No return within 90 minutes PCN

go-on-then

Yes I understand  but my point was the pcc dont say that,  they make out that they apply directly to dvla for details and they dont. That's misleading. As per.

Coupon-mad

It's unimportant though.  They are allowed to use ZZPS for back office 'work' like letters and KADOE.

go-on-then

Thanks.   Unimportant ,  but it's good to get ones head around the whole sorry system ! 

Redx

It is a sorry system , which is why MP s voted to change it , hence why everyone is recommended to complain to their MP until the BSI issue the new CoP to the Mhclg

Personally I would be focusing on the important , not the unimportant issues

The fact that a PPC uses a sub contractor for this , for cleaning , for emptying the bins , for doing back office work , is unimportant , chances are all this will be changed when the new parking CoP is applied

go-on-then

Evening all.      I sent emails to both the Arndale property management company and the landowner,   asking that the notice be dropped etc,  along the lines of...

....this private parking company is allowed to use unreasonable practices to issue copy and paste claims with inflated costs, costs that they know they are not legally entitled to.... the company does not operate in compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 nor does it follow it's own governing body, the IPC.   Members of the IPC who issue charges within the private parking sector are required to adhere to the Code of Practice which defines the core standards necessary to ensure transparency  and fairness.  They are aided and abetted by Gladstones solicitors.  They do not comply with the requirements of the Practice Direction on Preaction Conduct, amongst other things, and this is just a tactic to confuse and mislead. Complaints are being prepared to submit to the DVLA and the SRA.
The wording, position and  clarity of the signage at the car park fails to properly warn or inform the motorist of the terms of parking.   It too is designed to deceive.
Myself, family and friends shop in the retail units and town centre that this carpark covers.  In these seriously difficult times the retailers need all the help they can get.  The actions of ESParking are deterring customers from visiting and spending money.  It would be a shame if town lost more stores due to lack of footfall and revenue.


I have received a reply from the manager of the shopping centre  - 

In regards to the email,   all the parking management  and enforcement carried out at the Arndale Centre is in accordance to the International Parking Community  Code of Practice.  All signage, letters etc is audited by the IPC to ensure high compliance.
To the point raised about charges increasing, it does state on all letters should no payment be received debt recovery charges will be added, which legally they can add a charge up to the maximum of £60, any more charges than this must reflect cost incurred through legal proceedings ie via the small claims court.
ES Parkings solicitors act in accordance with pre action protocol and the SRA.
Notices issued by ES Parking Enforcement are drafted following the guidelines released by the government  in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012,  should the letter not be sent within 14 days then they can still pursue the keeper on assumption  that they were driving at the time of incident.  

As everything on site is correct and audited all green the charge has been incurred by the customer correctly and is liable for the charge.  My suggestion would be if you feel like the PCN is incorrect you can complain to the IPC.
If you require anymore information please dont hesitate to contact me.

 POFA  guidelines? Assumption?Audited all green ?  Seriously annoying.   Any help with a reply to this would be greatly appreciated.   
Should I ask him where he's got his info then tell him  to ring the SRA and have a chat about Gladstones ,  after he's read about  IPC code of conduct and POFA ??!     I'm off to ring the IPC to make a complaint ! 

KeithP

...they can still pursue the keeper on assumption  that they were driving at the time of incident.

No they can't.

If the NTK is not POFA compliant, the Claimant needs to prove on the balance of probabilities that the keeper was driving.

go-on-then

Is it worth a mention in my WS that they say here that the £60 is legal ?  On the LBC that magically appeared in my SAR data from Glads, they say it's a 'contribution '.  ?? 

go-on-then

The NTK is not POFA compliant, I have it in about no proof of driver etc.

KeithP

go-on-then said:

Is it worth a mention in my WS that they say here that the £60 is legal ?  On the LBC that magically appeared in my SAR data from Glads, they say it's a 'contribution '.  ?? 

They allege that a contract was agreed at the time of parking. They simply cannot alter that agreed contract some months after it was formed without the agreement of the other party.

To say that the contract includes "...debt recovery charges will be added, which legally they can add a charge up to the maximum of £60" is contrary to the Consumer Rights Act which tells us that any ambiguity in the contract must be resolved in favour of the consumer. The ambiguity being that the amount to be added is not specified in the contract... i.e. the sign.

@beamerguy will be along shortly to expand on that.

go-on-then

I have the General Form of Judgement or Order,  says if all parties agree, deal with the claim on paper and without attendance at a hearing,.
Because this order has been made without a hearing, the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed.  A party making such an application must send or deliver the application to the court ( with fee) to arrive within 7 days of service of this order.  The application notice should identify;
If the applicant requires the small claim hearing to be dealt with on paper without a hearing;
If not whether or not the small vlaim hearing can be dealt with justly, by telephone.

I will email court +claimant to say no to papers/phone. 
 Is this an acceptable response please - ( a tweaked CM version)  ??? 

Dear District Judge xxx
I am the Defendant xxxx
This email is also copied to the Claimants solicitors. 

I have received General Judgement  xx dated xx . 
In accordance with the order I must formally tell the court I do not agree that the claim be dealt with on the papers alone or by telephone hearing.
 I am not content for the case to be heard on the papers or telephone because that seems to disproportionately give an advantage to a legally represented party.  I feel strongly that after intimidating demands from this aggressive parking firm and agent I need a voice at an attended face to face hearing.  Parking charge cases are those where the claimants have the advantage of legal representation and parking firms are known to put in last minute ambush supplementary or late witness statements and leave no time for a proper full defence to enable me to rely on all the facts.
The claim itself constitutes an abuse of process in that an unrecoverable sum dressed up as ' debt collection costs' has been added, yet this is an industry where costs must already be encompassed within the parking charge.  The claimant knows, or ought to know, that this would be double recovery  (ref Britannia Parking v Crosby and anor, Southampton Court  11.11.19 )
I am anxious that the claim has not been similarly struck out and I might be denied a voice after all my preparation and wish to directly show evidence.
I have no wish to obstruct the smooth workings of the court but if the claim continues,  I ask for a face to face hearing. 
As such, the Court and Claimant are asked to note that my preference  would be a face to face hearing and am happy to wait for the claim hearing until that is possible.
Yours sincerely 
Xxx  and dated 
Would this be ok please ??