Help! Have followed advice so far...but worried

Lotuslady

OK, will do,
haven’t been back to the “site” in a few months, and won’t get a chance until mid-January as over some 300miles away from my home, in my families county, but have pikky taken as part of a video that clearly shows this from September 2019.
Though I will recheck when there in Jan 2020... Me and my daughter did notice that on our last visit a few months back that more new signs (not at the entrance however) have since been erected!

Fruitcake

If the parking scammer is an IPC ATA member but the signs showed the BPA roundel at the time of the alleged event, then a complaint should be made to the DVLA with proof because this is a breach of the DVLA KADOE contract with the scammers.

This is the BPA roundel that we are talking about.



This is the IPC roundel.



From the DVLA KADOE contract.

PART C
USE OF THE DATA

C1. Signage, Terms & Conditions and Correspondence

C1.1. The Customer shall ensure that signage, terms and conditions of service for parking customers and correspondence with data subjects comply with the Law and with the requirements of the ATA’s Code of Practice or Conduct.

You should also use this in your defence because the scammers misused your data by not complying with the DVLA's data requirements.

Lotuslady

Thanks Fruitcake,

Have just put in a complaint via Resolver to the DVLA as their seems to be no direct way of doing it except via the post.. which is very retro these days...!
Up to 2 weeks it seems before I may get a reply, though maybe up to a week!

Thanks again

Fruitcake

The DVLA must have a Contact Us page and a complaints process. You will be much better making a direct complaint than using a third party who may not understand the process.

edit.

I put "DVLA complaints process" into a search engine and it's come back with numerous hits for both online and postal complaints.

Lotuslady

Thanks Fruitcake,

Not to seem ungrateful, but I did go through all the links and “process” of starting a complaint online so as to attach the damning evidence quickly, and it seems all I could find was a way to either complain about them the DVLA itself, or a postal address which I’d prefer not to do at this stage...
Have used Revolver before for something else (who seem fairly well briefed on car parking charges) and at least that way I could attach my images which do get sent to the DVLA.. will see what transpires in the meantime and if necessary will go direct to DVLA if this doesn’t work.

Thanks again

Lotuslady

Any further pointers or advice gladly appreciated, hopefully am about there now!

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It appears that the Claim relates to a purported debt as the result of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXX when it was parked at XXXX

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay in the alleged car park referred to as XXXX by the Claimant.

3. It is denied that the Claimant's signage sets out the Terms and Conditions in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must not be parked outside of a designated area/parking bay and if unsure to please contact CPM for which a premium rate telephone number of 0845 463 5050 is given which "In failing to properly declare the premium rate call charges immediately adjacent to the 0845 number the signage also stands in breach of Ofcom's "Condition Binding non-providers" (aka the "UK Calling" changes) that came into effect on 1 July 2015."

4. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. This is in breach of the IPC Code of Practice.

5. Paragraph 14.3 of the IPC Code of practice advises Operators that they may use Equipment, technology and systems camera to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable , consistent and transparent manner. This information is not at all mentioned on the Claimant’s signage and the Claimant is therefore in breach of this Code of Practice.

6. No street lighting covers the car park or the signage at the entrance and no additional lighting has been installed to aid drivers in seeing theses signs.
It is therefore again denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating any legally binding contract whatsoever. The IPC Code of Practice states “If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours the operator should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting”. This is therefore in breach of the IPC Code of Practice.

7. The signage displayed within the “car park” itself (seen by the Defendant at a later date ) is not visible to any driver that is parked in the initial 2-3 bays nearest the entrance and hence would not ever be seen by a person leaving their car and walking towards the Co-op shop sited there or the retail park beyond (they would have no reason to walk in the opposite direction unless parked there). This is in breach of the IPC Code of Practice which states that any additional signs must “a) be in sufficient number so that they are clearly visible to Motorists on the Controlled Land”

8. The signage displayed at the entrance area also has the BPA Approved Operator Scheme roundel logo on it which can only be used by approved operators of the scheme. It appears that the Defendant is a member of the IPC Accredited Operators and not the BPA. Therefore the Defendant has misused my data by not complying with the DVLA’s data requirements under the KADOE contract which states “C1.1 The Customer shall ensure that signage, terms and conditions of service for parking customers and correspondence with data subjects comply with the Law and with the requirements of the ATA’s Code of Practice or Conduct.”

9. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

10. The signage makes no mention of the Claimant’s authority to manage the alleged car park, to issue tickets or to pursue charges to court in their own name

11. The amount claimed by the Claimant is an unconscionable amount and an abuse of process. 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 plus interest, for which no calculation or explanation is given other than it being “contractual costs” and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. The amount is also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, schedule 2 “terms that may be unfair”.

12. In a very recent case District Judge Taylor dismissed a case from the Claimant that included a false amount of £60 due to abuse of process.
(Claim number is F0DP201T District Judge Taylor, Southampton Court, 10th June 2019)

13. Additionally, District Judge Grand has recently concluded that an additional sum such as the Claimant is seeking to recover is knowingly inflated and and the Claimant is not entitled to recover it (F0DP163T, Southampton Court, 11th July 2019)

14. The Defendant was suffering with PTSD at the time that the Parking Charge Notice was received and during the lead up to the Claim Form N1SDT being issued by the Claimant. The Notice To Keeper sent by the Claimant contained very confusing wording as to the timescales regarding appeal of the Parking Charge Notice which could easily have been misunderstood. The Defendant therefore appealed within a 28 day time frame which she thought was in time. This is the timescale recommended by the BPA’s code of conduct (Appeal was rejected as being outside of the recommended 21 day period). There was also no mention of appeals being considered in extenuating circumstances at any point. The Defendant had somehow misplaced the letter and not seen it to even open it until 17th October 2018. As a result this claim has been exceedingly vexatious from the very outset, having a detrimental effect on the defendant’s mental, emotional and physical wellbeing and overall health. Especially as further “Demand for outstanding Payment” letters were received in the interim.

