Issued a PCN from both the council AND private parking company.

aled247

I appreciate your help thank you, sorry I misread some of it as I thought a phone call to my local authority would suffice, I now know it does not.


I will send them a SAR via email first thing tomorrow morning.


Thank you for your help, I really do appreciate it. I will keep you updated.

aled247

Hello Coupon-mad I am back sorry.


So my local authority has sent me all the evidence after my SAR (thank you so much for this i'd never even heard of it) and it shows me parking in the exact same area and being given a parking ticket by the local authority.
As my SAR asked for ALL tickets in the area it also shows another couple of tickets from parking too long on the exact road that Gs solicitors are alleging their client owns in their own evidence above (the red lines drawn on the map of the road).
Should I send ALL pcn's and evidence to them as it includes the road or just the one that relates to that area I am parked in?
I can send you my SAR evidence if it would help.

The_Deep

If the solicitors are trying to claim illegally report them to their regulatory body here.

http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page

Also complain to your MP as nine times out of ten these tickets are scams.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. 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, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but 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.

aled247

Ok so I have an update and a bit lost where/what to do next as I genuinely believe they are not being true somewhere.



So I sent them the evidence from my SAR showing I had received a parking ticket from my local authority (Greenwich council) from parking in the exact same area and therefore it was not private land and actually local authority controlled.


I heard nothing from them since that date back in July until today, almost 4 months later I have received an email from them stating this. This is the email word for word.


''Dear

Thank you for your correspondence and we sincerely apologise for the delay in our response.

Our Client was instructed to overtake issuance of charges at the site for the period of 20 July 2019 until 02 August 2018 therefore the charges incurred were valid and remain outstanding for the amount of £320.

The amount is due within 60 days of this email, in the absence of payment or a response after this time we are instructed to issue proceedings without further notice.

Please be aware an updated Letter Before Claim has been issued to reflect the change in time given.

Kind Regards

[FONT=&quot](Her name here)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Litigation Assistant[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Gladstones Solicitors Limited[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Just a quick point, I believe she meant July 2018 not July 2019, not important just thought I'd bring it up before questions are asked.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] I have not replied to this yet.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What do I do next?
[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Reply and say:

Dear {Girlie's name},

Thank you for your email and your apology for the absence of a prompt response; a failure which is duly noted. However you have also failed to narrow the issues and explain your client's position and your email is slapdash at best, in terms of details and information.

1. You say:
''Our Client was instructed to overtake issuance of charges at the site for the period of 20 July 2019 until 02 August 2018 therefore the charges incurred were valid and remain outstanding for the amount of £320.''

Questions:
1(a) What do you mean by 'overtake'? This only has one meaning and it's not correct in the context of your sentence.

1(b) Who instructed your client?

1(c) This is Council land covered by a Traffic Order, so how did the client get around that niggly issue, given it is illegal to issue fake PCNs on Local Authority land?

1(d) What do you mean by those dates as they make no sense, so please provide evidence of the dates and details of this 'instruction'.

1(e) what checks have you/your client undertaken, to be able to say these 'non-TMA penalty' unlawful PCNs are ''valid'' on Local authority land?


2. You say:
''The amount is due within 60 days of this email, in the absence of payment or a response after this time we are instructed to issue proceedings without further notice''.

Questions:
2(a) Who is it your client thinks monies are ''due'' from, given the fact that Local Authority land is not 'relevant land' under the POFA?

2(b) are your clients relying on the POFA and if so, how do they work that out?

2(c) Payment will not be happening, not least because the sum is imaginary and the added £60 per PCN is an attempt, as usual, at double recovery (you and I both know that). Go on then, how does your client arrive at the ludicrous sum of £320?

2(d) I contend this is a 'revenge claim' because your client has lost the contract (wonder why?) and no longer has any signs up. Send me pictures of the signs they reckon were up at the material times.

2(e) I contend the car was not moved in between, so this was only one 'period of parking' under the POFA 2012 definition. Explain why your client has issued two unlawful PCNs for one perfectly legitimate parking event on Council land?

Conclusion:
The PCNs are unlawful.

