"not parking within confines of the bay"

JPMONMOGM

Hi everyone - I would appreciate any advice. I've read as much as i can on the newbies thread and would appreciate any critique to the reply I have drafted..

The story - the alleged offence occurred June 2018. An NTK was sent for not parking within the confines of the bay. The PPC is NE Parking LTD. A photo was attached showing the rear, passenger side tyre touching the white marking of the bay - but not crossing to the next bay. The driver has not been identified. An appeal was sent within the timeframe asking for further information and to use POPLA. I received no reply. i did however receive 4 debt collector letters which were ignored. Eventually an LBC was sent 17th Dec 2019. A reply was received by the solicitors on 7th January 2020. In summary - i claimed that the LBC did not comply with the PAP for debt claims and pursuant to paragraph 5 further information was required(whether interest or other charges were continuing, details of the roginal debt, details of the admin costs charged, details of the evidence that will be relied on in court). I also requested an explanation why NE Parking failed to reply to my appeal. and again emphasised my desire to utilise an independent ADR service by POPLA and not waste the courts' time.

71 days later i received a reply: 

Thank you for your correspondence. We apologise for the delay in our response, however as no further action has taken place we trust you agree no prejudice has been suffered.

We believe our Letter before Claim is compliant with the most up to date version of the Pre-Action Protocol and our Client has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Notwithstanding this, the following explains our Client's position clearly to you.

The charge sought is industry standard and is set at a rate so as to suitably satisfy our client's legitimate interest. In the case of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015 it was held that an £85.00 charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. The Accredited Trade Associations of which parking operators must be a member in order to apply for DVLA data prescribe a maximum charge of £100 and our client's charges are within this level.  The decision of the Supreme Court also made it clear that the charges are not penal nor do they have to be reflective of the parking operator's loss.    We refer you to the IPC code of practice Part E Schedule 5. This confirms the following:  ‘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  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.’Our Client has not received any appeal in relation to this charge, we would be grateful if you could provide any supporting documentation in regards to such appeal in order for us to review this further with our Client. The signs displayed at the site clearly state that you must be fully parked within the confines of a marked bay, if you choose to park outside of these terms, you accept the charge set out on the sign. The signs form the contract between yourself and our Client. We attach our Client's photographic evidence which shows your vehicle bearing registration number XXXXXX not fully parked inside the confines of a marked bay. By parking in such a manner the driver accepted the charge of £100.00 set out on the signs.Payment of the charge has not been forthcoming within the relevant timeframe and as such the contract between yourself and our Client has now been breached. Our Client has incurred further costs as a direct result of the breach in taking steps to recover the outstanding debt. In view of the above it is our Client's position that the sum of £160.00 remains outstanding within 30 days from the date of this email. In the event that payment is not made within this time-frame our Client may elect to issue legal proceedings without further notice to you--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have drafted this reply and grateful for critique: 

Thank you for your email reply.

 This letter serves three purposes:

1)    It is a formal response to the Letter Before Claim and

2)    It is a complaint about the failure of your client to allow an appeal

3)    It is a complaint about the failure to provide a Letter Before Claim that complies with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the following:

1)    The driver of the vehicle has not been identified and the original Notice to Keeper does not cite keeper liability under POFA 2012, therefore the Keeper is not liable

2)    The Letter Before Claim remains non-compliant with the most recent Pre-Action Protocol despite your reply.

a.     As you are aware, the Pre-action protocol states in paragraph 5.2 “if the debtor requests a document or information, the creditor must (a) provide the document or information; or (b) explain why the document or information is unavailable, within 30 days of receipt of the request.

b.     A response to the Letter Before Claim was received on 7th January 2020 (evidence of postal receipt available)

c.     An email reply was sent on 18th March 2020 – 71 days later.

d.     I have yet to be provided the information requested

                                               i.     whether interest or other charges are continuing

                                             ii.     the details of the administrative costs charged by your Client

e.     Pursuant to Paragraph 3.1(c), a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form at Annex 1 to the protocol was not provided

f.      As solicitors engaged in issuing a large number of claims, you ought to know that you have failed to meet these requirements.

