Help please - have i made a mistake?

nosferatu1001

Yes, its ONE line of a defence, for sure
By reading post 2 of the nebiwes thread you will see all the other elements that can go into basically EVERY defence.

Standupforyourself

Hi Guys

It's been a while!

The registered keeper has received a "legally" looking letter through the post from a PP Legal seeking to recoup a now heavily inflated sum of £170. There is absolutely no way the keeper can afford to pay this sum. The letter threatens to start court proceedings.

What needs to be done?

thanks

Quentin

All advice on dealing with a lbcca or court claim is in the Newbies FAQ thread #2


(Is this legal looking letter a LBCCA? If not then ignore it!)

Coupon-mad

PP Legal are a bit of a standing joke here.

They briefly posted officially on MSE with company clearance (so it really was them) on one thread, boasting that PP have a paralegal 'team' (at least one person...) and that they would now win cases(!) then they ran away, and tried to intimidate this poster on the phone:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75080432#Comment_75080432

So the advice is the same as before, as we beat PP in court and have a general 99% win rate for over two years against all PPC scammers who try a small claim.

If this is a Letter before Claim giving you 30 days, then respond and say you have a POPLA complaint in because the land is not 'relevant land' under the POFA, being under statutory control/council owned.

And do this now, it is not too late and THIS is what can reverse the decision:

Show us your draft complaint to Mr Gallagher the POPLA Lead Adjudictor, citing the above LA Ombudsman finding and asking why POPLA do not understand 'not relevant land' as a concept, and why their Assessor ignored it as it was too hard a subject!

Ask Mr Gallagher when this Assessor and all the team will be re-trained about keeper liability and 'relevant land', in the light of the LA Ombudsman's report which makes it clear that it doesn't matter if the land is 'under statutory control', nor even whether the LA is working in its capacity as a Traffic Authority, OR NOT!

They just have to 'be' a traffic authority who is (under any capacity) 'providing' the space as owner, which is what we have been saying all along...ho hum...

Demand this erroneous decision is revisited, given the Assessor ducked the issue, and demand that the Assessors are re-trained as they are WRONG ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

You MUST complain to POPLA using the words we told you to use - not drafting it yourself saying you disagree with the decision. Needs to be 'the Assessor erred by not considering the POFA and the question of not 'relevant land' etc. And show him the LGO report about that exact issue. How can one Ombudsman service (POPLA) be failing so badly when the other service (LGO) gets it?

Umkomaas

I’m surprised the advised approach to POPLA seems not to have been followed. It was given 11 weeks ago and it could have killed this off.

If it gets to court, the OP would need to be able to argue the ‘not relevant land’ from a position of pretty detailed knowledge, and hope the Judge ‘buys’ it. We’ve seen a case today where a Judge decided they knew better when the defendant argued PoFA. Risky.

@OP - the longer you let this fester, the more sticky it will become. Follow Coupon-mad’s second attempt to guide you in the best direction right now.

The registered keeper has received a "legally" looking letter through the post from a PP Legal seeking to recoup a now heavily inflated sum of £170.

To whom did the letter tell you to pay?

Standupforyourself

Hi

Appreciate the comments about POPLA complaint but how does this help in court?

I will draft POPLA complaint today.

The letter from PPLegal requests the keeper pays PPLegal directly. The letter is called a Notice of Unpaid Parking Charge. Quotes BEavis on there too. Requesting payment with 10 days.

It threatens a Letter of Claim as next steps.

Where the current charge of £170 has come from i dont know?

Standupforyourself

How does this sound:

Dear Sir
I am writing in reference to my POPLA appeal (ref XXXX), carried out by assessor X X, which was rejected on 14th January 2019.
I would specifically like to ask why my point about Ropery Road Car Park not being relevant land was not addressed or rebutted? Did the assessor misinterpret the point I was trying to make?

It would seem apparent to me that there has been a failure of process if the assessor has failed to consider all evidence and points made in the appeal.

I reference the recent Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman case (reference number: 17 004 169) in its case against Kent County Council which makes it clear that it doesn't matter if the land in question is 'under statutory control', nor even whether the Local Authority is working in its capacity as a Traffic Authority, or not. If the land is owner by the Local Authority (which in the case of Ropery Road it is) then it is not relevant land and there can be no keeper liability.

The following clause is taken straight from POFA Schedule 4 - Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges:
Paragraph 1 states:
1(1)This Schedule applies where—
(a)the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land;
And Paragraph 3 states the definition of “relevant land”:
3(1)In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than— (a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980); (b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority; (c)any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

As the land in question is owned by Ilfracombe Town Council and therefore land which is subject to statutory control, this is clearly not relevant land and therefore no obligation to pay parking charges and no keeper liability can exist in law.
Furthermore, as owners of the land, Ilfracombe Town Council is deemed a “traffic authority” by definition:
(2)In sub-paragraph (1)(b)—

• • “parking place” has the meaning given by section 32(4)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;
• • “traffic authority” means each of the following—

(a)
the Secretary of State;
(b)
the Welsh Ministers;
(c)
Transport for London;
(d)
the Common Council of the City of London;
(e)
the council of a county, county borough, London borough or district;
(f)
a parish or community council;
(g)
the Council of the Isles of Scilly.

Standupforyourself

was going to add that i require an urgent response as the keeper is currently being unfairly harrassed for unpaid "fines"

Le_Kirk

If the land is owner by the Local Authority

should be: -

If the land is owned by the Local Authority

Edna_Basher

If you have a close look at the letter you will see that PP Legal is a trading style of PP Management Services Limited (Company Number 11453590).

If you dig further on the Companies House website you will find that PP Management Services Limited and Premier Park Limited have the same directors and common shareholders.

Essentially, PP Legal is just Premier Park in disguise. The company was only formed last July, presumably as a means for Premier Park to trick people into believing that their outstanding parking charge had been referred to a third party for debt recovery / legal action.