Shopping centre private car-park sent threatening letter invoicing for £3000

Calvinm

Johno100 wrote: »

So if you work at a shopping centre and you (or another driver of the vehicle) goes to the centre for there own personal business on their day off they're meant to park in the staff car park?

No, you only have to park in the staff car park if you are on-duty that day.

Johno100 wrote: »

To be clear are the tickets (at least the latest one) for her being a staff member and parked in the customer car park or for overstaying the time limit on the car park?

Apologies for not being clear, the tickets are for her, as a staff member being on-duty, parking in the customer car park. But I don't think they had access to if she was ACTUALLY on-duty, but they have her car reg on a list of staff members so they have just been issuing tickets. Lots of these have also been handed out to her co-workers.

Half_way

the signs in that car-park specifically state "This car park is private land and is for the use of Meadowhall Shopping Centre customers only. No parking for on-duty staff members"

Get a photo of that Sign as soon as possible, the No parking for... is whats known as a prohibitive sign, and should be extremely favourable to your case

pappa_golf

Calvinm wrote: »

What I mean is, I don't think the people issuing out these tickets had access to that information. All they have is a sheet of registration plates of staff members there and just hand out tickets based on what matches, regardless if they are actually on duty or not. Or would time sheets be allowed to be accessed if this did go to court?

then the whole system is flawed

you state it says "No parking for on-duty staff members"

thats not a whitelist , thats a BLACKLIST , , complete with owners name and address

I sence 2 problems here

1: have they contacted the DVLA for the required info ON EVERY OCCASSION

2: under data protection , are the shopping centre not at fault here , as pointed out , one car , many drivers

Johno100

Calvinm wrote: »

No, you only have to park in the staff car park if you are on-duty that day.

That's what I'd have thought, Pappa Golf's post reads like they have a different take on things.

Apologies for not being clear, the tickets are for her, as a staff member being on-duty, parking in the customer car park. But I don't think they had access to if she was ACTUALLY on-duty, but they have her car reg on a list of staff members so they have just been issuing tickets. Lots of these have also been handed out to her co-workers.

Sounds extremely petty, but of course they are only interested in finding ways to make money, has your girlfriend and her co-workers expressed their displeasure with the situation to their employer?

Calvinm

Umkomaas wrote: »

They are an offshoot of LPC Law and tend to act in a debt collection capacity. But they let the mist as to whether they are pursuing as solicitors or as debt collectors confuse and pressurise people they are chasing. Our advice is to err on the side of caution and respond as if this is an authentic LBC from them - especially given the size of the potential claim.

However, to help you, any debt LBC issued from 1/10/17 has to follow the new PaP and issuers have to provide the defendant with a whole raft of new information which doesn’t make it quite so easy for them to be dishing out LBCs. So read up on this and when you send a robust response to the LBC (example available in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2) you list anything and everything you want from them in order for you to understand their claim and look at ways to resolve it.

...

Well it could do, the onus would be on CPP to prove she was at work, but it would ultimately need a judge to decide, who could ask the simple question ‘Were you or were you not at work on those dates/times?’ I don’t need to remind you that telling porkies in court isn’t anyone’s best plan.

Thank you for the clear and helpful response.

The examples posted in the NEWBIES FAQ Sticky, post #2 don't exactly fit this situation, for example, we have not previously requested information as this is our first response, so I'm going to assume I have to alter this slightly?

(e.g.

"When your client's debt collectors first started contacting me, I asked them for details of the basis upon which money was being claimed, including all photographs taken of the vehicle at the relevant time. Extraordinarily, I was told (in blunt terms) by [name of debt collectors] that no such evidence would be provided "until this gets to court" [try and reproduce the exact words used]. "

Does not apply to this)

I've had a look through the pre-action protocols and was a bit overwhelmed by the information so I would just like a bit of clarification. So I am just reading the LBC I got and am looking for things that are on the protocol list but are not in the letter and then requesting this information. Once I get a response, how can I use this information to help me? (e.g. details of the signage in the car park, photographic evidence of the car, proof that the driver was on-duty, any written contract with the driver (though they did say in the letter that the driver agreed to a contract by using the space) -- are these useful things to ask for?)

