Letter before a claim - next steps?

Redx

Send it direct and CC the MP into it

greenfalco

Coupon-mad said:

Just as an aside, why is a litigation officer signing off that she has a Masters in Biology!   Do they think an MP will be more impressed?

Rashpal Chana, MA FRSB CBiol PGCE BSc (Hons)

Shame not to be able to make better use of a decent degree and teaching qualification and I say that not as any personal slight but with disappointment, from the heart, as someone who has worked in education and whose adult kids are also Masters level scientists and don't work for parking firms.  

I'd email this person (copy in your MP for info) and say that you have seen their reply to your MP and would like them to explain their costs breakdown and explain what has been expended, because they said:

''As we have incurred costs in sending out letters, DVLA searches, Gladstones Solicitors costs, I am afraid I cannot lower the amount now due.”

QUESTION:  kindly explain, why are you telling an MP that the £2.50 paid to the DVLA is an additional cost, when this is a core cost from week one, that all recipients of a NTK would cover even if they paid £60 (discount).  All NTKs include the costs of the operation and certainly the DVLA early cost, so it can't be counted again to try to justify slapping additional false costs on top of £100.

QUESTION:  why are you saying that you have paid costs to Gladstones?  Correct me if I am wrong, but looking at adverts for their services over the years, they are known to operate for no money up front, on a no-win-no-fee basis. So, what money has your firm paid to Gladstones?  Nothing at this point (or a minimal fee offered to IPC members?).  And even if you have, this is covered by the capped £50 legal fees allowed in the Civil Procedure rules and again, can't be counted twice as a way to subvert the CPR cap.  When you issue a claim, if you feel you have a case against me as registered keeper, despite not bothering to use the POFA, you can add £50 in legal fees but it would be an abuse to attempt double recovery.

QUESTION: Please explain again why you have added £60 on top of the already almost doubled parking charge, given that the Supreme court case of ParkingEye v Beavis established that an £85 parking charge (minus the bounty paid to the landowner each month) more than covered all costs and a profit, even in a case that progresses to court.  So, what is the £60 for?  At least have the courtesy not to invent reasons why you have inflated the 'costs' and spare me the answer that 'our Trade Body says we can' because that is not a justification for costs in law.

They also admitted they cannot hold a keeper liable:

“The site does not have ANPR cameras, the vehicle was monitored using CCTV. Furthermore the Notice to Keeper sent on the 12 March 2019, did not rely on the Protection of Freedom Act (2012).” 

QUESTION:  on what basis are you trying to hold me liable?  Do you have evidence photos from CCTV of the driver, so assist me to pass the notice to them and transfer liability, as is my right before court action commences?  I now formally ask you for all CCTV evidence (not just snapshots, moving images if you have the full capture of events) and this is my right under the pre-action protocol.

I have copied in my MP because your response is far from satisfactory.  Your company will be required to do better than this once the MHCLG's new Code of Practice and scrutiny regime holds parking firms to a regulatory framework and you will be required to supply a proper, independent ADR in future to help future victims of this rogue industry.   Please reply to my questions and your replies will be shown to the Judge in due course.

E-mail sent... Just to note, the final question is asking for the CCTV evidence... EPS have already sent the snapshots to the registered keeper, albeit not moving images, nor images that show the driver moving the car to an available space as soon as one became free.

Regards
GF

Coupon-mad

But you don't know if they have sent every image and it's perfectly reasonable to ask for the moving images in full, after all, Councils provide the full video for CCTV penalties on red routes and yellow box junctions. 

It either still exists or it doesn't and I asked for it for good reason, so you can see everything they have.

D_P_Dance

I think that it would be pointless to continue this conversation with the MP.  The PPC have given you so much rope you can make a bridge.  Surely you have enough to trounce them in court.

greenfalco

Update (EPS starting to show how useless they are),

See below e-mail from EPS sent this morning. The exact same e-mail as the e-mail they sent on the 6th May in which the keeper responded with the required information. Should the keeper still respond to this one even though the requested information was sent?


-----------------------------------


Many thanks (again!)
GF

D_P_Dance

What do you expect, you are not dealing with John Lewis.  Consider complaining ti the I.C.O. the ATA, and your MP

greenfalco

D_P_Dance said:

What do you expect, you are not dealing with John Lewis.  Consider complaining ti the I.C.O. the ATA, and your MP

Thanks D P, the ICO won't accept a complaint until it has been a month since the original SAR request. I'll wait until 6th June as that's when I responded with the information EPS requested. Is the ATA the Accredited Trade Association?... I don't suppose you know how/where I can go to complain to them?
I will write to my MP again.

Regards GF

Redx

No problem in giving example PCN , s , but they should have the data filed under you as the data subject , a legal requirement over the last few years , for each and every PCN , hence the eventual ICO complaint about this failure

The legislation covers you as a Data subject , nothing to do with parking or PCN references

Do not be unreasonable , it looks bad in court

greenfalco

Redx said:

No problem in giving example PCN , s , but they should have the data filed under you as the data subject , a legal requirement over the last few years , for each and every PCN , hence the eventual ICO complaint about this failure

The legislation covers you as a Data subject , nothing to do with parking or PCN references

Do not be unreasonable , it looks bad in court

Thanks Redx,

I will respond again with the information they are after, but will make note that they requested this on the 6th May (to which I responded with what was requested). I hope they don’t try and claim they have a month from today to respond.

Regards
GF

greenfalco

MP’s office has also written to EPS asking for them to respond to keeper’s SAR.

Regards
GF