Define "Site Facilities"

pvt

I already have one court case on the boil with PCM and Gladrags, and now another one has dropped through the letter box.

Is it me or are they all desperately firing out MCOLs before new legislation is enacted and the gravy train hits the buffers?

This time it's DRM and a London parking outfit claiming £160 because "Parking only while using site facilities". Once again I was not the driver. They have sent an LBA and seem to be saying they will pursue via PoFA.

It was a Tesco Express, the driver left the carpark to pick something up and came back via the shop and bought some items before leaving well within the 30 mins allowed.

Have tried appealing to store manager but he says, having spoken to the parking company, that they have a bodycam recording of the driver leaving the car park, so cannot intervene, despite the driver being a customer on that occasion.

Tesco claim it is nothing whatsoever to do with them, but cannot explain why the car park sign has their logo on it!

My main issue is that the signage is not explicit. My interpretation of the wording is that you can park there so long as you're a Tesco customer, which the driver was. It doesn't say you cannot do something else as well.

My other point is that if there was an operative using a bodycam to film this, why didn't they say they something to the driver if they believed they were in contravention of the parking conditions. But there wouldn't be any profit in doing that would there.

I've done a search and find comments about 'leaving site' cases being easy to win, but cannot find any examples of sample defences.

Any pointers?

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your latest Claim Form?

pvt

The latest communication from DRP is a "Notice of intended court action", which is dated 13/03.

It says they will now refer it back to their client recommending court action.

I'm not sure if this constitutes an LBA, indeed it may be that DRP and PPS London Ltd don't do court.

Snakes_Belly

DRP is Debt Recovery Plus. It does not appear to be a letter before claim. They usually have some forms to fill in regarding your financial circumstances (this is part of the pre-action protocol). You are not required to give details of your financial circumstances.

fisherjim

pvt wrote: »

The latest communication from DRP is a "Notice of intended court action", which is dated 13/03.

It says they will now refer it back to their client recommending court action.

I'm not sure if this constitutes an LBA, indeed it may be that DRP and PPS London Ltd don't do court.

This is Debt Recovery Plus usual BS letter that is trying to bluff you into paying them their £60 for simply sending frightening (not) letters.


They can't take you to court and in reality they don't want to hand it back as they have failed in their empty threats and will forfeit their no win no fee bunce.


It explains this in the newbies thread.

D_P_Dance

Leaving site may well be an unfair term in a consumer contract. Indeed, one MP voiced the fact that it may be a breach of the Human Rights Act in the House of Commons during a debate on Sir Greg Knight's Bill.

If they took this to court they might struggle.

Complain to your MP. On 18th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these private parking companies. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

DoaM

The "caught on bodycam" scenario is simply a derivation of the situation when a parking operative fails to mitigate loss by not notifying an "offender" of the impact of their intended actions.

And as said above, letters from DRP can be filed but otherwise ignored.

Umkomaas

Read the Ibbotson transcript for some pointers on defending a leaving the site case. Most of the issues still pertain, but Beavis will have put paid to ‘Mitigation of Loss’ in many a Judge’s mind.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231)

DoaM

Umkomaas wrote: »

but Beavis will have put paid to ‘Mitigation of Loss’ in many a Judge’s mind.

Beavis rested on a specific set of facts ... it should be quite easy to differentiate this case from Beavis; for example were there parking operatives in the Beavis case (allowing for an opportunity to mitigate any loss) or simply ANPR cameras? Similarly the T&Cs could possibly be challenged on the basis of being forbidding (no parking for non-customers).

Fruitcake

Check with the council to see if planning permission was given on the proviso that motorists could park and leave to use other shops/facilities.
Also check to see if advertising consent has been approved for the signs. Not having it is a criminal offence.

Complain to the Tesco CEO stating that genuine shoppers are being penalised, and you expect the PCN to be cancelled otherwise you will shop elsewhere in future.
Quote your club card number if you have one, or include receipts/redacted bank/CC statements to show you are (were) a loyal Tesco shopper.

lease also complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.

D_P_Dance

but Beavis will have put paid to ‘Mitigation of Loss’ in many a Judge’s mind.

I hope not. Are you saying that, if a motor cyclist, not wearing a crash helmet, suffers brain damage in an RTA, a judge will discount it is assessing damages?