Received four LBCCCs from ParkingEye - advice sought

Libber

Hi all,

My wife has received four "letters before county court claim" from ParkingEye (with another two expected in the near future), and we would like advice on how to proceed. She works for a large retailer, and a few months ago she was temporarily posted to a store in a retail park. Her employer has an agreement with the retail park that permits its employees to use the site's car park without regard to the rules that apply to non-employees. Before starting work at the new store, she sent ParkingEye (which is contracted to enforce the car park's rules) a message from her work email account, as instructed by the store's operations manager, notifying them that she would be working at the store and giving them her car's registration number. ParkingEye sent an automated acknowledgement of this notification. Despite this, she subsequently received six Parking Charge Notices relating to her use of the site's car park. Upon receiving these notices, she appealed against one of them using ParkingEye's web form, received an automated acknowledgement, and had the appeal rejected because she'd stayed over the car park's 4 hour maximum stay limit; presumably they didn't bother to read the documents appended to the appeal saying that she worked at one of the shops on the site.

Around a month after receiving the Parking Charge Notices, she received a series of Letters Before County Court Claim. Upon receiving the first of these letters, she again wrote to them using her work address, explaining that she worked at one of the stores in the retail park, and got the store's manager to email them saying the same thing; we have copies of both emails. However, we have not yet received any acknowledgement of these emails from ParkingEye, and are not sure how we should proceed from here. As of today, it has been 14 days since we received the first two LBCCCs, and six days since the store's manager wrote to ParkingEye asking them to withdraw their demands.

Should we follow the advice given here and send them a Letter of Acknowledgement complaining about their non-compliance with the Practice Direction, or simply reply to them using the "Reply Form" that they provided with the LBCCCs, and enclose copies of the email sent by the store manager telling them to drop their demands?

Loadsofchildren123

That advice is outdated, it's from 2013. The Practice Direction it refers to was amended after that and no longer has an Annex A.


There is also now, since 1 Oct, a new Pre-Action Protocol applying specifically to debt claims. My understanding from this forum is that PE ignores it, claiming that these are not "debt" claims (although they clearly are). If there argument is right, the old Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct continues to apply (but in its most up to date form, not the one referred to in your link). But you refer to a "reply form" which indicates that perhaps they are now making some attempt to comply with the Protocol.
you can find the Protocol here
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/pre-action-protocol-for-debt-claims.pdf
and the Practice Direction here
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct
Even where the new Protocol applies, parts of the PD still apply to debt claims, as referred to in the Protocol.


You do need to respond to the LBCs. Your response will depend on what the LBC says, are you able to scan it to a hosting site like dropbox, tinypic etc and then post a "broken" link on here for one of the regulars to convert? (you post the link, change http to hxxp because as a newbie you are not allowed to post links, one of us then copies it, changes it to a live link and re-posts it).


Have you read the newbies thread? This tells you what to do and takes you to precedents.
Whether or not PE are purporting to comply with the Protocol (or the PD) I can confidently say that they will not be complying with it properly. The purpose of the PD and the Protocol is to allow a defendant to an intended claim is to understand the claim and how it will be proved, and so that they can then respond properly to it, and the parties can then engage, understand each other's position and at the very least narrow the issues or better still try to settle. Your case is on all fours with this - it allows you to say "hang on a minute, I had express permission to park there, you were provided with my number plate, which you acknowledged. You issued a pcn without cause, there was no contract with you because my employer had granted me the right to park there (which you acknowledged in your acknowledgement of my email). Here are all the documents to show you. etc etc."


In the real world, a Claimant would see that there is no case and bingo, the PD has achieved its aim.


In the world of parking, however, the business model is to carry on regardless and try to intimidate you into paying, which many people see as being much less hassle than fighting through court.


Can't your wife get the employer to take this up on her behalf - they are the ones who told her she could park there!


Slightly different scenario, but if you read my Admiral staff car park thread it might give you some pointers about the employer's liability to help sort this out (search my user name and it gives you the option to find any threads I've started).

Umkomaas

Excellent response and advice LOC.