I'd suggest it's time to take this one out of the robo-claim pile and actually obtain some specific details from your client. Send me every piece of evidence your clients intend to rely upon, before proceeding further, including a map of the boundaries where they say they were 'instructed' to issue PCNs, proof of the dates and a copy of that instruction.

You have 60 days to respond and you are reminded of the 'overriding objective' under the CPRs and your duty under the PAP for debt claims.

Regards

aled247

Thank you Coupon-Mad, I will send this response shortly and update you with any response.

aled247

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Reply and say:

Dear {Girlie's name},

Thank you for your email and your apology for the absence of a prompt response; a failure which is duly noted. However you have also failed to narrow the issues and explain your client's position and your email is slapdash at best, in terms of details and information.

1. You say:
''Our Client was instructed to overtake issuance of charges at the site for the period of 20 July 2019 until 02 August 2018 therefore the charges incurred were valid and remain outstanding for the amount of £320.''

Questions:
1(a) What do you mean by 'overtake'? This only has one meaning and it's not correct in the context of your sentence.

1(b) Who instructed your client?

1(c) This is Council land covered by a Traffic Order, so how did the client get around that niggly issue, given it is illegal to issue fake PCNs on Local Authority land?

1(d) What do you mean by those dates as they make no sense, so please provide evidence of the dates and details of this 'instruction'.

1(e) what checks have you/your client undertaken, to be able to say these 'non-TMA penalty' unlawful PCNs are ''valid'' on Local authority land?


2. You say:
''The amount is due within 60 days of this email, in the absence of payment or a response after this time we are instructed to issue proceedings without further notice''.

Questions:
2(a) Who is it your client thinks monies are ''due'' from, given the fact that Local Authority land is not 'relevant land' under the POFA?

2(b) are your clients relying on the POFA and if so, how do they work that out?

2(c) Payment will not be happening, not least because the sum is imaginary and the added £60 per PCN is an attempt, as usual, at double recovery (you and I both know that). Go on then, how does your client arrive at the ludicrous sum of £320?

2(d) I contend this is a 'revenge claim' because your client has lost the contract (wonder why?) and no longer has any signs up. Send me pictures of the signs they reckon were up at the material times.

2(e) I contend the car was not moved in between, so this was only one 'period of parking' under the POFA 2012 definition. Explain why your client has issued two unlawful PCNs for one perfectly legitimate parking event on Council land?

Conclusion:
The PCNs are unlawful.

I'd suggest it's time to take this one out of the robo-claim pile and actually obtain some specific details from your client. Send me every piece of evidence your clients intend to rely upon, before proceeding further, including a map of the boundaries where they say they were 'instructed' to issue PCNs, proof of the dates and a copy of that instruction.

You have 60 days to respond and you are reminded of the 'overriding objective' under the CPRs and your duty under the PAP for debt claims.

Regards

They have responded today with the below? Sorry about the constant asking but it is all very helpful to me. What would you advise?


Dear


Thank you for your correspondence.

I have answered your queries in numerical order below.

1(a). My apologies this was an error, I meant take over.

1(b) Our Client is instructed by Rendall and Rittner.

1(c) The freeholder provided permission for our Client to issue charges at the site, the permission ceased when the Council started to monitor the land hence the previous period of 20 July 2018 - 20 August 2018.

1(d) See above.

1(e) Our Client is employed by the freeholder, as the owner of the land they are entitled to employ the services of a company they feel will benefit the land. Further, the Council allowed our Client to issue charges on the land.

2(a) The contract was formed between the driver and our Client.

2(b) They are, the notices sent were PoFA compliant.

2(c) T [FONT=&quot] he IPC code of practice Part E Schedule 5 confirms [/FONT][FONT=&quot]‘Parking charges must not exceed £100 unless agreed in advance with the IPC. Where there is a prospect of additional charges, reference should be made to this where appropriate on the signage [/FONT][FONT=&quot]and/or other documentation. Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum may be added. This sum must not exceed £60 (inclusive of VAT where applicable) unless Court Proceedings have been initiated.’[/FONT]

2(d) We have provided all evidence our Client intends to rely on at this stage.

2(e) The charges were issued on two separate days and are therefore two seperate charges.

