Only first letter of number plate entered - Quick response would be appreciated PCN Appeal

Kingmonkey77

Brilliant, thank you both

1505grandad

"....................Parking Eye v's Beavis judgement."

Please notice the correct spelling:-

ParkingEye Limited v Beavis  judgment 

Kingmonkey77

Evening all.
Just as an update on the email I sent really. Two weeks ago I sent this to PPS and BWL.

Dear Sir/Madam

 Thank you for your email. As mentioned in my last email, the ICO deem the print out and VRM as personal data as I can be indirectly identified from that information in combination with other information so thank you for sending through the machine record proof that I paid in full for my parking session.

I have also received the information from BW Legal. In the copy sent to me by BW Legal, the first half of all the VRM's was redacted and in the copy I received from you, the second half of the VRM's was redacted. As a consequence, I now have the full VRM of each car that used the car park between 08:02 and 20:58 on 31 January 2020. As there were 89 VRM's on the printout, I believe that to be 88 data breaches. I think this needs to be addressed.

 However, having looked through the print outs, I can see straight off that my payment is traceable by the M and the other details that match the ticket I purchased, but there is also a VRM of WWW. It is number 53 on the list. Despite what I was told by Olivia Woods of BW Legal in her email dated 17/11/20, I don't believe that car registrations are legal with just a single character or that people can choose to use whatever they wish for a private plate. I believe that for a car registration to be legal, it must have at least one number and one letter, meaning that WWW is not a valid registration either. I have also run a check on some of the vehicles that used the machine around the time that I did and at least one other appears to be an invalid VRM. 

 This would seem to refute the claim that no one else had a problem with the machine that day. 

 The accompanying emails I received with the print outs clearly acknowledge that I paid for my parking time so what you are now trying to impose is punishment for an error, whether it be human or mechanical, on me. Private companies cannot impose penalties, reinforced by the relevant part of the ParkingEye Limited v's Beavis judgment. Damages for breach of contract can only put the claimant back in the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. As my payment has now been acknowledged and there was no overstay in the car park, there is no change to the position you would have been in had this not occurred, therefore the charges have to be deemed as a penalty.

 If you still believe there was a breach of contract, I have included below a link to a Freedom of Information request to the Office of Fair Trading on parking charges. The request was made to the OFT to understand what guidance they provided to the British Parking Association Ltd on the level of private parking charges. In particular it describes the Governments view of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The key points from the document are as follows:

Genuine pre-estimation of loss

The OFT expressed the view to the BPA that when claiming liquidated damages, they must meet the requirements of being a genuine pre-estimate of loss. If back office functions are claimed, these must be directly caused by the breaches of the contract. The OFT's view was that if you have an office anyway and have to pay rent, rates, insurance, etc, this cannot be attributed to the breach and claimed as costs, as these are the costs of running a parking management company. To be recoverable, all costs, whether in contract or tort, must be caused by the breach.

 Further the OFT expressed the view that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable, simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists. 

 https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402174228/http://oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/freedom_of_information/FoIA-responses/2012/IAT-FOIA-135010.pdf

 You have previously told me there was no trace of my payment and then told me I broke the terms and conditions of a contract, however, as it is now acknowledged that my parking was paid for, that private companies cannot impose penalties, breach of contract can only put the claimant back in the position they would have been in had the breach not occured and that my ticket was not the only incorrect ticket issued by the machine on the day in question, please confirm the matter is now closed or confirm exactly what grounds the extra charges are being laid under and what they are for within 7 days of receipt of this email.

 

I had no response until yesterday when PPS sent the below.

We have provided you with the personal data requested. 

 The parking terms and conditions which are not at all controversial were contravened.  The matter is now with BW legal and you must deal with them with regard to this matter.

Do people think it's worth pursuing with them or just to wait for the court now?

Uptown_Boy

Just wait ... and use their own evidence to pound them.

PS - I hope you didn't send that email headed Without Prejudice Save As To Costs. That way you can include it in your evidence to show the unreasonable behaviour of the claimant.

Coupon-mad

Don't include this non-argument in your court defence, this goes nowhere fast!

