HX Car park management Ltd

harrys_dad

Hi, have been through the stickies and gone through a few stages. Just got a question now please (apologies if it is covered and I have missed it).

Timeline:

October.. Driver parked for less than an hour and paid for an hour
4 days later PNC received through post
Appealed using template from here.
14 days later appeal disallowed. The key sentence is as follows:

"You entered your vehicle registration as ** (two characters only). as this is not the full, correct registration for your vehicle the ticket is not valid. it is clearly stated on the pay and display machines that "all characters from your number plate must be entered in full and exact". we do have a two-digit allowance in place to allow for human error, meaning up to two digits may be entered incorrectly or omitted completely and a PCN will not be issued, However as you exceeded this allowance you are liable for a PCN. (£60)

Offer given to appeal to IAS, not taken up as advised here.

One month later: "Final demand for payment" received £125.

Two months later (last week): letter Before Claim from Gladstones: (£160).

it appears that advice here is to ignore this "letter before claim" and wait until court stuff appears.

Two questions:

Has the driver followed advice correctly so far, and is it right to ignore this current letter?

Is it worth sending a SAR at this time to collect evidence of arrival and departure if cars during the parking time, together with tickets issued and associated reg numbers?

It seems that in their appeal letter HX have admitted the driver paid for a ticket but that an error putting the reg into the machine means it was not valid. The driver did not later have access to the ticket so could not check what was recorded. The reg does have the letter * in it and it seems that the machine recorded this letter twice and nothing else. perhaps this happened with other cars that day too?

All advice gratefully received, thanks in advance. Apologies if I have missed anything in the stickies.

Fruitcake

I don't believe there is any advice to ignore a LBC on this site, in fact I'm sure it is the opposite and covered in the guide to court written by bargepole that you will find in post 2 of the NEWBIES.
Respond stating amongst other things that their machine is faulty and they are required to prove the contrary is true.
The whole unfit for purpose ANPR system is also faulty as it should not allow a VRN to be entered if that vehicle is not present in the car park.

Definitely send an SAR to the scammers. Include a proof of ID such as copy of V5, but not photo ID.

Don't forget to complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.

harrys_dad

Thanks fruitcake, I knew the driver had missed something. Post #2 does indeed cover that, so a SAR to the operator and an email/letter to Gladstones as per the sticky will be winging their way shortly.

Umkomaas

harrys_dad wrote: »

Thanks fruitcake, I knew the driver had missed something. Post #2 does indeed cover that, so a SAR to the operator and an email/letter to Gladstones as per the sticky will be winging their way shortly.

No, the driver is not involved in any of this now - it is the registered keeper who is being pursued and it's the RK who is to deal with it. What happened on the day concerned the driver, what happens thereafter is the keeper's task.

The letter from Gladstones demanding £160 - to whom does it ask you to pay?

The_Deep

Many judges regard this as a trifle, an extremely common human error, not a real breach of contract at all, and an abuse of process, (goggle it).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

If this ever got to court the PPC may struggle. Complain to your MP.

The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

All five readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 7-8 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

harrys_dad

Umkomaas wrote: »

No, the driver is not involved in any of this now - it is the registered keeper who is being pursued and it's the RK who is to deal with it. What happened on the day concerned the driver, what happens thereafter is the keeper's task.

The letter from Gladstones demanding £160 - to whom does it ask you to pay?

It isn't clear, but all options for payment lead to Gladstones. Four options: Gladstones website; Phone to Gladstones; Cheque payable to Gladstones; Bank transfer to Gladstones.

Umkomaas

harrys_dad wrote: »

It isn't clear, but all options for payment lead to Gladstones. Four options: Gladstones website; Phone to Gladstones; Cheque payable to Gladstones; Bank transfer to Gladstones.

OK, thanks for confirmation - often the Gladstones letterhead is used by Debt Recovery Plus in a further attempt to squeeze money from you. In which case the payment instruction is to pay DRP, and our advice then is to ignore.

However, as it's directly from G's, treat as a Letter of Claim and deal with it as per the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2.

harrys_dad

Sorting the SAR and solicitors' letter right now. One more question. The sticky advice says:

If the car park was Pay and Display, ALWAYS ask for a PDT machine record from that day, of payments made (VRNs can be partially redacted but insist on getting this and follow it up if they refuse).

This was an ANPR controlled car park, but tickets paid for and issued. Is the "PDT machine record" still the appropriate term? I think this is important because I suspect the machine may have been faulty, and many other VRNs may not have been recorded properly.

Is this the record which will show what the driver entered into the machine (the ** referred to in the original post)?

Anything else to ask for that isn't listed in sticky #2?

Thanks again.

Redx

call it whatever you like , as long as its a terminal that somebody obtains a ticket from, commonly known as a pay and display terminal, or PDT

as long as they are aware of what you are asking for, ask for it, whatever terminology you use

I would stick to the common description myself, as they will recognise the intent from all the other SAR,s they receive, dont nit pick at this stage, go with the flow

yes it is the "record"

only what is in the post that is data on the person asking the questions, because they wont allow anything else other than the data they hold on the person and VRM

you can ask the solicitor to comply with the PaP oct 2017 and supply signage and contracts etc, even if they refuse in their reply, ask anyway

Fruitcake

"Is this the record which will show what the driver entered into the machine (the ** referred to in the original post)?"

No, it will what the machine/system recorded, which may or may not have been what was actually entered.

You aver that the motorist entered the full correct VRN but the machine malfunctioned and only recorded two characters. You require them to prove that the contrary is true.

harrys_dad

Redx wrote: »

you can ask the solicitor to comply with the PaP oct 2017 and supply signage and contracts etc, even if they refuse in their reply, ask anyway

PaP oct 2017? What is that please?