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

Coupon-mad

We already showed you both those threads, and PKandF's thread too. Please slow down and read the other threads Umkomaas and I already posted & linked, as well as Robin of Loxley's post.

It would be good if the beleaguered staff all got together and followed the same plan.

These are easy to beat at POPLA, and should also be relatively easy to defend if a small claim arises, because:

- the signage is pants - no unambiguous terms about staff parking
- there is no 'restricted zone' on the signage
- there is no evidence that the driver wasn't a customer (they seem to be assuming that a car that's on a staff list can't possibly be driven to the shops by another authorised driver of that car).

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?

But - quite apart from the conditions and boundaries of each car park not being clearly stated on the signs - they don't know who was driving on each occasion. That's a position to protect.

The keeper can't be held liable unless CP Plus have:

- issued a compliant NTK in time, every time, with the right Schedule 4 warnings & words about keeper liability
- made sure the terms and the parking charge are adequately displayed, prominently and unambiguously
- evidence of a contravention, yet there is no 'restricted zone' marked out on lines or signs
- evidence of who was driving, in the absence of POFA compliance.

Umkomaas

Is there anyone who can set up a group Faceache Page arrangement so that people with a common problem can get together ‘virtually’, share ideas and work on a common strategy? It’s the best approach, in my view, otherwise individuals, particularly the vulnerable, naive, academically challenged, are all easy meat to be picked off individually and systematically by the PPC and their lapdog debt collectors/solicitors (whichever they are).

But it does need someone to take the lead on this and get everyone who is affected, fully motivated. Someone needs to stick their head above the parapet.

Umkomaas

Is there anyone who can set up a group Faceache Page arrangement so that people with a common problem can get together ‘virtually’, share ideas and work on a common strategy? It’s the best approach, in my view, otherwise individuals, particularly the vulnerable, naive, academically challenged, are all easy meat to be picked off individually and systematically by the PPC and their lapdog debt collectors/solicitors (whichever they are).

But it does need someone to take the lead on this and get everyone who is affected, fully motivated. Someone needs to stick their head above the parapet for the greater good.

Ryandavis1959

The judge could ASK the OP’s girlfriend in court if she was driving. Are you suggesting that the she commits a criminal offence and lies by manufacturing that she was a passenger? The staff records can be shared with the parking firm as it is part of legal proceedings and therefore exempt from data protection.

It’s clear the OP’s gf is the driver so trying to steer her down a dark path is frankly dangerous and against the ethos of this website.*

For the fines where she was on her day off these need to be robustly defended, although why she didn’t just get them cancelled with POPLA is mind boggling. Have you considered suing whichever website told you to ignore these charges?

OP : considering the sums involved and with how the recent NHS nurses case panned out which is sounding similar to your situation, I strongly suggest you consult with some paid legal advice. The nurses took their advice from forum experts and were badly outmatched in court as for 3K it is highly likely you will be up against a barrister when the time comes. It’s best to get on top of this now rather than trying to draft someone in to help at the 11th hour.

*Got mixed up with Pepipoo, my mistake.

logician

Calvinm wrote: »

I think the debt collector's letter IS a LBC as it reads at the end, "Please note that this letter is to be considered a letter before claim for the purpose of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims".

Calvinm wrote: »

It is indeed Meadowhall. SCS Law were the ones to send the LBC.
.

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.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/pre-action-protocol-for-debt-claims.pdf

I would certainly err on the side of caution and treat this a a letter before claim. SCS are notoriously bad for failing to comply with pre-action protocol and do issue claims...

Umkomaas has linked the new guidelines above now in force. So do read that and make sure you respond to SCS pointing out their errors in this respect.

btw your partner can be a consumer if there shopping when not working..


ETA @ Umkomaas - there seems to be an echo... with your duplicate posts #43 & #44

Umkomaas

I seem to recall but cannot find reading a thread about CP Plus targeting staff and meadow hall.

The thread has been linked a little earlier. The OP, Pinklady0805, hasn’t been back for some time, but I suspect there has been no material progress in her case. I think if this had reached a court hearing we would have heard about it.

Although the link has been posted earlier, for completeness, relevance and to save anyone having to back-scramble, here it is again.