3)    An email appeal was sent to your client 21 June 2018

a.     Pursuant to paragraph 5.1 of the Pre-Action Protocol I attach a copy of the email sent to info@ne-parking.com

b.     As per section 19.1.4 of the IPC code of practice, to which your Client alleges to adhere to, a response should have been received within 28 days

4)    Response to the proposed Claim

a.     The proposed Claim i.e. “we attach our Client’s photographic evidence which shows your vehicle bearing registration number XXXXXX not fully parked inside the confines of a marked bay. By parking in such a manner the driver accepted the charge of £100 set out on the signs” is disputed in its entirety

b.     I DO NOT accept the charge set out on the signs

c.     The signs are not clearly displayed

d.     The photographic evidence your client provides clearly shows the vehicle parked within the confines of the bay

e.     The parked vehicle does not encroach into the next bay nor does the vehicle cause any obstruction

f.      Judgement as to what does or does not constitute “parking correctly within a marked bay” and the degree to which such alleged trivial and vexatious accusations hold merit, is highly subjective and will be robustly defended

g.     Thank you for your summary of ParkingEye vs Beavis 2015

                                               i.     You will also be aware that the Supreme Court Judges observed that it would be unfair if drivers were to be penalised for parking slightly out of bay lines when causing no obstruction

h.     I deny any debt and am seeking debt advice.

i.      A Subject Access Request has been sent to your Client

j.      To continue with this action, which is bound to fail, would be unreasonable and a waste of the court’s time

k.     Given that your Client has not made a serious attempt to narrow the issues between us in accordance with the Protocol, I consider this correspondence to be at an end.

beamerguy

Which legal please ?

A nonsense letter ...... Why do these idiots think that the IPC code of practice gives them the right to charge fake amounts. The CoP is only for the parking company, nothing to do with the motorist and IT'S NOT A LAW OR CONTRACT

READ HOW THE BPA AND IPC entice their members to break the law
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6083229/bpa-cop-clause-19-9-and-34-8

With regards to Beavis and the Supreme court ... in rule 198, The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme...''

JPMONMOGM

beamerguy said:

Which legal please ?

Gladstones solicitors

beamerguy

JPMONMOGM said:

beamerguy said:

Which legal please ?

Gladstones solicitors

Figures ......... The Great Gladstones / IPC scam who are both a farce and unregulated.
You can read about the Gladstones spankings here for the fake £60
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal/p1?new=1

Despite all this, Gladstones still persist in ignoring the courts ...... total IDIOTS

Many have been complained to the SRA about this unruly bunch who set up the scam. You should do the same.
If this goes to to court, it will be a long time off now due to the virus. If it does, this will be another spanking in court 

And with the new

Amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules bring mandatory changes to statements of truth

For witness statements, the statement of truth’s wording will be as follows:
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

WILL GLADSTONES LIE TO THE COURT ABOUT THE FAKE £60

D_P_Dance

We refer you to the IPC code of practice Part E Schedule 5. This confirms the following:  

. Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum may be added. This sum must not exceed £60 

A reasonable sum may not be added, the IPC code of practice has no basis in lawi, the extrea £60 is unlawful, read this

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

Many judges regard these on the line claims for breach of contract as trivial, a waste of court time.  I doubt if this would ever get in front of a judge, read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

Personally, in the current situation I would ignore

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6116701/let-us-ignore-all-pcns-not-for-milquetoasts/p1

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, 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, when life gets back to normal, it will become impossible for those scammers who are left to continue their vile trade, 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.

JPMONMOGM

Thank you very much D_P_Dance and beamerguy. 
I will certainly consider the complaint to SRA. I've made changes to my reply that incorporates both your points.. what you think?
D_P_Dance... i see your point, i could ignore given the current climate but i got this far....  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your email reply.

This letter serves two purposes:

1)    It is a formal response to the Letter Before Claim and

2)    It is a complaint about the failure of your client to allow an appeal 

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the following:

1)    The driver of the vehicle has not been identified and the original Notice to Keeper does not cite keeper liability under POFA 2012, therefore the Keeper is not liable

2)    The Letter Before Claim remains non-compliant with the most recent Pre-Action Protocol despite your reply.

a.     As you are aware, the Pre-action protocol at paragraph 5.2 states “if the debtor requests a document or information, the creditor must (a) provide the document or information; or (b) explain why the document or information is unavailable, within 30 days of receipt of the request.

b.     A response to the Letter Before Claim was received on 7th January 2020 (evidence of postal receipt available)

c.     An email reply was sent on 18th March 2020 – 71 days later.

d.     I have yet to be provided the information requested

                                               i.     whether interest or other charges are continuing

                                             ii.     the details of the administrative costs charged by your Client

e.     Pursuant to Paragraph 3.1(c), a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form at Annex 1 to the protocol was not provided

f.      As solicitors engaged in issuing a large number of claims, you ought to know that you have failed to meet these requirements.

