Advice on a particular case - please help

redbluetile

The case is a bit convoluted so have put down the main points here to try to get some advice from the lovely forum mebers more acquainted with these situations.

First time poster (who has read the FAQs) so please be gentle....

Here goes:

A person parked their vehicle in a visitor parking bay on a residential site managed by a nasty private management parking company (lets call them Nasty UK). The person has a resident permit for parking in the parking structure and generally with that permit, you are allowed to park in the visitor bay. The duration of parking in that visitor bay changed at some point but that person wasn't aware - it used to be 4 hours but at some point it was changed to 45 minutes through a letter sent to residents (which this person did not receive).

Nasty UK put a windscreen PCN after 50 mins of parking. The signage clearly says "Visitor parking (VP) bays - Valid 4 HRS max stay parking session registered at management suite or Valid Permit”. The reason for the parking charge on the PCN was “no valid parking session registered”  As the person was unaware of the timing change and thought they had 4 hours permission to park, they appealed to Nasty UK through their portal to cancel the PCN as they though this had been issued in error since they had a permit and did not need to register their parking session anywhere. Of course, Nasty UK refused. At the time of the appeal, the driver was not identified and Nasty UK were given the wrong initials of this person (by mistake) but a correct surname.

The person then appealed to IAS but that was a bust as well. At the IAS stage, the person used "I" to refer to themselves when providing their defence i.e. when I looked at the signage etc.The person then discovered these forums and decided to follow the advice here. They have ignored the debt collectors stage but have now received a Gladstones letter before claim with the 30 days notice to pay a trumped up charge or provide a defence.

What should the person do next? The person knows the guidance says to wait till court stage but has a couple of questions as this person did not follow the forum advice until the debt letters stage. The person's questions are:

1) The initials that Nasty UK and Gladstone have don't actually refer to a legal person at that address. How are they going to issue a court claim? If the initials are wrong and the surname is right, will the person have to attend court?

2) No NTK was ever sent and it has been over a 100 days. The person was thinking of using no keeper liability as their defence.Would that be valid in this case?

3) Does the fact that the person used "I" to refer to themselves at the IAS stage provide evidence that they were the driver?

4) The signage does not say what grace period is allowed for holders of a resident permit. At IAS stage, Nasty UK argued that the resident permit is not a valid parking permit but also included a letter saying that holders of a resident permit are allowed a grace period of 45 minutes. This is not mentioned anywhere on the signange, and as mentioned before, the duration changed from 4 hours to 45 minutes at some point. That change is not specified on the signange either. The other defence this person is considering is that as those terms had changed and neither the extra terms and conditions applicable to holders of a resident permit nor the fact that there has been a change is posted on the signage, it can not form part of any alleged contract. Is that a fair defence?

5) Has the fact that the person has corresponded with Nasty UK so far have any bearing on proving who the driver was? I.e. can they say as you have corresponded with us, you were clearly the driver?

6) This is a residential site so no loss or detriment could have occurred to the owner (as opposed to a public car park). Can the extra charges they have tacked on be refuted on that basis?

7) The person received another parking charge for parking in their own spot in the parking structure a few months later. The person replied to them with the standard defence in the FAQs, was sent an NTK and appealed the NTK through Nasty UK's website. As they now know the registered keeper's name which is close to the slightly incorrect intials they have already, could they use that for the court summons?

8) Should the person now

a) reply to gladstones with their defence above - since they have the wrong initials, should they put their correct name as the registered keeper at the bottom which would give them a piece of information they currently don't have?

b) follow the SAR route in the FAQs (the person has already seen the evidence provided by Nasty UK and does not have a particular need to see it again)

c) ignore till they get a summons

d) send a letter to Gladstones saying there is no such person at address (as the initials are wrong)

e) pay the charge as they have identified themselves as the driver by mistake in the situation described above or

f) any other option this person hasnt thought of

Please help - putting these questions down now in case it progresses to court stage. The person has about 20 days left in the 30 days notice from Gladstones.

Any links to defences in such a case (should the advice be to wait for a summons) would also be appreciated.

Thanks for all your help in advance!

Umkomaas

UKCPM?  PCM UK.  No need for camouflage, it's a dispute over a speculative invoice.

1. Is the person they are writing to the vehicle's registered keeper?  Check what your V5C (logbook says, the details on that are what the PPCs use). 
2. Send a SAR as per the advice in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, second post, that sticky is now your Bible to see this through. 

