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

Umkomaas

A couple of recent threads from people in very similar positions at Meadowhall.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5689146

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5746954

Calvinm

Umkomaas wrote: »

A couple of recent threads from people in very similar positions at Meadowhall.

Thank you, I will have a read through those and draft up a response letter to the LBC as quickly as possible.

The most recent ticket is still within their appeal period so I'm going send that first through the CP Plus online form. As per the recommendation from one of the stickies for responding to a BPA associate, it told me to copy and paste, word for word, this response. Though I feel the "obtaining DVLA information" as not applicable as they have already done that. Should I just take that part out? I assume if this isn't successful I should go through POPLA for this specific ticket? (And of course still drafting up a response to the LBC for all of the older tickets)

"I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.

I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully"

Coupon-mad

Though I feel the "obtaining DVLA information" as not applicable as they have already done that. Should I just take that part out?

Yes, if you want. Don't forget this gets sent in the name of the keeper, not by you. And NOT by letter.

Read other Meadowhall threads carefully, as much has already been said. Here are more:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5711301

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5692583

That last one has a very good POPLA appeal that CP Plus didn't even bother to contest, and talk of an ICO complaint.

If your wife gets a claim even after responding to the SCS letter, this is very defendable. They won't have evidence that she was on duty (not allowed to be shared, DPA breach if so!) nor that she wasn't merely accompanying a family member who was a genuine customer and she happened to be a passenger hopping out to go to work while the family member shopped.

They have no evidence, woeful signs, a NTK that exceeds the £100 ceiling and they can't rely on 'keeper liability'.

So whatever she does, DO NOT tell them who was driving! She needs to spread the word to her colleagues not to wreck their own cases by appealing weakly as driver, or phoning CP Plus up, or SCS Law.

Other victims need to know what not to do, as well as how to respond properly as keeper. Can they set up a Facebook group and make sure no idiot dominates it with daft/wrong advice.

Half_way

As far as i know, and hopefuly i will be corrected if wrong, a prohibitive sign typipcaly consists of a you are not allowed to do.
So No parking for staff, customers only, followed by some guff about parking in-between lines, red cars in red bay, tyre valves at 12 o'clock, maximum stay 3 hours and 7 minutes otherwise you agree to pay a parking charge notice of £100 would typically be displayed.

You can not be held to an agreement to do something that you are not allowed to do

Calvinm

Half_way wrote: »

As far as i know, and hopefuly i will be corrected if wrong, a prohibitive sign typipcaly consists of a you are not allowed to do.
So No parking for staff, customers only, followed by some guff about parking in-between lines, red cars in red bay, tyre valves at 12 o'clock, maximum stay 3 hours and 7 minutes otherwise you agree to pay a parking charge notice of £100 would typically be displayed.

You can not be held to an agreement to do something that you are not allowed to do

Apologies, could you clarify what you mean by this? I don't understand.

KeithP

Calvinm wrote: »

Apologies, could you clarify what you mean by this? I don't understand.

Simply put, all these parking companies rely on offering a contract to park. The driver agrees to the terms of the contract as shown on the signs - for example the driver may agree to pay £100 if they stay longer than 3hrs.

If a sign forbids parking by staff, for example, then that sign is not offering a contract to park.

As a forbidding sign is not capable of offering a contract, there is no way the motorist can possibly agree to the terms - like agreeing to pay £100 for overstaying.

It follows therefore that the motorist cannot be charged the £100 (say) as they haven't agreed to terms.

There's more to it than that, but I hope you get the idea.

Coupon-mad

A forbidding offer is not an 'offer' at all, it's a prohibition on certain parking behaviour. As such, the only remedy is for the landowner to seek damages for trespass (which a parking firm can't, unless they own the land, which they do not).

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html

Does that case help explain?

RobinofLoxley

This situation re Meadowhall and staff being persecuted and 'fined' for having the temerity to park in the general public car parks (12000 spaces) that anyone other person can park in for free and without restrictions was revealed in a thread started on here in August by pinklady0805 (see below).

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5689146

She won at POPLA for the latest PCN she had received following advice received on here but had many PCN's issue in previous months which had past the time limits for POPLA appeals.

The general consensus among staff over the past year or so since Meadowhall/CP Plus started this nasty campaign of punishing their workers, seems to have been to ignore all PCN's/NTK's.

This has led to an almighty mess with workers now facing the possible claims of thousands of pounds.
It's a shame because if tackled properly in the first place with POPLA appeals all these PCN's could have been killed off. The alleged contravention by the drivers is given by CP plus as in the NTD's & NTK's is 'parking in a restricted area'. This doesn't stand up as there is no such condition on the signs and there are no signs are markings in the car parks denoting restricted areas.

A suggestion was made to Pinklady0805 that it might be wise all the affected staff getting together and obtaining proper legal advice due to the large sums involved. I don't know if anything came of that. It might be worth getting in touch with her, she hasn't posted lately.

Calvinm - There was a thread posted last week by 1Sparky that sounds similar to your case.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5746954

It wasn't you that posted under a different name was it?

Calvinm

Coupon-mad wrote: »

A forbidding offer is not an 'offer' at all, it's a prohibition on certain parking behaviour. As such, the only remedy is for the landowner to seek damages for trespass (which a parking firm can't, unless they own the land, which they do not).

Does that case help explain?

Thank you (and to the other commenter also) for that explanation, that did help a lot. What I still don't understand is that can't the car parking company just say "Oh, well the driver agreed to the conditions of the car park by parking there" or would that still be the driver not agreeing to any contract?

Calvinm

RobinofLoxley wrote: »

This situation re Meadowhall and staff being persecuted and 'fined' for having the temerity to park in the general public car parks (12000 spaces) that anyone other person can park in for free and without restrictions was revealed in a thread started on here in August by pinklady0805 (see below).

She won at POPLA for the latest PCN she had received following advice received on here but had many PCN's issue in previous months which had past the time limits for POPLA appeals.

The general consensus among staff over the past year or so since Meadowhall/CP Plus started this nasty campaign of punishing their workers, seems to have been to ignore all PCN's/NTK's.

This has led to an almighty mess with workers now facing the possible claims of thousands of pounds.
It's a shame because if tackled properly in the first place with POPLA appeals all these PCN's could have been killed off. The alleged contravention by the drivers is given by CP plus as in the NTD's & NTK's is 'parking in a restricted area'. This doesn't stand up as there is no such condition on the signs and there are no signs are markings in the car parks denoting restricted areas.

A suggestion was made to Pinklady0805 that it might be wise all the affected staff getting together and obtaining proper legal advice due to the large sums involved. I don't know if anything came of that. It might be worth getting in touch with her, she hasn't posted lately.

Calvinm - There was a thread posted last week by 1Sparky that sounds similar to your case.

It wasn't you that posted under a different name was it?

Thank you for this response, I'll have a look through those threads. Gathering the other affected staff might be difficult because a lot of people aren't taking it seriously due to the prevailing idea that they can just ignore it and it won't matter. That is an avenue I would like to explore because only a large consorted effort can put an end to this.

I'll have a look through that second thread too, and no, it wasn't me, as insanely similar as the case is!