Genuine pre-estimation of loss

The OFT expressed the view to the BPA that when claiming liquidated damages, they must meet the requirements of being a genuine pre-estimate of loss. If back office functions are claimed, these must be directly caused by the breaches of the contract. The OFT's view was that if you have an office anyway and have to pay rent, rates, insurance, etc, this cannot be attributed to the breach and claimed as costs, as these are the costs of running a parking management company. To be recoverable, all costs, whether in contract or tort, must be caused by the breach.

 Further the OFT expressed the view that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable, simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists. 
 https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402174228/http://oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/freedom_of_information/FoIA-responses/2012/IAT-FOIA-135010.pdf

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad said:

Don't include this non-argument in your court defence, this goes nowhere fast!

Genuine pre-estimation of loss

The OFT expressed the view to the BPA that when claiming liquidated damages, they must meet the requirements of being a genuine pre-estimate of loss. If back office functions are claimed, these must be directly caused by the breaches of the contract. The OFT's view was that if you have an office anyway and have to pay rent, rates, insurance, etc, this cannot be attributed to the breach and claimed as costs, as these are the costs of running a parking management company. To be recoverable, all costs, whether in contract or tort, must be caused by the breach.

 Further the OFT expressed the view that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable, simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists. 
 https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402174228/http://oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/freedom_of_information/FoIA-responses/2012/IAT-FOIA-135010.pdf

I thought the email was going somewhere until I saw that. 

Le_Kirk

Umkomaas said:

Coupon-mad said:

Don't include this non-argument in your court defence, this goes nowhere fast!

Genuine pre-estimation of loss

The OFT expressed the view to the BPA that when claiming liquidated damages, they must meet the requirements of being a genuine pre-estimate of loss. If back office functions are claimed, these must be directly caused by the breaches of the contract. The OFT's view was that if you have an office anyway and have to pay rent, rates, insurance, etc, this cannot be attributed to the breach and claimed as costs, as these are the costs of running a parking management company. To be recoverable, all costs, whether in contract or tort, must be caused by the breach.
 Further the OFT expressed the view that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable, simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists. 
 https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402174228/http://oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/freedom_of_information/FoIA-responses/2012/IAT-FOIA-135010.pdf

I thought the email was going somewhere until I saw that. 

You both beat me to it!  That is the danger of "stuff" posted on t'Internet - when circumstances change the original article is not altered and remains there as if it is still current.

Umkomaas

Le_Kirk said:

Umkomaas said:

Coupon-mad said:

Don't include this non-argument in your court defence, this goes nowhere fast!

Genuine pre-estimation of loss

The OFT expressed the view to the BPA that when claiming liquidated damages, they must meet the requirements of being a genuine pre-estimate of loss. If back office functions are claimed, these must be directly caused by the breaches of the contract. The OFT's view was that if you have an office anyway and have to pay rent, rates, insurance, etc, this cannot be attributed to the breach and claimed as costs, as these are the costs of running a parking management company. To be recoverable, all costs, whether in contract or tort, must be caused by the breach.
 Further the OFT expressed the view that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable, simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists. 
 https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402174228/http://oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/freedom_of_information/FoIA-responses/2012/IAT-FOIA-135010.pdf

I thought the email was going somewhere until I saw that. 

You both beat me to it!  That is the danger of "stuff" posted on t'Internet - when circumstances change the original article is not altered and remains there as if it is still current.

And is really why newbies looking to send messages to PPCs or their legals should run them by us for a quick 'once over' before despatch. 

Kingmonkey77

Uptown_Boy said:

Just wait ... and use their own evidence to pound them.

PS - I hope you didn't send that email headed Without Prejudice Save As To Costs. That way you can include it in your evidence to show the unreasonable behaviour of the claimant.

Ok thanks everyone. Lesson learnt in not running this by here first. I’m not sure what you mean here. The email wasn’t headed with anything? 

Uptown_Boy

Whilst the specific content of your email wasn't ideal, it was good enough to get the main point across. Not having it headed WPSATC is good as it means you can include it as evidence during Witness Statement stage (if you wish) to show how unreasonably the claimant has behaved; how they had little or no prospect of success, were given clear information that this would be the case, yet still chose to waste the court's (and defendant's) time on a fool's errand.