We have made our Client's position clear and in the absence of payment in the next 45 days we will issue proceedings without further notice.

Coupon-mad

Dear Girlie's name,

Thankyou for your correspondence.

So you are saying that your clients issued some rogue PCNs on public highway (illegally) for just 4 weeks in 2018 and that this is Council land and that 'the Council allowed our Client to issue charges on the land'.

Please supply proof that the Council allowed a private firm to issue parking charges on land that is covered by a traffic order. Give that you have stated this as fact, you will need to evidence what you say, as any firm of solicitors worth its salt knows.

I remind you of your obligations to narrow the issues and supply evidence before filing any claim, when requested by a Defendant in pre-action communications, due to your duty under the overriding objective and the pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims.

I remind you that the Council giving permission is news to me, and such a fundamental statement is certainly not confidential information and nor does it relate to legal advice. In case you are tempted to deny me the right to see that permission, I suggest that you or your solicitor supervisor need to read the Law Society's Practice Note about Legal Professional Privilege, issued on 13th November in accordance with the new SRA 'STaRs'. A document will not automatically attract privilege simply because it is communicated to a solicitor, nor even in a broad sense, obtained for the dominant purpose of conducting litigation. Privilege cannot be claimed unless the material in question is confidential. In the leading authority case of WH Holding Ltd v E20 Stadium LLP [2018] EWCA Civ 2652 the Court of Appeal found that E20's claim to privilege was not well-founded, and the right did not extend to documents which neither seek advice or information for the purpose of conducting litigation nor reveal the nature of such advice or information.

The Council's purported 'permission' does not fall within that bracket, so I require to see it by return, given the delays you have created and still failed to produce anything useful or relevant.

Further, given the fact that I received a proper PCN from Greenwich Council at this exact site around the same period, and your admission that this is Council-enforced land, am I to assume that you must have overlooked the definition of 'relevant land' as set out in the POFA, when you replied ''the notices sent were PoFA compliant''?

Do you understand that the POFA cannot and does not apply on this land? That is why I asked how your clients work that out and on what basis they are pursuing me, the registered keeper. Kindly answer that fundamental question and please don't insult my intelligence by trying the old chestnut involving an improper citation of the law of agency, already kicked out in the case of Excel v Smith, on appeal to a Senior Circuit Judge.

Finally, no doubt the information has filtered through to Gladstones that Judges in at least six Counties (Hants, IOW, Wits, Dorset, Warwickshire and Gwynedd) are stating the added £60 is unrecoverable, citing a failed application by BW Legal on 11th November. To quote DJ Joseph at Warwick court when summarily striking out multiple claims this month (not just those filed by BW Legal, but all parking cases where £60 or more was added in false 'costs'): ''it is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.'' The District Judge stated that he had ''considered S71(2) of the CRA 2015 for the fairness of the contract terms and determined that the provision of the additional charge breached examples 6, 10 and 14''.

Are you/your client trying to deny me my consumer rights under the CRA 2015?

The fact that your close friends at the IPC have added some old twaddle about 'costs' being 'allowed' in the IPC CoP, is neither here nor there. At Southampton, DJ Grand denied BW Legal's application to reinstate multiple summarily struck out cases and he observed that the ATAs (the BPA and IPC) are 'entirely self-serving'. The Judge took the CoP with the pinch of salt it clearly warrants when compared to the case law (Beavis) and the two statute laws that mean the £60 added on by your cartel of parking firms is, indisputably, an abuse of process.

Would your client like that tested again, this time with substantial compensation sought in a counter claim due to their wholly unreasonable conduct in this case, given the status of this land?

I suggest the facts are revisited and your clients erase my illegally-obtained data, close the case and send me an apology.

yours sincerely,


your name

The_Slithy_Tove

Is it worth asking Greenwich Council if they have ever (especially around the dates concerned) allowed any other company or body to enforce parking restrictions on that land, or in any other way handed over control to someone else?

Do we know if the land in question is adjacent to some other piece of land that is run as a private parking area?

Coupon-mad

That is a good idea, the OP could send a quick FOI request before Xmas to Greenwich Council's Highways Dept, using the WHATDOTHEYKNOW website. An answer would then come back in January.