sheet before I do the first draft of the WS. I want it to be in my evidence bundle, along with:
- my email exchange with the debt recovery agent
- my own photos showing the Network Rail Bylaw 14 signs and how there is obviously no parking
- FOI responses from Network Rail
- the rest tbc - I need to do a bit more reading / research to figure out where I left things off!

I haven't received anything from them by post and despite my best intentions back when I did my defence statement, I think I'll have to rely on email too... time is too short!

Coupon-mad

I discharged liability by naming the auto repair shop that was in possession of the vehicle on 19 May last year (by emailing the debt collector and telling them who had the car). The LBC was not issued until 25 July. I am assuming perhaps falsely that PoFA 5.1.2 is referring to court proceedings rather debt recovery proceedings (aka via debt collector). Does anyone know what the definition of "proceedings" is

Yes, it is court proceedings, so you are right and in your WS you need to clearly set out the timeline of what you did when, and how you cannot be liable because the right to keeper liability 'ceases to apply' once the keeper has named the actual keeper (in this case on that day it was a driver from the Auto Repair Shop).

Adduce the email as evidence among the other usual evidence. State clearly that this means you cannot be liable, because you were neither driver nor 'keeper' (cite the POFA definition of keeper) on the material date and you transferred liability, which DOES NOT have to be done earlier.

foofcat

Thank you! I will do exactly that. It's reassuring though I think they may try to say I never actually communicated with PCM (true) but rather their debt recovery chaps. Though I wouldn't be surprised if it's part of the same company so they could have easily told PCM that I'd discharged liability.

Struggling on the WS to explain why I never replied to PCM when they sent the NTK or the Keeper Liability Letter. It's all getting a bit wordy and defensive now (honest answer is I didn't get the letters until a bit late and then when I confronted the mechanic they convinced me to ignore it because they were thinking of a pre-PoFA reality and I was too stressed at the time to do my own research - reflects badly on me I know). I don't want to lie on the WS but I also don't want to be written off by the judge early on. Any advice or shall I just post the first draft when I'm finished?

Also struggling to make all of my points and rebut the inaccuracies on the WS they sent me yesterday. Been at it for about 8 hours straight now so more tomorrow.

Thank you again, Coupon-mad!

Coupon-mad

They are NOT the same company.

But Debt Recovery Plus are their agents and say (on their website I think) that they are 'joint data controllers' with their clients. So, what you provided to them MUST have been updated in the data held by PCM, and by not doing so, PCM have in fact breached the DPA.

foofcat wrote: »

Struggling on the WS to explain why I never replied to PCM when they sent the NTK or the Keeper Liability Letter. It's all getting a bit wordy and defensive now.

(honest answer is I didn't get the letters until a bit late and then when I confronted the mechanic they convinced me to ignore it because they were thinking of a pre-PoFA reality and I was too stressed at the time to do my own research - reflects badly on me I know). I don't want to lie on the WS but I also don't want to be written off by the judge early on. Any advice or shall I just post the first draft when I'm finished?

But there are example WS's in the NEWBIES thread that say perfectly happily that these colourful letters were ignored because they smacked of a scam letter. Copy that wording - and anyway you can add that you saw Watchdog where PCM were recorded saying about appeals 'we make it up most of the time':

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/is-it-pcm-uk-who-make-up-stuff-all-time.html

Put that Blog in as evidence too. This scam was on Watchdog in 2015. And it was PCM. No way should anyone be blamed for not 'appealing' to that company.

foofcat

I see. In that case there is a reasonable expectation that as the "data controllers" they would have handled the information accordingly. I'll try to make that explicitly in the statement and will jot it down for my SA notes because I'm not going to make the mistake of assuming the judge has read everything!

I noticed those examples but it feels a bit silly of me to not have robustly sent them a letter denying the charge immediately so I think it's more my internalised kicking of myself that's making it hard to write. I'll try again in the morning and channel those examples plus include the Watchdog thing (which funny enough I had seen before PCM was a bad dream to me!)

Thank you for replying on a Saturday / BH weekend - it's really helped me to stay motivated.

Coupon-mad

but it feels a bit silly of me to not have robustly sent them a letter denying the charge immediately

But PCM would have 'made it up' and rejected ANYTHING you said. It is NOT silly, in fact it is sensible for a person who was NOT in charge of (as driver nor keeper) of the car on the material date, to not respond at first to what appears to be a scam, junk mail, from a notorious ex-clamper firm, previously outed on Watchdog for allowing pretty much NO appeals whatsoever.

I would be proud of not being hooked by the scam, tell the Judge what it is. Call a spade a spade and put that Prankster Blog in as evidence too, so the Judge doesn't pick up on your doubts giving off the vibe: ''oh I should have appealed''.

Just no, you did nothing wrong. No adverse inference can be drawn. Henry Greenslade confirmed that in his words 'Understanding Keeper liability' that many here also adduce in evidence.

The POFA DOES NOT require you to respond, or name the driver, or appeal, NOTHING.

Responding to their debt collection agents was not needed either, but you can explain in your WS that you felt harassed and intimidated by all the demands by that time and decided to name the keeper/driver of the car on the day, in order to transfer liability 'before proceedings commenced' and at that stage, you could ONLY deal with the debt collector agent, who are joint data controllers with their client and MUST have (under the DPA) updated the information for PCM to see that they were pursuing the wrong party in law, from that point on.

foofcat

Okay, I needed that. Been in a rubbish head space lately but what you've said has shaken me out of it. I'll post what I have so far shortly but I'm getting into it, and I'm half tempted to make Georgina P's evidence pack part of my evidence pack because it's so daft and contradictory!

The challenge in writing this is they're wrong on so many fronts, it's a tricky beast to wrangle / be concise with but I'm half way through the first draft (the rest is in notes / outline format so I know what I want to say).

foofcat

Lol. GUYS. I don't want to get too carried away but I just found a DVLA SAR that I requested in September. It shows automated requests made from 2014 onward. There is only one from PCM dated 9 May... this is after the date they sent letters to my name and address (25 Feb, and 5 May).

How did they know what my address was if they didn't access my details (according to DVLA) until 9 May...?

Also confusing is in their evidence bundle (linked to a few posts ago, see their page 12), they have a printout of a DVLA ticket for request of keeper details that's dated 28 Feb... Either that's wrong or the Subject Access Request is wrong.

I wish I'd caught this sooner.

Umkomaas

Why not send a SAR to PCM asking, inter alia, from whom the accessed your data and when? Will be an interesting comparison - and one the DVLA might like to examine if there are discrepancies between their SAR response and PCM's.

foofcat

I will do that I think but no time to do it now because I have to get my witness statement to them by 5 June. I still plan to mention the discrepancy between the DVLA SAR and PCM's witness statement / evidence in my WS... sound okay?

Also I'm stuck on refuting their use of Alder v. Moore. They said:

‘the rules for interpretation require simply that the parties knew of their obligations to one-another. The Defendant was offered to use the Land and thereafter either follow the rules and park for free or in breach of the rules and agree to pay £100. The rules here just so happen to be there was no parking. In the case of Alder v Moore (1961) The court concluded that one should consider the obligations imposed by the agreement, not the terminology used.’

This is in response to me saying there is no contract because their signs show that no parking is permitted anywhere at any time and therefore there was no offer to be breached. Alder v. Moore looks to have been about an injured footballer vs his insurance company..!?

Any ideas on how I can refute this?