15. 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. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

16. 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, regardless of whether a Defendant is suffering from a mental health condition or not.

17. 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 attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.


I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

MrMercury

Witness statement below.. I probably need to change 'I' to 'the defendant' throughout, but grateful for comments on the content.

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT (name of your local court)
Claim No.: [INSERT claim number]

Between

xxxxxx (Claimant)

-and-


[YOUR NAME] (Defendant)


_____________________

WITNESS STATEMENT
_____________________


I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

1. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the vehicle having been parked at xxxx on xxxxxx . xxxx are arguing I was bound by unknown terms creating a contractual charge, yet this £100 was not a term known or agreed at the point of making the contract (neither when parking, nor when inside the xxxx)

2.1 As a regular visitor to the xxx the defendant did park in this car park 3 weeks previously with no problem. As evidence I submit copies of bank statements showing the regular transactions 3+ a month in the previous months although I also pay cash too, exhibit 1.
2.2. No street lighting covers the car park or the signage at the entrance and no additional lighting has been installed to aid drivers in seeing theses signs. It is therefore again denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating any legally binding contract whatsoever. The IPC Code of Practice states “If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours the operator should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting”. This is therefore in breach of the IPC Code of Practice.
2.3 On the date of parking, it was a dark night with limited lighting in the car park. As evidence I submit photos of the ANPR pictures Exhibit 2. Being a very small and dark car park I was watching pedestrians as I parked my car and did not notice the new signage from my car.
2.4 After parking the car I was watching the other cars as I made my way across the small dark car park with my 7 year old child and again didn’t see the recently installed signage as we kept to the edge to avoid the cars.
2.5 No-one in xxx made me aware of the recent change to parking and the need to complete an electronic registration or of a parking charge risk.
2.6 xxxx Trade Body of Conduct states that a grace period should be considered to allow regular visitors to the site to familiarise themselves with the changes. As evidence I submit a copy of the relevant section from their code of conduct, exhibit 3
2.7. Upon receiving the PCN, I immediately visited xxx and was asked by the manager to send across the PCN and VRN and he would cancel. As evidence, I submit a letter from the manager stating that I am a regular customer, that I was a paying customer on the date in question and that he instructed xxx to cancel the PCN, exhibit 4.
2.8 On my next to visit to xxx 2 weeks later, the manager verbally confirmed he asked xxx to cancel the PCN. I asked where the keypad was to input my details, which was then lifted off the floor behind the counter so I could input my VRN. As evidence, I submit a copy of my bank statement showing the transaction on xxxx, exhibit 5.
2.9 I notified xxx that I was a genuine patron of xxxx with a bank statement showing the transaction and that the manager has confirmed back to them that he has cancelled, and that they should check with him/her.
2.10 On my next visit to xxx on xxxx I again asked for the keypad only to be told by the manager that he has switched it off as xxx are harassing his customers and driving them away.
2.11 As further evidence that I was a genuine patron I attach a copy of my bank statement, exhibit 6.
2.12 The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
2.13 The signage makes no mention of the Claimant’s authority to manage the alleged car park, to issue tickets or to pursue charges to court in their own name
3. It is trite law that a contractual term cannot be relied upon that is only communicated after conclusion of a contract, as that is too late to be incorporated into the prior agreed terms.
4.1 Denning LJ in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] held that the courts should not hold any man bound by such a condition unless it was ''drawn to his attention in the most explicit way'' and that the contract takes place when the payment is made.
4.2 In this case, the xxxx staff member should have made it very clear that the VRN must be input as there was an obligation with a penalty risk hanging over me if I did not.
5 The amount claimed by the Claimant is an unconscionable amount and an abuse of process. 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 £82 plus interest, for which no calculation or explanation is given other than it being “contractual costs” and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. The amount is also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, schedule 2 “terms that may be unfair”.
6 In a very recent case District Judge Taylor dismissed a case from the Claimant that included a false amount of £60 due to abuse of process.
(Claim number is F0DP201T District Judge Taylor, Southampton Court, 10th June 2019)
7. Additionally, District Judge Grand has recently concluded that an additional sum such as the Claimant is seeking to recover is knowingly inflated and and the Claimant is not entitled to recover it (F0DP163T, Southampton Court, 11th July 2019)
8. 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. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
9. 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.
10. 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 attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

I believe the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.



Signature of Defendant:

Date:

KeithP

The DVLA's complaints email address is in post #5 of the NEWBIES thread.

Coupon-mad

You must have posted this in the wrong thread, MrMercury.

Please delete it from here as this is unfair on LotusLady.

MrMercury wrote: »

Witness statement below.. I probably need to change 'I' to 'the defendant' throughout, but grateful for comments on the content.

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT (name of your local court)
Claim No.: [INSERT claim number]

Between

xxxxxx (Claimant)

-and-


[YOUR NAME] (Defendant)


_____________________

WITNESS STATEMENT
_____________________

xxxx


Signature of Defendant:

Date:

Redx

Seems to me the thread was hijacked for no reason

I suspect that lotus lady (the OP) is at the defence stage