Parking Charge - ESPE Ltd - Spinningfields - No Stopping Zone

m19lka

Hello,
I have read the Newbies Thread and many other threads but I have decided to start my own thread hoping you can help.
I was issued with a PCN  (I think it was a Parking Charge Notice not a Penalty Charge Notice) for Parking in a No Stopping Zone. I was sat in my vehicle at the time. It was issued via ANPR cameras and not a windscreen ticket. The images clearly show my Brake Lights on, and I was stopped for a mere 3 or 4 minutes at maximum.
I received the "PCN" in the post from ES Parking Enforcement LTD ("ESPEL") a few days later.
The original amount was £100, decreased to £60 if paid within 14 days. It has now gone up to £125. 
The infraction occurred in Manchester, Spinning Fields Estate on New College Street.
I do not yet have any letters from Gladstones or BW Legal as it has not got to that stage.
I am going to run you through the letters I have sent so far. I have redacted any sensitive information as per your guidelines. The copies of letters are in Italics.
Firstly, appealed by writing to ESPEL with the following:


"ES Parking Enforcement Ltd

Without Prejudice

 18 December 2019

 

Dear ESPE Ltd,

PCN Reference Number: XXXXXXXX
Vehicle Registration Number: XXXXXXX
Incident Date: 27 November 2019

Thank you for your letter dated 3rd December 2019, which I received today.

I note that you have written to me requesting a payment of £100, which is highly excessive and disproportionate given the nature of the alleged contravention. The charge is extravagant and not a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss. This matter is appealed in full.

The photographs that you have provided are not indicative of Parking. As you will note clearly from the images, the vehicle ignition is on and the brake lights are visible, suggesting the vehicle is not parked. I am not inclined to provide the full circumstances at this stage as it is evidently clear the vehicle is not “parked”.

As such, the alleged contravention of “Parked in a ‘No Stopping at all’ area” has not occurred.

Please therefore cancel this ticket which has been issued in error.

Should you wish to pursue the same, I put ESPE Ltd to strict proof of the alleged offence and liability is denied in full.

The above circumstance should be sufficient for you to cancel this alleged Penalty Notice, however, I elaborate with further comments should you decide to still pursue the matter.

Firstly, I direct you to Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice which requires Operators to own the land or to have written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. Before you proceed to pursue the matter, I will require this information to assure that you are operationg within appropriate authority.

Furthermore, I will request the following before entertaining any request for payment:

·         Evidence of behaviour indicative of Parking

·         Landowner authority in writing

·         Adoption documents of the road if not owned by the Local Council

·         Full and clearly written signage

·         Warning signs up about the new rules for parking

·         Legible bay markings

·         Adherence to all POFA requirements

·         Procedures in place in accordance with the new Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019

·         Full compliance with the COP records

·         Former records of any Abuse of Behaviour by ESPE Ltd

This is not an exhaustive list and I also intend to make a full Subject Access Request containing all documents and pictures and data about the keeper and vehicle and any said contracts or contraventions applicable.

Should you fail to cancel the ticket in the first instance please review Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC [2012] UKUT129 (TCC), stating that Operators cannot create contracts with motorists if they do not own or have any proprietary interest in the land. I request full cite of your proprietary interest in the land in question.

Furthermore, your threat to issue County Court Proceedings is unacceptable. You have requested a first notification balance of £100. This is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. If the parking charge amounts to a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the amount of the loss should not change from £60 for the first 14 days and rise to £100 thereafter. Furthermore, if the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the amount should vary for different breaches of the terms and conditions, for example parking over a white line or overstaying. I would request full details of all your charging notices, expecting varying degrees of penalties.

The incident did not occur in a carpark, therefore no agreement to any contractual terms with ESPE Ltd exists. Therefore, there has been no breach giving rise to damages and, in the alternative, there is no contract to enforce.

Should you still pursue the matter without addressing all of the contents of this letter, reliance will be placed on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855.

I also cite the equitable principle that "one must come to equity with clean hands", and ESPE Ltd is acting dishonestly as you cannot legally recover the parking charge where such contravention has not occurred so therefore ESPE Ltd does not have "clean hands".

I am minded to complain to the local MP should this matter be unreasonably pursued.

I trust that this matter will be closed and I look forward to not hearing back from you, or receiving a letter confirming your account is closed and no further correspondence will be due.

Thank you for your time in reading this letter.

Kind Regards

XXXXXXX"

I continue in the next post as I ran out of Characters...

m19lka

ESPEL responded 2 weeks later and simply rejected my appeal and continued to request the outstanding balance without addressing my queries. Seemed like a generic letter as oppose to one where they read my actual appeal letter. I can attach a copy if required.