Umkomaas

has your girlfriend and her co-workers expressed their displeasure with the situation to their employer?

I think there’s been much more than displeasure being expressed. The local press have been on to the problem.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/staff-facing-18-000-parking-fines-claim-amid-row-over-car-park-at-meadowhall-1-8728630

But we’ve yet to see (as far as I know) any case getting to the county court, despite the size of some of the potential claims.

Calvinm

Half_way wrote: »

Get a photo of that Sign as soon as possible, the No parking for... is whats known as a prohibitive sign, and should be extremely favourable to your case

I do have a photo of the sign but cannot post it due to being a new user. If you google 'meadowhall private car park' you will see the exact one as the second result.

"This car park is private land and is for the use of Meadowhall Shopping Centre Customers only. No parking for on-duty staff members, contractors or Park & Ride Users."

What is the nature of a prohibitive sign and how does this help our case?

Calvinm

pappa_golf wrote: »

then the whole system is flawed

you state it says "No parking for on-duty staff members"

thats not a whitelist , thats a BLACKLIST , , complete with owners name and address

I sence 2 problems here

1: have they contacted the DVLA for the required info ON EVERY OCCASSION

2: under data protection , are the shopping centre not at fault here , as pointed out , one car , many drivers

I'm not sure data protection is the issue here. Meadowhall get all staff to register if they want to use the staff car park which is why they have all of their car reg plates. I believe this list gets given to a member of staff handing out tickets (though they don't get given rotas to ascertain if they are on-duty on that particular day).

Umkomaas

Calvinm wrote: »

Thank you for the clear and helpful response.

The examples posted in the NEWBIES FAQ Sticky, post #2 don't exactly fit this situation, for example, we have not previously requested information as this is our first response, so I'm going to assume I have to alter this slightly?

(e.g.

"When your client's debt collectors first started contacting me, I asked them for details of the basis upon which money was being claimed, including all photographs taken of the vehicle at the relevant time. Extraordinarily, I was told (in blunt terms) by [name of debt collectors] that no such evidence would be provided "until this gets to court" [try and reproduce the exact words used]. "

Does not apply to this)

I've had a look through the pre-action protocols and was a bit overwhelmed by the information so I would just like a bit of clarification. So I am just reading the LBC I got and am looking for things that are on the protocol list but are not in the letter and then requesting this information. Once I get a response, how can I use this information to help me? (e.g. details of the signage in the car park, photographic evidence of the car, proof that the driver was on-duty, any written contract with the driver (though they did say in the letter that the driver agreed to a contract by using the space) -- are these useful things to ask for?)

You can adapt the template, but if you want to flash up a draft here someone will offer some thoughts - we have a couple of lawyers who are often on the forum who might be able to advise.

In terms of what you request and how you use it. Firstly, the request for anything and everything is to give them a big hurdle to get over. If they haven’t got it, or don’t provide it, it works in your favour in due course should it get to court.

If they do provide it, you go through it with a fine tooth comb and use any ambiguity or omissions to help your case.

You’ve got plenty to go on for the moment - you’re not going to resolve this overnight, hunker yourself down for a long run.

Calvinm

Johno100 wrote: »

That's what I'd have thought, Pappa Golf's post reads like they have a different take on things.

Sounds extremely petty, but of course they are only interested in finding ways to make money, has your girlfriend and her co-workers expressed their displeasure with the situation to their employer?

Co-workers are very unhappy about it and there has been some recent local press about it. I don't know if their employer would get involved or if they even could. Every single staff member has received multiple tickets even if they are not on-duty that day. I think a couple of them have also received some debt collecting letters for larger sums but I'm not certain.