3)    An email appeal was sent to your client 21 June 2018

a.     Pursuant to paragraph 5.1 of the Pre-Action Protocol I attach a copy of the email sent to info@ne-parking.com

b.     As per section 19.1.4 of the IPC code of practice, to which your Client alleges to adhere to, a response should have been received within 28 days

4)    Response to the proposed Claim

a.     The proposed Claim i.e. “we attach our Client’s photographic evidence which shows your vehicle bearing registration number XXXXXX not fully parked inside the confines of a marked bay. By parking in such a manner the driver accepted the charge of £100 set out on the signs” is disputed in its entirety

b.     I DO NOT accept the charge set out on the signs

c.     The signs are not clearly displayed or evenly distributed on site

d.     The photographic evidence your client provides clearly shows the vehicle parked within the confines of the bay

e.     The parked vehicle does not encroach into the next bay nor does the vehicle cause any obstruction

f.      Judgement as to what does or does not constitute “parking correctly within a marked bay” and the degree to which such alleged trivial and vexatious accusations hold merit, is highly subjective and will be robustly defended

g.     I deny any debt and am seeking debt advice.

h.     A Subject Access Request has been sent to your Client

i.      Thank you for your summary of ParkingEye vs Beavis 2015

                                               i.     You will be aware that the Supreme Court Judges observed that it would be unfair if drivers were to be penalised for parking slightly out of bay lines when causing no obstruction

j.      You will also be aware that the IPC code of practice is not law and therefore the additional sum of £60 is unlawful

                                               i.     As solicitors you will be aware of the most recent amendments to the Civil Procedures Rules relating to witness statements

                                             ii.     To continue with this action, which is bound to fail, would be unreasonable, a waste of the court’s time and in contempt of court

                                            iii.     If you or your Client do decide to proceed with this action, I will be making a complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority

k.     Given that your Client has not made a serious attempt to narrow the issues between us in accordance with the Protocol, I consider this correspondence to be at an end.

beamerguy

I like it and although you mention the IPC Cop as not lawful, you need to go further and ask "on what legal authority they have to add the £60"   You can also add that their reply will be available to the court.

You know, we know they have no legal authority but they must tell the court if they do or don't.  And comes nicely around to the new CPR
There is NO wriggle room for Gladstones and if they don't reply you can pass this to the judge

JPMONMOGM

beamerguy said:

I like it and although you mention the IPC Cop as not lawful, you need to go further and ask "on what legal authority they have to add the £60"   You can also add that their reply will be available to the court.

You know, we know they have no legal authority but they must tell the court if they do or don't.  And comes nicely around to the new CPR
There is NO wriggle room for Gladstones and if they don't reply you can pass this to the judge

I cant thank you enough. Never been through this before. Its been a steep learning curve but just your comments are enough of a confidence boost. I'll make the last edits and hopefully that will be the end of it. 

beamerguy

JPMONMOGM said:

beamerguy said:

I like it and although you mention the IPC Cop as not lawful, you need to go further and ask "on what legal authority they have to add the £60"   You can also add that their reply will be available to the court.

You know, we know they have no legal authority but they must tell the court if they do or don't.  And comes nicely around to the new CPR
There is NO wriggle room for Gladstones and if they don't reply you can pass this to the judge

I cant thank you enough. Never been through this before. Its been a steep learning curve but just your comments are enough of a confidence boost. I'll make the last edits and hopefully that will be the end of it. 

That's OK but doubt it will be the end yet, Gladstones have to prove to their members that they are scamworthy. Do come back when they respond

JPMONMOGM

i've made a subject access request with NE Parking LTD however they are asking for a copy of ID for verification. 
I've replied saying that my ID was verified when they applied to the DVLA. They are threatening to not process my request. 
i find the IOC guidance a bit vague with regard to handing over ID. Does anyone have any advice? 

Le_Kirk

Send them a copy of your V5C or the PCN.  Don't send driving licence or passport.  The IOC guidance states that photographic evidence is not required - they don't have a photograph of you to which to compare it, so what good will it do?