I proceeded to respond to ESPEL with the following letter:

"ES Parking Enforcement Ltd 

20 January 2020

 Dear ESPE Ltd,

 PCN Reference Number: XXXXXXX

Vehicle Registration Number: XXXXXXX
Incident Date: 27 November 2019

 Thank you for your letter dated 7 January 2020, which I received today. I note that you have rejected my appeal without responding to any of my requests contained in my original letter. Copy of my original letter dated 18th December 2019 attached.

I am not ignoring your charge for a purported parking infraction. As this is purely a charge, issued under an alleged contract and the driver has not been identified, I require the following information so that I can make an informed decision:

 1. Who is the party that contracted with your company? I require their contact details.

2. What is the full legal identity of the landowner?

3. As you are not the landowner please provide a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of your contract with the landholder that demonstrate that you have their authority.

4. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.

5. If the charge is based on damages for breach of contract please provide your justification of this sum.

6. Is your charge based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking? Answer yes or no.

7. If the charge is based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking please provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.

8. Please provide a copy of the signs that you can evidence were on site and which you contend formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of this vehicle.

Until further information is provided from you I have no alternative to believe that ESPE has no legal right to claim unpaid charges for the land mentioned in Parking Charge Notice. Manchester City Council has provided confirmation that the street in question is adopted land. Therefore, it is not relevant land for the purpose of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Paragraph 1(1)(a) makes clear that claims are only allowed to be made for alleged events on “relevant land”. As the parking place in this Parking Charge Notice is provided by a traffic authority, the land cannot be relevant as per Paragraph 3(1)(b).

I have already put ESPE to strict proof in my earlier letter that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, yet you have failed to respond and instead you have demanded £100 from the vehicle owner.

If you believe you have a cause of action, send a Letter before Claim within the next 21 days and I will take advice and will respond.

However, in my opinion, there is a better alternative than legal proceedings, namely that we utilise the services of a completely independent ADR service suited to parking charges. This does not include the IAS appeal service - which lacks any transparency and possibly any independence from the IPC - unlike the alternative offered by the British Parking Association, POPLA, which is transparent and has been shown to be independent.

In the alternative, please reconsider your position and cancel the Parking Chare Notice.

Do not send debt collector letters and do not add any costs or surcharges. I will not respond to such contact and to involve another firm would be a failure to mitigate your costs which are not my liability because the POFA 2012 can only potentially hold a registered keeper liable if certain provisions have been met and even then, the 'amount of the parking charge' is the only amount pursuable.

Yours faithfully,

XXXXXXX"

My letter was ignored and I received another chaser from ESPEL.  I ignored their letter. I then received a further chaser from ESPEL on 11 February 2020 so I have written to my local MP the following letter:

"Dear XXXXXXXX,

RE: Penalty Charge Notice

I write this letter to you regarding a predicament that I find myself in.

I received a fine from ES Parking Enforcement Ltd (“ESPEL”) in November 2019 and appealed the parking ticket on the basis that the barking infraction occurred on council owned property and I was unsure whether ESPEL had the authority to issue on the land in question.

I have written to ESPEL requesting this information, but they have simply ignored my questions and continued to pursue me for an amount of £125. I attach a copy of their latest correspondence.

I am hoping you can assist me. I am aware of many rogue parking operators who issue charges against motorists when they have no authority to do so.

I quote sir Greg Knight’s comments in Parliament on the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill 02 February 2018:

“'Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

I don’t wish to pay a scam company such a sum of money. However, if they have the requisite authority of course I am prepared to pay. Sadly, I am in a predicament because as the fine now goes up, I am still unaware as to whether they had the right to issue me the parking charge or if they are just a rogue company scamming innocent motorists.

I hope your office can assist me in some way.

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Kind Regards

XXXX"

The MP responded with the following:

"Dear XXXXX

Thank you for your email and for contacting XXXXX MP. My name is XXXXX and I work for XXXX as a Caseworker.

 I am sorry to hear that you are having this issue. I would be grateful if you could advise how XXXX can assist you with this issue? XXXX is more than happy to contact the parking regulator to make enquiries regarding this parking charge notice, if this would be of use? Many thanks.

Best wishes,

XXXXX"

I have not yet responded to the MP. 

In the meantime I received another letter from ESPEL demanding the sums due. Generic Chaser. I have not responded to ESPEL.

I have also written to Manchester Council to inquire about who owns the land, this is the email I sent to them:

"Good Morning,

RE: Adopted Road

I would like to find out whether New College Street in the Spinning Fields Estate, Manchester has been adopted or if it is still owned by Manchester City Council.

I have received an extortionate Penalty Charge Notice from a private parking operator for stopping in a "no stopping zone" for 1 minute whilst still in my vehicle and my break lights clearly visible. 

I have appealed this with the apparent parking operator, but they have failed to address my query. I am aware that there are rogue parking operators that scam motorists in to paying unauthorized parking charges in and around Manchester. I wish to avoid falling a victim to this scam. 