Libber

Thanks very much for the helpful response, LOC. I've uploaded pictures of one of the LBCCCs here, as suggested: https://imgur.com/a/P98C0

As regards getting the wife's employer to take up her case, as I said, the manager of the store in question wrote to ParkingEye asking them to drop the charges six days ago, and my wife just sent him a follow-up email asking whether ParkingEye have responded yet. If they don't respond, we plan to ask the store manager to talk to the site manager (who works for the retail park's owners) to see if he can get them to back off.

Coupon-mad

Email PE reiterating the position and attaching scans of all the LBCCCs, plus proof that she works there. Maybe even forward the acknowledgement email trail that you mention here:

Before starting work at the new store, she sent ParkingEye (which is contracted to enforce the car park's rules) a message from her work email account, as instructed by the store's operations manager, notifying them that she would be working at the store and giving them her car's registration number. ParkingEye sent an automated acknowledgement of this notification.

I would use that email exchange as the base for the complaint email (in her name not yours, her email account). The reason for attaching ALL the LBCCCs now, is to make them look at all the cases and not miss one when they cancel them and crawl back under their stone.

PE's LBCCC and court stage email addy is:

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

She should word it that this is now harassment, it is wholly unreasonable conduct and say that her store manager has already contacted PE a week ago, to get these cancelled but she is attaching all the LBCCCs to ensure ParkingEye don't miss any when cancelling them and apologising...*



*she can but try!

Libber

Hi all, I've drafted a letter for my wife's responses to the LBCCCs, and we'd greatly appreciate it if any of you could give it a once-over before we send it; we've got to send it by the 6th of January to comply with the 30-day deadline.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing with regard to the Letter Before County Court Claim that you sent me on the 7th of December, 2017 (your reference number: #########). In that letter, you claim that I breached the parking terms and conditions at XXXX Retail Park on the 14th of October 2017. I deny that any such breach occurred, and dispute the entirety of the claimed debt.

No breach of the terms and conditions occurred because I work for BigRetailer, and at the time of the claimed breach, I was working at the XXXX Retail Park BigRetailer store, i.e. the BigRetailer store in the retail park where the supposed breach occurred. BigRetailer's lease at the retail park permits its employees to use the car park in the course of their work without regard to the standard parking terms and conditions. You have been repeatedly notified of my status as an employee of one of the XXXX Retail Park stores, and of my consequent entitlement to use the retail park’s parking facilities in the course of my work, but have chosen to ignore these notifications.

You were first notified of my status as a BigRetailer employee by email on the 20th of September (see Supporting Document 1), three weeks before the claimed breach occurred. The notification email specified my car’s registration number and asked that it be added to the list of employee vehicles exempt from the standard parking regulations, in accordance with BigRetailer's agreement with the retail park. You acknowledged receipt of this notification by email, also on the 20th of September (see Supporting Document 2).

Despite having been thusly notified of my status as a BigRetailer employee entitled to use the XXXX Retail Park parking facilities without regard to the standard terms and conditions, you issued me with six Parking Charge Notifications during October and November of 2017 relating to my use of those parking facilities. I again notified you of my status as an employee of the XXXX Retail Park BigRetailer store by appealing against these notifications online, using the web form found at http://www.parkingeye.co.uk/appeal. You again acknowledged receipt of these appeals on the 22nd of October (see Supporting Document 3), but rejected them on the 6th of November because I had stayed at the car park for more than four hours (see Supporting Document 4); I can only assume that you did not actually read the documents included in the appeal explaining that I worked at one of the retail park’s shops and was parked in accordance with the terms of my employer’s lease.

You subsequently sent me six Letters Before County Court Claim following on from the Parking Charge Notifications mentioned above. I once again emailed you explaining that I am a BigRetailer employee, and therefore was not in breach of the XXXX Retail Park parking terms and conditions (see Supporting Document 5); again, you acknowledged receipt of this notification (see Supporting Document 6). The senior manager of the XXXX Retail Park BigRetailer store, Mr. Manager, also wrote to you at this point, clearly stating that I was employed at the XXXX Retail Park BigRetailer store at the time of the claimed breaches, and asking you to withdraw your charges and send confirmation of having done so (see Supporting Document 7). You have not responded to this email.

