Parking Fine - Wise Campus - Bristol

Coupon-mad

There is a link to a template SAR, so just use that to ask for the data you want.

but I have also seen posts where extra wording around these questions above? Is this needed, or can the above be sent in that format?

Use the linked template and email it to their DPO.

Again, apologies for asking, but I have seen allot of references to the "blue template", which when i read seems similar to the above. Are they one in the same?, or, should the Blue Template have been used a stage or two before this?

That's for first stage appeal - you can't appeal now.

In regards to the letter / email to GS, there is no template for this and therefore a couple of sentences stating what you have said above, will suffice?

Yes, by email. If you look at the pre-action protocol for Debt Claims (Google it) and search it for 'debt advice' you will find we use this as a tactic to get 30 days grace to get the SAR, not because you are actually seeking external debt advice. You have us!

Gridiron_Grump

Evening all,

so a quick update from myself.

Sent SAR to UKCPM & also informed GS that I had done so. GS were first to respond with what you say to expect from other posts about initially rejecting:

"Unfortunately we cannot process your request because we can demonstrate compelling legitimate grounds for the processing of your data which override the interests, rights and freedoms of you as an individual. That legitimate interest being that we are acting on behalf of our client for the recovery of monies relating to an unpaid Parking Charge Notice."

But they also granted a PAP extension:

"We will however extend the Pre Action Protocol period by 30 days to 10th June 2019. Please pay or reply by that date. Any reply received outside of the 30 day period may not be considered as legal proceedings are likely to have been issued."

UKCPM were later to reply and requested a little more info (essentially I hadn't put the PCN in the email), so i sent the PCN number and they quickly returned the SAR response (23rd May). This consisted of:

1. There Photo evidence (PCN)
2. There Initial Letter issuing the PCN (Formal Demand)
3. There reminder letter about PCN (Notice to Owner)
4. There response request further info (Response to email)
5. A copy of the SAR letter from the DPO, which was also used in the body of the email itself. (SAR reply)

To expand on 1. Photo's, these were the same as issued, in part, in their first letter (Vehicle entering car park & zoom of Reg No only) and in full on their second letter, which also had the vehicle exiting with a zoom of the Reg No. Both the vehicle entering and leaving were time and date stamped. So essentially 2 'proper' pictures and 2 Reg No zoomed pictures.

In conjunction with the above, I have also sent a lengthy email to the Landowner (SGS), complaining about this situation, siting the Sir Greg Knight bill, informing that if the result of the email did not result in the PCN be cancelled, then I will pursue my complaint further with the Principle of the College, a bunch of Bristol and South Glos MPs as well as the Mayor and Lord Mayor of Bristol. I have had a response today from the Head of Estates at the Campus, asking which event was attended on the date of the PCN. Not sure if this is a good sign, but it's certainly not a dismissal at this stage.

Anyway, thanks again for your continued support to myself and many others on this forum.

Cheers
G_G

Gridiron_Grump

Evening all

I am still awaiting some clear feedback from the college, but today received a court claim letter through the post. Is the next stage to prepare a defence and send it of / email it.

It also noted that the offices are in Northampton, but I assume a court summons would be local and not in Northampton?

Cheers
G_G

KeithP

Gridiron_Grump wrote: »

Evening all

I am still awaiting some clear feedback from the college, but today received a court claim letter through the post. Is the next stage to prepare a defence and send it of / email it.

It also noted that the offices are in Northampton, but I assume a court summons would be local and not in Northampton?

Cheers
G_G

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

If you are an individual, later in the process you get to choose your local court.

Post #8 above suggests where you might find further guidance.

Gridiron_Grump

The issue date on the claim form is June 10th

KeithP

Gridiron_Grump wrote: »

The issue date on the claim form is June 10th

With a Claim Issue Date of 10th June, you have until Monday 1st July to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 15th July 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over a month away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Gridiron_Grump

Couple of curiosity questions:

1. If the vehicle in question is up to be sold, would the new RK need to be notified of this action against the vehicle or would this be irrelevant, as the paperwork and claim is against my name as the current (but could soon be former) registered keeper?

2. I know that declaring the driver of the vehicle (if know) isn't to be done on this forum, but for Devils Advocate sake, if the Judge in court happens to ask you this as a straight up question, one would assume that this would need to be answered with honesty?

KeithP

1. Not relevant. The PPC can only ask the DVLA once per incident for the Registered Keeper's details.

2. You are right. You must answer honestly any question asked in court.


Remember...

...you have until 4pm on Monday 15th July 2019 to file your Defence.

...and we are yet to see any sign of your Defence. Is it ready for filing?
Or perhaps you have already filed it.

Gridiron_Grump

Thanks KeithP

I've been scanning around to find the most finished defenses on here vs UKCPM & GS to use as my base, as many of the Defence statements, in general, on here have start like they would be relevant to me and then the deeper I read they appear to be actually different. Plus the most recent scanning through the forum (since Friday) i have found this extension to the Point 8 section with the 'Abuse of Process', so I want to include this too. So I will go through this and put first draft up later today.

I don't recall seeing any that specifically note change of conditions in their Defence; is there any standard wording for this? I was going to add a link to the Wise website that states when the change took place, but figure that potentially should be referred to in the evidence section (if at all).

Gridiron_Grump

OK, here is first attempt at what I think might be relevant to me based on what I had found:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle registration number xxxxxx on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is denied that any 'parking charges’ are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety because no keeper liability, no cause for action against the defendant. The claimant has failed to show locus standi, the defendant does not believe they have a right to bring an action against anyone.

3. Accordingly, it is denied that the driver breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct as no enforceable contract offered at the time by claimant, no cause for action can have arisen.

4. The Claimant also stated in the Particulars of Claim that ‘the driver became liable for a parking charge’. However, the claimant has failed to provide evidence of that agreement and failed to identify who the driver that it is referring to.

5. Change of Conditions from the landowner, whereby prior to 13th November 2017 there was no fee required to park on the land. This change in restrictions wasn’t clearly, or fairly advertised; especially to any driver(s) that prior to this date were familiar with the car park and cannot reasonably be expected to seek out signage or PDT machine, especially when sparse, unclear or hard to find.

6. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver as the claimant failed to comply with International Parking Company Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’.

7. Photos obtained following a subject access request to the claimant show zero evidence of signage pertaining to the restrictions and regulations of parking on the Landowners property.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

10. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

10.1 Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

10.2 The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

10.3 Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

10.4 According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

10.5 The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

10.6 Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:

''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

10.9 In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

11. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

11.1 The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

Statement of Truth:
I confirm that the contents of this defence are true to the best of my knowledge.

Name
Signature
Date