Overstaying - What is the Legal Defense?

ZZ3100TV0

....and now this....

___________________

As the Director of Commercial Income, I have been asked to look at your case by our CEO, Mark Fox in relation to a PCN that you received, following a visit at our XXXX Motorway Service Area. Firstly I would like to apologise for the delay in responding to you, which was due to my annual leave last week.

I am sorry to learn of your stress over this matter, as a valued and regular customer but am pleased that you were able to use our facilities when feeling fatigued after a long drive, which is of course our primary function and the main reason we operate the car parking system in the way that we do as I will go on to explain below.

As you may be aware there are not many places to park in the country where charges are not applicable, from town centres and shopping malls to hospitals now. In the case of Motorway Services, parking charges have been in place for nearly 25 years because it is essential that we are not used as a park and ride. Our primary function is for driver safety and therefore we need to ensure that there are spaces available for the next driver, who also may require a rest break. 2 hrs is deemed by all, including our government, to be a safe and reasonable break period, which is why there is no charge at all for this period. XXXX Motorway Services has 72 parking signs on it, of which 30 are relating to payment as it is vital that all of our customers are aware of how our charging structure operates.

The PCN system is simply a deterrent and in the interests of fairness to all of our customers who do pay for parking (if over 2 hrs) it is then unfair to allow others not to pay at all, unless they have extenuating circumstances. 

In your particular case and regardless of whether we would have deemed your circumstances to be extenuating, had you raised it with us when you first received the PCN or even a short time after, then we may have been in a better position to assist.

Unfortunately, owing to the time that has elapsed and the costs that have now been incurred by Group Nexus, legal departments and debt recovery agencies and the court system, we would not normally be able to settle the matter for only the original parking charge sum or to cancel it altogether, however, I am happy to look into your case, to see if there is any mitigation.

To assist with my investigation, while I request the details from GroupNexus, could you provide me with the following information please.

Changes of address in the last 5 years.

For each of the above, can you provide the address and the date of change.

(evidence of the address change may be requested at a later date)

___________________

D_P_Dance

Excellent, you can now give them both barrels.  AFAIUA, the UK  is the only country in Europe, perhaps the world, where these parasites are allowed to scam motorists.

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

Other people have had their claims cancelled with both MOTO and Roadchef:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6268662/dcb-legal-for-cp-plus-re-road-chef-moto-pcns-advice-on-defence-against-claim/p5

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78368031/#Comment_78368031

See above. This is not OK. Email back and ask why you are being treated differently from everyone else who has had their PCNs cancelled without quibble by Roadchef this year, and even more swiftly by MOTO who are never coming back with excuses supporting their aggressive agent.

Clearly CP Plus had no intention to litigate until COVID hit their profits. All these years they have ‘warehoused’ people’s data and sat on cases that they have now issued unexpected and unjustified court claims over, 5 and 6 years later.  Has this gone over Roadchef’s head? 

 Of course people wouldn’t have raised a complaint earlier because CP Plus didn’t sue anyone (ever) until they were taken over by Group Nexus and saw the Pandemic cut their profits from those hapless victims who used to unquestioningly pay them.

Also, registered keepers were safe in the knowledge (for those who research this ‘outrageous scam’ to quote MPs in a debate about private parking firms’ conduct) that CP Plus can’t hold registered keepers liable due to their choice not to use the law that would allow that. 

Did Roadchef realise that CP Plus are suing registered keepers despite having no lawful way to hold them liable?  

Did Roadchef realise they are leaving themselves open to be sued because as principal, they are liable for the actions of their agents. Firms like Roadchef need to review their priorities here and take far more responsibility for what Group Nexus are currently deliberately setting out to do, knowing full well that many keepers will have moved house since the time that CP Plus first got their DVLA data and/or won’t know how to defend or complain. 

As such, because 85% of claims go to default CCJs, mostly caused by parking firms (according to a consultation by the Ministry of Justice) the majority of victims will be getting CCJs this year. Most are probably undiscovered so these first few hundred complaints in 2021 are the tip of an horrifically anti-consumer iceberg that Roadchef have allowed to hit people when they are down.

Finish by reminding this person that you know Roadchef are indeed cancelling these in droves, so why are you being singled out for a fob off reply trying to support an industry that is so rogue that the Government has stepped in to finally stop the worse practices and protect the public?  

Tell them you will get your MP involved and the national press, who thus far don’t seem to have reported on what Group Nexus has suddenly done with CCJs galore issued to non-liable registered keepers, for a time when an unidentified driver dared to use the facilities of Roadchef or their rivals, MOTO. At least the latter are always cancelling these awful court claims in 2021 and are never replying like Roadchef now have in this case. 

Coupon-mad

And REALLY IMPORTANT PLEASE: 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78411172/#Comment_78411172

Please, please come back every week to check and make sure your voice is not missed from this final opportunity to take part in the Government Consultation, coming very soon!

ZZ3100TV0

....and another response....

______________________

Again, I am sorry about the stress that this is causing you, which is why I have offered to investigate to see if you have any mitigating circumstances, if you can provide me with the information that I requested.

In terms of the timing and in particular the pandemic, this did not start in Covid but started at the time of the PCN issuance (which was issued because parking was not paid for). 3 letters were sent to you prior to it being referred to the DRPL, whereby a further 5 letters were issued before it was referred to the DCBL, all of which were prior to the pandemic and all of which appeared to have not received any response or appeals from yourself.

In regards to other PCNs issued to other people, each case is looked at indiividually and actioned accordingly. We consider any mitigation but we also consider being fair to those that did pay for parking at the time, those that paid their PCN within 14 days and those that paid their PCN in 28 days, as well as being fair to those that didn't pay at all.

As stated at the beginning of this email and at the end of my first email, if you can provide me with the information requested, I will look into your case for you.

Many thanks

Tracy Baitup

Director of Commercial Income

______________________

Fruitcake

Dear Tracy

The court claim started after Group Nexus took over CP Plus, and when covid hit the country, Group Nexus decided to trawl cases going back five or six years and issue claims to vehicle keepers, even though there is no legal basis for this to happen.
A motorway service station is supposed to be a refuge, a place of safety. Forcing drivers who have perhaps unintentionally fallen asleep instead of driving whilst tired to set an alarm, or hope they wake up in time to go and buy a ticket instead is unreasonable, and just plain unsafe.
The private parking industry is completely unregulated. 
The company you have employed is one of those referred to by UK MPs across all parties as rogues, scammers, and bloodsuckers. This company has used an  Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system to harvest registration numbers of unsuspecting motorists, and then obtained and processed the registered keeper's details from the DVLA before issuing parking charges to those keeper's, even though they cannot be held liable in law.
ANPR systems are not fit for purpose in this regard and the UK Government has prohibited their use in council and local authority car parks, yet you are allowing your contractor to use this type equipment because the private parking industry is unregulated.

KeithP

rouges or rogues?   

Coupon-mad

And give her the info requested if she asked for the PCN number or VRM.  Not if she asked who was driving.

Fruitcake

KeithP said:

rouges or rogues?   

Bloody hand tremors. Well spotted, thanks.

ZZ3100TV0

Thanks for your help chaps/chap-ettes

I'm potentially at a crossroads here since I might have to turn down a several day job to attend court, and even if I win, I'll ultimately be out of pocket for defending this. I don't want to back down, and paying these bottom feeders is what they want. Is there a way around this, even paying someone to represent me?