Late NTK, Unreadable Signage and False PCN

BTailor

Thanks guys - I'm glad I wasn't as off the mark as originally thought and am glad its sparked good debate. I've seen the new thread and can't wait to see the results it bears.

@nosferatu1001 in reference to your earlier point, under the 'PCN 2' heading, it was the confirmation email of the paid up parking that stated no display needed. Hope that clears it up.

BTailor

Letter from Gladstones received with reference to both PCN 2 & 3: "Letter Before Claim" offering the option to fill in an online form so fairy confident it's legit... currently reading through #2 on Newbies post to familiarise with a good response.

The keeper has since found why Euro Parking think they have a case - when the driver entered the VRN into the online payment on both occasions, they used the Letter 'O' rather than the number '0'. However these are indistinguishable when reading a VRN so how on earth would Euro Parking Services know this at the exact time of issuing the PCN without needlessly searching? Would this information be useful to put into the response to Gladstones when a response letter is written by the keeper? When they read that they are picking hairs like that, surely they would look at the case and know it would be futile to follow through? Also, the wrong VRN was used on many occasions with no PCN issued, so obviously EPS were happy enough for the majority of the time.

Thanks as always

nosferatu1001

Yeah, thats the definition of de minimis

POint out that this is so clearly trivial, no court would entertain such a claim. THey should cease misusing the defendants data, as the DVLA was accessed without cause.

BTailor

My thoughts exactly, thank you for the confirmation. Shame it would be futile in fighting the mis-use of data in rebuttal.

nosferatu1001

Dpeends, you could file a counterclaim when they issue their claim. WHich is basically inevitable - yo uneed to prepare for this.

BTailor

Understood. What if they already had the information from a previous PCN received 2 months prior with a NTK issued - is the information transferable in that way?

KeithP

BTailor wrote: »

What if they already had the information from a previous PCN received 2 months prior with a NTK issued - is the information transferable in that way?

If they want to transfer liability to the keeper they must request keeper details from the DVLA for each incident.

Coupon-mad

The keeper has since found why Euro Parking think they have a case - when the driver entered the VRN into the online payment on both occasions, they used the Letter 'O' rather than the number '0'.

Find the 2018 article/CoP update written by the IPC where they say they have banned their members from doing this...

And remember the IPC shared Directors with Gladstones, so...begs the question why there is one rule for Gladstones when doing a robo claim and another when they have their IPC hat on re the CoP.

BTailor

Okay, what do we think by this:

Thank you for your letter referenced: XXX

I have sent your client a SAR and require a restriction on data processing and request the case be put on hold whilst I wait for this to be granted.

When your client intitially contacted myself with the NTK's on the X/3/18 and X/5/18, on both occasions 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 plus photographs of the signage - these communications were sent via email on the X/4/2018 for PCN XX1 and X/5/2018 for PCN XX2 - no such evidence has been provided. Your Letter Before Claim also contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide the sufficient evidence which I requested and that you say your client is satisfied with.

I will bring to your attention the notes provided by your client on a previous SAR:

Note XX1 (X/2/18) "Driver entered registration number wrong on parkconomy as XXOXXXX rather than XX0XXXX"
Note XX2 (X/3/18) "Keeper details imported from DVLA via ZatDVLAMake = XXXModel = XXX CVTColour = XXXXDVLA Notes:"

Note XX3 (X/03/18) "Driver entered registration number wrong on parkconomy as XXOXXXX rather than XX0XXXX"
Note XX4 (X/5/18) Keeper details imported from DVLA via ZatDVLAMake = XXXModel = XXX CVTColour = XXXXDVLA Notes:"

I need not point out to you that not only has your claimant confirmed that the driver had paid in full the charge required for the stay in that car park for the alloted time, showing that there was no loss incurred to your client, but that they are also confirming that they have unlawfully obtained the vehicle details prematurely as the Letter 'O' and the number '0' are indistguishable from each other on the VRN plate; should this claim not be withdrawn, a counterclaim will be issued on this basis.

The IPC has further confirmed in its own code of practice that incorrect use of the letter 'O' or number '0' is not a breach of terms. Further to this a court of law would find this so trivial that the case would be dismissed immediately.

Your letter clearly breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered. Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction.

I am fully aware that Gladstones were 'named and shamed' in a Parliamentary debate on February 2nd 2018, where MPs unanimously clamoured to expose rogue parking firms and their 'cosy relationship' with firms like Gladstones making a mint from their clients' rogue ticketing and unfair fining. Trivial breaches, poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines and aggressive demands for payment have no place in the 21st century and companies like yourself are an absolute disgrace.

I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:
1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. What the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)
5. A copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
6. A copy of any alleged contract with the driver
7. A plan showing where any signs were displayed
8. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.
10. A copy of the IPC Code of Practice inluding 2018 ammendments stating where the letter 'O' cannot be accepted in the place of the number '0' or vice versa.

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20); Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16. I will draw to the court the fact that I have expressly requested this information in early 2017, yet your client has yet to provide it.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Coupon-mad

I would remove this to shorten the response & keep it more 'on point':

Your letter clearly breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered. Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction.

And add to this:

I am fully aware that Gladstones were 'named and shamed' in a Parliamentary debate on February 2nd 2018, and again on Friday 23rd November 2018, where MPs unanimously clamoured to expose rogue parking firms and their 'cosy relationship' with firms like Gladstones making a mint from their clients' rogue ticketing and unfair fining. Trivial breaches, poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines and aggressive demands for payment have no place in the 21st century and companies like yourself are an absolute disgrace.

And with this bit, I would add to it (removing the point about a court of law, concentrating on IPC v Gladstones):

The IPC has advised all its members that minor keying errors should not be deemed a breach of terms and conditions and is publicly telling Councils an private parking firms to cancel PCNs where a single digit error was made (either by rare driver error, or more likely because the keypad was old, faded or faulty).

Kindly explain why this keypad was old, faded and faulty? Because the driver is none of those and the correct VRN was input, using reasonable endeavours to comply when paying for this vehicle.

Further, kindly explain why the IPC and Gladstones are not singing from the same hymn sheet - is it because this is a template robo-claim and Gladstones has not yet bothered to even ask your IPC member what the alleged contravention was?

Or is it because you believe you can sue over this non-issue on the one hand, whilst the IPC tell their members that this is 'not a breach of contract' on the other? Left hand..right hand...? Or do you believe the date of the event(s) matter, and are actually going to expect a Judge to believe that it 'was a breach of contract' in Spring 2018 and now it's suddenly not, because the IPC said so on a certain date?