Harassment from Civil Enforcement

realh

My father regularly visits a disabled friend and shops for him etc. He often uses a nearby car park to turn the car, and on occasions when he's visited twice in one day he's been sent tickets as if he was parked there the whole time between the two visits.

The first time he explained the situation, and after some hassle (ironically one of the legal firms they've used is called Wright Hassal!) the case was eventually dropped. But they've since sent him at least two more tickets for the same reason, and Civil Enforcement have taken it all the way to making County Court claims.

My father would be quite willing to go to court just for the satisfaction, but I don't think it would be worth it unless he makes a counter-claim. He has a dash-cam, but I'm not sure whether he's kept footage showing that he wasn't in the car park when they claimed, or has other reliable evidence.

What should he do? Can he make a counter-claim for harassment? Get Civil Enforcement in trouble for vexatious claims and/or presenting incomplete and misrepresentative evidence? Should he consult a lawyer? Our understanding is that even if he had been parked there, these sort of disproportionate claims wouldn't stand up in court anyway, and it's incredibly rare for it to be taken that far.

Loadsofchildren123

Our understanding is that even if he had been parked there, these sort of disproportionate claims wouldn't stand up in court anyway, and it's incredibly rare for it to be taken that far.
Wrong.
Welcome to the private parking industry.


The modus operandi of the private parking companies is to blindly pursue each and every ticket, even ones which were clearly wrongly given. The thinking behind that is that 99.9% will pay eventually - either immediately, or mid-way through the hassling letters (which can go on for several years), or when court proceedings are issued. Defended charges are a loss leader, they cost more to pursue than the company recovers, but the very small percentage of people who defend are treated as loss leaders, because they make so much money out of the people who do pay.


CEL is slightly different, in that it very often doesn't pursue well defended cases, but it takes all cases up to the wire, only backing down at the last minute. Recently, we've seen CEL pursuing a few to court, but until 3 or 4 months ago they used to drop every well defended case. A much better MO than the other PPCs, because they don't incur the loss involved (there is a loss even if they win).


He needs to write back to explain clearly why he says no charge is payable, because he never parked, he entered to car park for a very short space of time and never availed himself of the parking (I think I'd avoid saying he went in there to turn round). They have fallen into the trap of "double dipping", which is a well publicised problem with ANPR systems (which sometimes fail to pick up on a car leaving and returning several hours later).


Tell them that the volume of letters being sent, in light of his clear explanation that he was not parked there, constitute harassment and it is a breach of his rights under the Data Protection Act for his data to have been obtained, and for it to be retained, processed and passed to third party debt collectors.


Tell them that they must cease writing to him and must destroy his data and not pass it to any third parties.


Warn them that if they continue to do either then he reserves all his rights to make a claim for damages for their harassment of him pursuant to the Protection from Harassment Act and for their breaches of his data protection rights. Also, if proceedings are issued then he will apply for costs under Rule 27.14(2)(g).


Write that each time he gets a letter, and keep copies so you can show how many times you told them to go away.


Preserve any dash cam footage. Does he have a smartphone and is google maps history turned on (this can be used to show his movements on the day - if he hasn't got that is there anything else to show where he was, eg text messages, till receipts etc)?

realh

Thanks. However, I think there may be a problem with asking them to destroy their data about him, because it could lead to them continuing to send letters for any future incidents. Could he instead ask for his details to be kept on some sort of list of people not to be harassed? Or better to leave them to offend again and then go after them hard with a harassment suit, injunction etc?

Johno100

realh wrote: »

Thanks. However, I think there may be a problem with asking them to destroy their data about him, because it could lead to them continuing to send letters for any future incidents. Could he instead ask for his details to be kept on some sort of list of people not to be harassed? Or better to leave them to offend again and then go after them hard with a harassment suit, injunction etc?

Indeed it is a double edged sword. I can only imagine how many more tickets would get issued if private parking companies couldn't operate 'white lists'.

Coupon-mad

Should he consult a lawyer?

No. We will assist free, and we do this every day. A solicitor not posting here might think 'no loss caused' is a valid argument - it's not - and will not know the nitty gritty of successfully defending a parking claim. LOC123 who replied to you first (above) is a solicitor herself, posting her knowledgeable opinions here free (NB: posters here do not give legal advice).

If he is sure the incidents were 2 visits (what we call a double dip) then he could write a counter claim for maybe £500, so search the forum for counter claim Vidal Hall and you will find an example or two.

Tell him to stop using that car park.

Loadsofchildren123

I agree - if he's just using it to turn round, knowing that they keep issuing tickets, can't he turn round elsewhere, job done (for future tickets)?


They're not going to whitelist him, he may use the carpark to park in and breach the terms. So I'd just ask them to cease processing/retaining his data (they won't anyway).