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

KeithP

Calvinm wrote: »

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?

Building on my earlier response, as the signs are forbidding, there can be no contract between the parking company and the driver.

One could argue that by parking there, effectively ignoring the 'no parking' signs, the driver is trespassing.
That is nothing to do with the parking company.

Only the landholder can sue for damages for trespass.
The parking company cannot do that.

Even if the landowner was minded to sue for damages for trespass, the damage is going to be insignificant.

We then get into the principle de minimis non curat lex: the law does not concern itself with trifles.

In other words, there is no money in it for the parking company, or anyone else, if the signs are forbidding.

Johno100

Ryandavis1959 wrote: »

The judge could ASK the OP’s girlfriend in court if she was driving. Are you suggesting that the she commits a criminal offence and lies by manufacturing that she was a passenger? The staff records can be shared with the parking firm as it is part of legal proceedings and therefore exempt from data protection.

Firstly it would be quite useful if you could quote the text you are responding to.

Secondly, the issue isn't down to whether she was the driver or passenger, she could quite legitimately have parked her car there on a non-working day and not breached the parking conditions, something the PPC don't seem to have factored in to their blacklisting and ticketing of vehicles.

As regards the staff records, you may be correct if the OP's girlfriend worked for the shopping centre/managing agents for whom the PPC are acting. But seemingly she doesn't, she works for one of the tenants who occupy a unit there, so how would the PPC be entitled to obtain personnel records from a third party? I suppose they could try for a Court Order but I imagine that would not be cost effective in these circumstances.

RobinofLoxley

Umkomaas wrote: »

The thread has been linked a little earlier. The OP, Pinklady0805, hasn’t been back for some time, but I suspect there has been no material progress in her case. I think if this had reached a court hearing we would have heard about it.

Although the link has been posted earlier, for completeness, relevance and to save anyone having to back-scramble, here it is again.

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

In Pinklady0805's thread she did say 2 of the workers had received court papers from Business Centre, Northampton re a claim by CP Plus for £1200. That was back in July and I haven't heard or seen anything to know if these claims are still going ahead.

Coupon-mad

Ryandavis1959 wrote: »

The judge could ASK the OP’s girlfriend in court if she was driving. Are you suggesting that the she commits a criminal offence and lies by manufacturing that she was a passenger?

OP : considering the sums involved and with how the recent NHS nurses case panned out which is sounding similar to your situation, I strongly suggest you consult with some paid legal advice. The nurses took their advice from forum experts and were badly outmatched in court as for 3K it is highly likely you will be up against a barrister when the time comes. It’s best to get on top of this now rather than trying to draft someone in to help at the 11th hour..

Your post is alarmist, again. This is unfair on the OP, who needs to know a Judge will almost certainly NOT ask who was driving, and if they do, no adverse inference can be drawn from a keeper choosing to defend/not letting the driver have to experience this level of intimidation.

Or do you disagree with barrister and parking law expert, Henry Greenslade?

CP Plus do not use POFA-compliant NTKs in most cases, and even if by some miracle they had here, the t&cs and site boundaries if there is an alleged 'restricted area' are not clearly set out/marked out, as has been seen from the photos in other threads.

And they have no evidence of who parked/where that person went.

Do you feel that people who work there can't be shoppers on their days off?

Do you think their families are not allowed to bring the car to that shopping centre, just because the VRN is on a staff list?

What if the staff member sells the car on a Friday, and before they've gone back on shift the following week to update their VRN data (if they even know they should do, because I doubt anyone tells them it's important) over the weekend the new driver has gone shopping at Meadowhall?

You think CP Plus are OK to randomly scattergun PCNs out at anyone who dares to shop using the car that is/was the property of a staff member?

Wow, once again you've shown us very clearly, which side of the fence you are on.

The staff records can be shared with the parking firm as it is part of legal proceedings and therefore exempt from data protection.

Rubbish, at the point of issuing a PCN there are no 'legal proceedings'.

This entire predatory anti-consumer rip-off needs exposing and exploding, in the media, and with ICO complaints pouring down on Meadowhall for divulging staff data.

I hope the book is thrown at them both, this is indefensible, but you've tried hard.