Double recovery?

beamerguy

Norfolk_Boi wrote: »

Thank you. They have also ignored a Subject Access Request for CCTV footage on site (there are cameras there). Although I am not sure whether they are legally obliged to or not?

NOT CCTV but ANPR cameras

A SAR can only relate to you personally

The_Deep

Raise the matter also with 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.

Umkomaas

Norfolk_Boi wrote: »

Thank you. They have also ignored a Subject Access Request for CCTV footage on site (there are cameras there). Although I am not sure whether they are legally obliged to or not?

Even if there are CCTV cameras on site, how would they know what you looked like in order to send you the correct footage? Send footage of the wrong person and they've got a serious DPA breach on their hands! They won't be tracking every person going in, out or just walking through the car park. This isn't MI5, nor is it a murder case.

There's a significant resource cost to backtracking through CCTV footage, which is a ball-aching task, usually done only for the most serious of cases: a parking charge isn't one of them!

Norfolk_Boi

A fair point well made. The landowner claims to have witnessed the parking of the vehicle and even specified a time identifying the keeper as driver. A neat trick considering that the keeper was a few miles away riding their motorcycle at that precise time.

The CCTV coverage was requested for the time, date and location that was claimed by the landowner and the landowner knows the keeper.

Landowner did witness the keeper move the vehicle the following morning and has taken 2 + 2 to make 5. Any CCTV footage of that precise time etc would show the identity of the driver and show that it was not the keeper. So not in their interest to present it anyhow.

Once again a big thank you for your help.

One thing the keeper has asked. If they were to pay the original amount of £60 to the PPC then, technically, does that mean that's all they would have to pay? The solicitors would not be entitled to the recovery fee as they have not recovered the monies. They cannot prove the identity of the driver so they wouldn't be entitled to the higher rate of £100. Even though they are attempting to claim it they would not be entitled to court costs either. Personally I would let it got to court.

Umkomaas

The only payment they are likely to accept is what they are asking for currently. You contacting them to pay £60 will be seen as a weakness, that they have you worried and they will ratchet up the ante. That's the way this 'industry' works I'm afraid. Welcome to the very murky world of private parking.

Norfolk_Boi

Are you suggesting that are using dirty, underhand and often unlawful tactics? I totally agree if that's the case lol.

I did mention to the keeper that they should point out the big sign saying vehicles will be clamped in amongst the PPC's signs. Common knowledge that clamping is illegal and that the PPC signs are from a company that was dissolved in 2013. Although it is less uncommonly known that a company with the same name was started just a few days later. It could be argued that the signage is unclear.

Thanks again..

Norfolk_Boi

Quick question. If PPC's are not allowed to recover anymore then what is specified on the NTK according the PoFA 2012 Section 4, then does that mean that by increasing the charge from £60 to £100 after 14 days is in fact in contravention itself?

Le_Kirk

Norfolk_Boi wrote: »

Quick question. If PPC's are not allowed to recover anymore then what is specified on the NTK according the PoFA 2012 Section 4, then does that mean that by increasing the charge from £60 to £100 after 14 days is in fact in contravention itself?

See post # 10 in this thread by beamerguy.

KeithP

Norfolk_Boi wrote: »

Quick question. If PPC's are not allowed to recover anymore then what is specified on the NTK according the PoFA 2012 Section 4, then does that mean that by increasing the charge from £60 to £100 after 14 days is in fact in contravention itself?

No.

Quite simply because they are not increasing anything from £60 to £100.

They are reducing the £100 charge to £60 for the first 14 days.

Norfolk_Boi

Ah thank you.'Notice of the Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track' has now been received so the ball is rolling.

Emailed the solicitors again asking them, once again, how their charges are made up and how they came to £240.72 from the original charge of £60.

Once again a big thank you for all of the advise :-).