Cotswold Lakes Trust (Charity) Car Park PPC Minster Baywatch now with LBC from Gladstones

DontWorryBeHappy27

No @Fruitcake , I have not cancelled it yet, I still think I might be able to get a policy change.  I will not renew it though. I wouldn't get my money back anyway if I cancelled . Apparently when my MP contacted them they replied in a similar way to me about being unable to cancel PCNs. 

Of course I support the aims of the Trust. It is because I believe the aims of the Trust are potentially compromised by the non intervention policy re PCNs that I have written this. But read this extract from the members terms and conditions. I removed the Charity name tho.

"Members agree to support the aims of the the Charity and not seek to publicly discredit our work or bring the name of the Trust into disrepute. Any member deemed to be behaving in such a way will have their membership cancelled without refund"

D_P_Dance

"Members agree to support the aims of the the Charity and not seek to publicly discredit our work or bring the name of the Trust into disrepute.

IMO this is an unfair term in a consumer contract, contrary to the CRA 2015  as the Trust appears to be acting in a disreputable manner itself by aiding and abetting this PPC.    

Coupon-mad

 "Members are responsible for keeping the Charity  informed as to their correct vehicle registration (VRM) at all times. Should this be provided incorrectly, or vehicle(s) changed without updating us, a parking charge notice (PCN) may be issued by the car park operator, which the Trust is unable to cancel.  The Trust cannot be held responsible or financially liable for any PCNs issued under such circumstances"

Is this is the members t&cs? 

If not, your question should be 'why not?' because it is too late to tell a member now, that they had an obligation that they didn't have prominently drawn to their attention and didn't form part of the t&cs. 

Saying only now that the Trust 'can't be held responsible' comes far too late and doesn't absolve the Trust of vicarious liability for the conduct of its out of control parking firm agent. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking and also Olley v Marlborough Court are the leading authorities on that legal position and it means by allowing their parking agent to operate unfairly, the Trust remain jointly and severally liable for your distress and loss.

UNLESS THAT CLAUSE IS IN THE T&CS OR SIGNS AND YOU SAW THIS GET OUT CLAUSE BEFORE PARKING.

DontWorryBeHappy27

@Coupon-mad I was not a member at the time of the PCN being issued. So I guess this is not relevant with respect to my PCN , but for hundreds of other members who may fall foul of these questionable terms and conditions of the membership of the charity it is very relevant.

If I have understood  Coupon Mad and DP Dance correctly, then the Trust's  non intervention policy puts them at risk if this is an issue in a court case. I am pretty certain from reading this forum that Minster Baywatch have taken to Court 2 people in the last year from parks owned or leased by the Trust who created threads, so there will be many more I guess who have not had the great help from this forum. I messaged both people who had the thread associated with this landowner and Minster Baywatch . One replied that they were successful. The other has not replied yet.

DontWorryBeHappy27

I have received the LBC from the Solicitors...... Gladstones!! Time to action SAR to the Minster Baywatch. Time to let know I am receiving debt advice as that delays things I believe. Time to read more on the sticky threads and get ready for the possible attempt to use the Courts to  enforce this Invoice. 

Umkomaas

Why not also send a SAR to the Trust, in particular asking for copies of any correspondence between them and the PPC where your personal data and the VRM of your vehicle was used. You could also ask for transcripts from any similar telephone conversations - that should flush out just how much effort they've put into this!

D_P_Dance

IMO appointing  a company whose income is derived from these scams is guilty of uncharitable behaviour and should be reoorted here.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/charity-commission 

DontWorryBeHappy27

Thanks @umkomaas for the suggestion. I asked for a SAR to the trust before the LBC about 7 weeks ago. Is it ok to submit another one then? I guess there is reasonable grounds to indicate they may now hold more relevant info on me now? 

Umkomaas  is it possible for you to remove the quote in one of your posts where you quote the Car Park address. Maybe I am a bit paranoid but I have removed references to the Car Park just in case the  LBC Solicitor chooses to read this thread. I am happy to add the information back I removed it it causes thread readers problems.

DontWorryBeHappy27

D_P_Dance said:

IMO appointing  a company whose income is derived from these scams is guilty of uncharitable behaviour and should be reoorted here.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/charity-commission 

I like the idea @D_P _Dance of reporting them. It is just their uncharitable behaviour is not as far as I can work out a grounds to report them.

I am though planning to write to the home address of one of the Charity Trustees appealing to their Christian principles as they are a Church attendee and a retired Barrister.

Le_Kirk

DontWorryBeHappy27 said:

Thanks @umkomaas for the suggestion. I asked for a SAR to the trust before the LBC about 7 weeks ago. Is it ok to submit another one then? I guess there is reasonable grounds to indicate they may now hold more relevant info on me now? 

If you submitted a SAR, they have 30 days to respond.  If you have not received a reply, you should follow up your original request with a "gee-up" e-mail, telling them they have 7 days to respond or you will report them to the ICO.  If you send another SAR, they would be within their rights to charge you if they have already responded.  This is of course assuming that it is a SAR and not a FOI that should have been used.