In light of the above, I ask that you withdraw all six of your Letters Before County Court Claim relating to my use of the XXXX Retail Park parking facilities (reference numbers: ########, ########, ########, ########, ########, and ########) and send me confirmation of having done so. Once again, I deny that I have ever breached the parking terms and conditions at XXXX Retail Park, and deny that any associated debt exists.

Yours sincerely,
Mrs. Libber

Is that suitable? We will of course be enclosing copies of all the emails mentioned in the letter, including that from the store manager.

Ralph-y

i would suggest you all so have a look through some threads re DPA breeches .... as a counter claim ...

as they have clearly (IMHO) accessed your information with out due cause ...

Ralph:cool:

Coupon-mad

I've drafted a letter for my wife's responses to the LBCCCs, and we'd greatly appreciate it if any of you could give it a once-over before we send it; we've got to send it by the 6th of January to comply with the 30-day deadline.

Please don't post it as a letter...NEVER NEVER post things to PE's black hole of a postbox. It's why I gave you their email.

It's a very good response, but have PE even given you 30 days? I am surprised if so, they pretend theirs are not 'debt claims' and have been giving only 14 days to reply to a LBCCC recently.

Libber

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Please don't post it as a letter...NEVER NEVER post things to PE's black hole of a postbox. It's why I gave you their email.

It's a very good response, but have PE even given you 30 days? I am surprised if so, they pretend theirs are not 'debt claims' and have been giving only 14 days to reply to a LBCCC recently.

I was planning to do both - email to enforcement@parkingeye (with the supporting documents attached in a PDF) and registered mail to their postal address. I know it's redundant, but the LBCCC we received says "if you wish to contact ParkingEye, then you must do so within 30 days of the date at the top of this Letter Before Claim using the enclosed Reply Form," and we'd have to use the post to return the reply forms.

Coupon-mad

No such thing as Registered mail or Registered post (went out in the 1960s or 1970s I think!).

If you mean signed-for Recorded or Special delivery - NONONONONONO.

Never expect a PPC to sign for post, that they can obviously REFUSE! No!!

Post 1st class at the PO counter (not postbox) and ask for a free certificate of posting. And email!

the LBCCC we received says "if you wish to contact ParkingEye, then you must do so within 30 days of the date at the top of this Letter Before Claim using the enclosed Reply Form,"

Interesting, so they HAVE changed their LBCCCs very recently to include the reply form.

Libber

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No such thing as Registered mail or Registered post (went out in the 1960s or 1970s I think!).

If you mean signed-for Recorded or Special delivery - NONONONONONO.

Never expect a PPC to sign for post, that they can obviously REFUSE! No!!

Post 1st class at the PO counter (not postbox) and ask for a free certificate of posting. And email!

Haha, I suppose that shows how often I use physical mail! First class with certificates of posting it shall be.

Ralph-y wrote: »

i would suggest you all so have a look through some threads re DPA breeches .... as a counter claim ...

as they have clearly (IMHO) accessed your information with out due cause ...

Ralph:cool:

I think you're onto something here. Based on the information here, "to obtain keeper data electronically, PPCs must sign a standard Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract with DVLA. This KADOE contract allows PPCs to obtain keeper data for the “reasonable cause of seeking recovery of unpaid parking charges.” The KADOE contract attaches several other conditions to providing data access, including: ... that before making each request, the parking company has gathered evidence to demonstrate it has reasonable cause to request the data."

It seems clear to me that since ParkingEye were notified of my wife's entitlement to use the car park well in advance of the claimed breaches, they should have known full well that they had no reasonable cause to access her personal data. I'll add a paragraph to the letter to that effect - my current draft is as follows:

Furthermore, because you were notified of my status as a worker at one of the XXXX Retail Park stores three weeks before the events that prompted you to send me the six Parking Charge Notices mentioned above, your use of my personal data to send those Notices constitutes a clear breach of the Data Protection Act (1998): since you had been notified in advance of my entitlement to use the XXXX Retail Park in the course of my working duties, you did not have the reasonable cause to obtain my personal data required by the Data Protection Act. Moreover, your repeated baseless demands for payment have caused me considerable distress. Consequently, I require you to immediately cease and desist processing my personal data, and to send me written confirmation of having done so; I have sent a Section 10 Data Subject Notice to this effect to your company secretary.