Letter before action Wells quay

Le_Kirk

finchman said:

Thanks nosferatu1001 this is where I m confused do I not add the bye law  issue in para 18 if not where

nosferatu1001 said:
Yes, it is. Most of which are already in the defence template. 
What you dont do is muddle things up. A single para must not contain multiple arguments. Thats what youve been told above; not to include byelaws in a para about grace periods, because the two are completely different arguments. 

Paragraph #19 and move all subsequent paragraphs down by one point.

nosferatu1001

As above
this is YOUR document. Not ours. If you need a new paragraph make a new paragraph

Coupon-mad

Or add it to #17 which talks about there being more than one driver, and add the byelaws comment then say there can be no 'keeper liability' (I am assuming here that you were not driving and have not admitted to driving in any earlier appeal, and are defending as keeper?).

finchman

Thanks Le_Kirk ,nosferatu1001 and Coupon- mad  I know what you mean now I was treating template as being cast in stone regards p

Coupon-mad

Well no, in the red notes, I tell people to CHANGE POINT #17!

Please now make a real difference - A TASK FOR SEPTEMBER.

The Government is (this month only) consulting about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

At the very least, we say the parking charge level should be £50/£25 or higher level £70/£35, as per Council PCNs in E&W.  

And we say the added fake 'debt recovery' costs are just double counting the cost of letters, and MUST GO because that is unfair and illegal.

Please be heard.  You can bet the hundreds of PPCs will be commenting.

No apologies for repeating this vital 'call for action' to consumers, on every thread this month!

finchman

Hi, is this suitable? Thanks

19.     The Port of Wells Car Park is owned by the Wells Harbour Commissioners and is governed entirely under statutory control by byelaws, regulations and subordinate rules stated clearly by the car park signs which display the authority of such with the wording "BY ORDER OF THE WELLS HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS". This statutory control is referenced in the Wells Harbour Revision Order 1994, and is therefore not relevant land under the POFA 2012.

 

20.     The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary and lawful authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices at this Harbour location, and specifically, that Civil Enforcement LTD is lawfully authorised in its own name to pursue payment from a registered keeper via a small claim. This point is vital for the Claimant to evidence and it will not be enough merely to produce a contract from the Wells Harbour Commissioners, because the legal position is that registered keepers cannot be held liable for parking charges at this Port. Liability cannot pass from driver to keeper, because this is not 'relevant land' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') which states at paragraph 3(1)(c):

 

''In this Schedule ''relevant land'' means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than [...] any land [...] on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control. 3(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) the parking of a vehicle on land is ''subject to statutory control'' if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question. [...] ''statutory provision'' means any provision (apart from this Schedule) contained in - (a) any Act (including a local or private Act), whenever passed; or (b) any subordinate legislation, whenever made, and for this purpose ''subordinate legislation'' means an Order in Council or any order, regulations, byelaws or other legislative instrument.''

 

21.     Legislation is in place at Port Of Wells Car Park, thus this location is not ''relevant land" under the POFA definition, and therefore parking matters incurring a charge or 'penalty fine' can only be pursued by the Harbour Master through the magistrates court. This is outside of the jurisdiction of any private parking company using the small claims track. This view is further supported by the Department for Transport's 2012 Guidance about this section of the POFA.

 

22.      The Department for Transport (DFT) clarify the question at schedule 4: ''On what type of land does Schedule 4 apply? 4.1 The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.''

 

23.     In summary, the Claimant cannot reasonably recover an additional sum in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The POFA states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from a registered keeper is the charge stated on a compliant NTK, and only if all requirements of Schedule 4 are met. This is not the case in this claim, in any respect, and there was no breach of any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' at all.

 

24.     Further, this Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information' ('the ICO Code'). This is both a specific Data Protection breach and yet again, this regime flouts the requirements of the BPA CoP and the Claimant can have no excuse for such breaches.

 

25.     The ICO Code applies to all ANPR systems, and states that the private sector is required to follow it, in order to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the BPA are required to comply fully with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and GDPR and all ICO rules and guidelines, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land. At this location, the Claimant has failed on all counts and the data gathered about patrons of the site who have made valid payment for their vehicles to cover the full time on site (a fact known to this Claimant before the postal NTK was even issued) is unconscionable and excessive, given the lack of transparency about the risk of a 'penalty fine' charge.

Coupon-mad

I'd remove #24 and #25 as the Judge won't consider that. 

Also remove ' In summary' from #23 because it makes no sense there. The rest is very thorough, good stuff.

finchman

Thanks will do regards p

finchman

Sent Claimant N180 yesterday today received HM Courts and Tribunals service scam pcn coincidence?

KeithP

finchman said:

Sent Claimant N180 yesterday today received HM Courts and Tribunals service scam pcn coincidence?

I'm struggling to understand that sentence.
You've sent a N180 to the Claimant? Why? 
Did you do that yesterday or today?

What's a scam pcn coincidence?



Please try again.