I have tried to contact the parking operator to obtain a confirmation that they have the requisite authority from the land owner to issue penalty charge notices. They have failed to provide me with this information. Instead they have simply increased my fine to now what stands at £125.

Please could you assist and advise if the land in question has been adopted.

Could you also advise whether you have the capacity to cancel any penalty charge notices issued on land owned by Manchester City Council.

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Kind Regards

XXXXX"

And so far I have received the following information back from the council departments:

"Spinning Fields Estate (Private and Confidential)

We refer to your email dated 19.02.2020 in relation to the above and we would comment as follows:-

Our records indicate that area identified in your email is unadopted (New College Street), we have copied in the Corporate Property Records Team who should be able to confirm whether or not he land is in Council ownership.

Corporate Property Records:- Please advise.

Kind regards  
XXXXX"

And then from the Corporate Property Records team, I received the following information:

"Hello,

Our records indicate street land for New College Street is privately owned. Please contact Land Registry (tel - 0300 006 0411) to identify the owner.

Kind regards

Property Records

Corporate Estates Team

Growth and Development Directorate

Manchester City Council, Town Hall Extension, Level 8"

So now I ask your advice on the following:
1. What shall I respond to the MP, if anything, given they have offered their support.
2. What shall I respond to ESPEL, if anything.
3. What shall I respond to the Council, if anything, given that they have suggested the street in question is privately owned.
4. Is there any other steps I should take in the meantime. I really don't want to go through the whole rigmarole of taking it to the County Courts (even if I have a good prospect of winning), and I would rather just try and settle the matter now, but not by paying £125!
I know this is  a lot of information, but I hoped to provide you with a full picture.
Thank you for your help in advance.

D_P_Dance

14 days. It has now gone up to £125. 

The extra £25 is unlawful and the case is likely to be thrown out because of abuse of process, read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

As this PCN was issued by a private company there will be no council involvement.

Most of the questions you have asked have been answered in the stickies, which you claim to have read,  This is a self- help forum and, imo,  you are not helping yourself. 

Umkomaas

ES Parking Enforcement Ltd

Without Prejudice

 18 December 2019

What was the purpose in heading the letter 'Without Prejudice'?

nosferatu1001

Check who pays the NDR for that area?

m19lka

nosferatu1001 said:

Check who pays the NDR for that area?

Hello, thank you for your response.
I have checked the Acronym post #5 but cannot find what an NDR means.
Please could you elaborate?

m19lka

D_P_Dance said:

14 days. It has now gone up to £125. 

The extra £25 is unlawful and the case is likely to be thrown out because of abuse of process, read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

As this PCN was issued by a private company there will be no council involvement.

Most of the questions you have asked have been answered in the stickies, which you claim to have read,  This is a self- help forum and, imo,  you are not helping yourself. 

Regarding your comment: "As this PCN was issued by a private company there will be no council involvement."

I only contacted the Council because I thought the land in question was owned by the Council. AFTER contacting the Council I heave learnt that "New College Street is privately owned."

I am aware that most of the stickies on here suggest after appealing to ignore until you receive letters from actual legal reps and not just the parking operator. But I was trying to be proactive to see if there was anything I could do avoid it even getting that far e.g. now that I have learnt that the land in question is privately owned, should I not try and find out who the land owner in question is and ask them to write off the ticket and/or provide me with their agreement with ESPEL so I can scrutinize it and find any grounds that might make it void .....

I understand that you receive hundreds of requests perhaps weekly and I am just another number, so I apologize if I am merely wasting your time. But nevertheless, thank you for your advice on the Abuse of Process aspect which I did not previously consider in depth, I will bear that in mind and use it as an argument if the matter does progress to court.

nosferatu1001

Non Domestic Rates. 

Coupon-mad

Yes you should try for landowner cancellation - the NEWBIE thread first post tells everyone that already.

I have just written a new thread with a brand new template defence.

Bookmark that thread now, as the intention is that everyone can use that and adapt it with their facts instead of the red font on it.  The intention is for nothing complicated at court claim stage and for more Judges in 2020 to start to summarily strike out all parking claims that add false 'admin/contractual costs'.

m19lka

Coupon-mad said:

Yes you should try for landowner cancellation - the NEWBIE thread first post tells everyone that already.

I have just written a new thread with a brand new template defence.

Bookmark that thread now, as the intention is that everyone can use that and adapt it with their facts instead of the red font on it.  The intention is for nothing complicated at court claim stage and for more Judges in 2020 to start to summarily strike out all parking claims that add false 'admin/contractual costs'.

 Ok, I will contact Land Registry for now to get the details of who the landowner is and contact them to see if they can write it off. I previously thought it was the Council and tried to get them to write it off.

In the meantime, I will ignore ESPEL until I receive actual County Court Proceedings at which point I will use your new template for a Defence regarding "false admin/contractual costs"

nosferatu1001

Or google, thats a good bet.