3. Might do, but most PPCs (including UKCPM and PCM UK) are PoFA-compliant these days - check the NtK when you get the copy. 

4. There's no requirement to show a grace period. The parking time limit must be shown. 

5. They only correspond with the RK unless or until the driver is identified. 

6. 'No loss' was killed off by The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis, it is no longer a defence argument. You can challenge the £60/£70 they add for debt recovery/admin charges. 

7. You won't get a 'summons', this is a civil, not criminal case. The PPC will continue to use the details relative to the NtK they are now pursuing, unless formally told the correct details - but, again, check what your V5C says. 

8. Follow the advice in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, second post, don't overthink/complicate this.

D_P_Dance

Have you complained  to your MP.

redbluetile

Thanks for your quick responses.

How is it legal to not have the additional terms and conditions that apply to holders of a resident on the sign itself? It used to be 4 hours stay before and was changed at some point to 45 mins grace period for residents permit. As the sign still said 4 hrs max stay, the person read the sign and thought that was the time limit. If they don't specify that a different set of terms and conditions applied to holders of a resident permit on the sign, how can it form part of the so-called contract you enter in to when you park at that location?

Someone else who refused to pay (dont know the particulars of his case) got a claim form with county court details on it - that is what I meant by a summons.

The person in the case I referred to in my earlier post has not recieved an NTK at all - the letters are addressed to the details that were used when appealing to them but these details do not match the V5C.

Based on this extra info, is it worth fighting it in court or is this a weak case?

Umkomaas

There's never a reason not to challenge this if it gets to court. You will need your evidence prepared. Take photos now (timed and dated) of the signage as the PPC has 6 years in which to launch a claim in the county court, and you'll have no warning of that until a Letter of Claim drops through your letterbox. It could be tomorrow, or in 2027!

Please confirm the name of the PPC. 

elsien

Has the person who received the ticket approached the landowner who contracted the parking company to get it cancelled, given the circumstances? 

Le_Kirk

Take photos also of the signs they put up waring residents of the imminent change .................. oh, you can't there won't be any!  According to BPA/IPC CoPs there should be signs put up warning of changes and giving plenty of grace period before the new system is started.

Coupon-mad

How is it legal to not have the additional terms and conditions that apply to holders of a resident on the sign itself? It used to be 4 hours stay before and was changed at some point to 45 mins grace period for residents permit. As the sign still said 4 hrs max stay, the person read the sign and thought that was the time limit. If they don't specify that a different set of terms and conditions applied to holders of a resident permit on the sign, how can it form part of the so-called contract you enter in to when you park at that location?

No need to preach to the converted, we agree. And that will be part of your defence, and we win these cases.  No risk, no CCJ.

Someone else who refused to pay (dont know the particulars of his case) got a claim form with county court details on it - that is what I meant by a summons.

Yes, that will happen to you as well but it is not a 'summons'.  And court is when these scam PCNs are beaten; no risk, no CCJ as long as our advice is followed.

The person in the case I referred to in my earlier post has not recieved an NTK at all - the letters are addressed to the details that were used when appealing to them but these details do not match the V5C.

Based on this extra info, is it worth fighting it in court or is this a weak case?

There is no weak case.

Umkomaas

I've asked the OP twice to name the PPC but seems to be either missing the request, ignoring the request, or refusing the request. Which one please?

PPCs each have their own litigation profile; knowing who it is will help you to know what the prospects are of a formal claim, and how you might best defend it. 

redbluetile

Thank you for all for your helpful comments and additional support.

Umkomass - photos were taken at the time as the person realised that there were no signs alerting users of the change although there should have fine. They need to figure out how to add the date and time though.....

Considering the neighbour who got the county court claim already and considering this person has received a letter before claim as well, they are expecting they will get the county claim sooner rather than later (although point taken on the 6 year limitation clause).

The person read on one of the other threads that the parking company, amount, dates and reference to a driver / registered keeper should not be made on these threads as the parking companies access them and search for their names hence the person has been reluctant to name the company, amounts, dates and refers to themselves as "the person" rather than driver or registered keeper. You are right that it is one of the two companies you are speculating about.....

Elsien - the landowner refuses to get involved and they advise paying it, then fighting it which is the wrong advice

Le_Kirk - you are right, can't take photos of something that never existed and if they reference the change, the onus will be on them to prove signs were put up (which they never were)....

Coupon - mad - thanks for the encouragement!

elsien

The landowner is paying the parking company to be there. They could get it cancelled straight away if they wanted to.