LBC - I wouldn't even call the car parked, rather "stopped".

Coupon-mad

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/06/all-change-at-gladstones-and-ipc.html

MoneySavingClown

My MP wrote to the PPC and this is what they replied. The MP didn't acknowledge anything about raising the manner of how the PPCs operate in this country, however I do appreciate that they tried to make contact for me.

We write in response to your email dated 23rd September 2021. We note that in your correspondence you raise the following concerns:

1. That your constituent has received a parking charge notice for failing to display a permit, however they mention that no one approached the vehicle to see if a permit was on display;
2. That a £70 fee has been added on top of the original parking charge notice and that this fee has not been explained to him and;
3. That the photographic evidence shows his vehicle in the area for 2 minutes, not giving any time for the driver to read the signs and react accordingly.

Following receipt of the above referenced correspondence we have conducted a review of the Parking Charge Notice and have concluded that the same was issued correctly for the following reasons:

1. Signage on site states, “All vehicles must be registered with a valid, pre-authorised UK CPM E- Permit at all times”. As this is an online permit system, the requirement to check the vehicle for a permit was not required.

   Our operatives have access to check the E-Permit system at the time of contravention, which showed the vehicle was not registered and therefore parked in breach of the parking restrictions.

2. Our signage and all documentation provides clear notification that additional charges will be added to the value of the PCN should it remain unpaid. UK CPM are governed by the International Parking Community and therefore we adhere to their Code of Practice. The Code states, “Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum may be added. This sum must not exceed £70 unless Court Proceedings have been initiated”.
3. As you will see in the photographic evidence attached, it shows the vehicle parked directly next to one of many warning signs on site. The Code of Practice also states, “Motorists must be allowed a sufficient Consideration Period so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to enter or remain on the Private Land. If a Motorist chooses to reject the opportunity by entering or remaining on the Private Land without reading terms and conditions, they may be deemed to have accepted them immediately”.
   

   Given the close proximity of the vehicle to the signage, we consider that a reasonable consideration period has been given to allow the motorist to read the signs and act accordingly.

Please be advised, that we have instructed Gladstones Solicitors to recover the outstanding balance of the Parking Charge Notice and they continue to have conduct in this matter. Accordingly, all further correspondence concerning the Parking Charge Notice and settlement of the same will need to be sent directly to them and not ourselves.

We are keen to work constructively with you and all MP's who have concerns about the private parking profession and if you would like to meet to discuss any issues, we would be very happy to do so.

We thank you for contacting us and trust the above response addresses your queries.

Yours faithfully,

The consideration period is a load of rubbish. Even if the driver considered it and then left the premises, they're still going to charge you? I'm not sure it's worth pursuing this via the MP. Should I just wait for the SAR and the next step for court?

Redx

they quote the IPC CoP, that CoP section on £70 is not valid when you consider the Wilkinson case and the Recorder Cohen judgment , plus the Barry Beavis Parking Eye case 6 years ago , the law trumps the CoP

It also has a section on grace periods, and consumers need one to consider contracts, as per the CRA 2015, again , the law trumps the CoP

even if they can recover from the driver, they have to either comply with POFA 2012 to go after a keeper, or prove who was driving and pursue them instead

perhaps you should reply to your MP , plus refer them to the Parking Bill 2019 by Sir Greg Knight and to the Cabinet minister Michael Gove MP or his minions at the old MHCLG, now the DLUHC ,  where the new CoP is being discussed for implementation in summer 2022 ?

I believe it was Luke Hall until recently, so maybe its Kemi Badenoch ?

MoneySavingClown

Redx said:

they quote the IPC CoP, that CoP section on £70 is not valid when you consider the Wilkinson case and the Recorder Cohen judgment , plus the Barry Beavis Parking Eye case 6 years ago , the law trumps the CoP

I mentioned some case law including Excel vs Wilkinson. I also mentioned the debate at Parliament which was in the Newbie thread. I feel like the MP has no jurisdiction here and they are just passing messages back and forth, and that the PPC will move forward with this case no matter what. I don't mind taking it to court at the worst case scenario I would pay around about what they're asking from me anyway. I have the money to pay it immediately so I am not afraid of the threat of a CCJ.

I have a copy of the email I sent to the MP if you want to see it in a DM? In all fairness they replied quite quickly, asking me for my address to prove I'm one of her constituents, and passing on the reply from the PPC straight away.

Redx

all standard stuff for an MP, they are the conduit for your complaints and queries, but the DLUHC has overall control, as I said above , so you use them to get to the big boys and girls etc. they are there to lobby senior minsters and government departments

of course they are passing messages on, but its important they and their secretaries understand the topic being discussed, and know when BS comes back, to challenge it and not just swallow it

ditto for the Justice Minister, if your query or complaint is about the Justice ministry (which it may not be , yet)

MoneySavingClown

Gladstones replied to me regarding putting the LBC on hold:

Good Morning, Thank you for your email.

We write to advise we are seeking further instructions from our Client on the content.

In the event, the file will be placed on hold for 30 days and if our Client wishes to progress the case against you we will contact you further in due course.

Kind Regards,

Which was quickly followed up with:

Good Morning,

We write further to my email below.

The signs displayed at the site confirm vehicles must be registered with a valid pre-authorised UKCPM permit if they wish to avoid a parking charge.

Your vehicle is not registered as being authorised and therefore we are satisfied the parking charge was issued correctly.

The full sum of £170.00 is outstanding. You can pay by using one of the following methods;

Payment methods

You must include your reference when making payment. If you fail to do so, we may be unable to allocate your payment. This may result in further costs being incurred, for which you will be liable.

If you are unable to make payment in one lump sum, our Client is open to the option of a payment plan. If this is something you wish to discuss, please confirm the amount you wish/are able to pay monthly for us to review.

In the absence of a substantive response or payment in full within 30 days of this email, our Client may elect to issue legal proceedings without further notice. Please note you are always at liberty to seek your own independent legal advice or Citizens Advice Bureau to discuss your options further.

Kind Regards,

Is the 30 day hold in regards to filing the court paperwork, so the PPC can continue to chase the debt?

Is it worth appealing on the grounds of the 2 minute consideration period and leaving the premises as soon as possible. I haven't actually appealed this in the first place as I missed that whole part of the process. (I ignored their Final Notice and subsequent debt collection letters)

What wouldn't surprise me is if they had another picture showing the car was there even earlier or later than the dates on the FPN - so I'm awaiting details of the SAR.

Redx

No it's not , it is so that you can gather evidence and contact the claimant , the SAR you send to the DPO at the PPC , meaning that the DPO has 30 days to reply , so your 30 days hold is to obtain the SAR reply before further action is taken by the claimant

The time to appeal passed a long time ago , within 4 to 8 weeks of the incident date !!
If only we could all turn the clock back !! Hindsight is a wonderful , wistful thing 😁😁😁

That's why you need the SAR reply evidence , to check facts

Coupon-mad

How the hell can an IPC firm be claiming £170 when the IPC CoP only changed the ceiling from £60 to £70 on 1st August this year and no previous letters can possibly have stated that seventy quid in false costs would be added.

MoneySavingClown

Coupon-mad said:

How the hell can an IPC firm be claiming £170 when the IPC CoP only changed the ceiling from £60 to £70 on 1st August this year and no previous letters can possibly have stated that seventy quid in false costs would be added.

Rude isn't it?

The SAR just came through.

Embarrassingly they also have a record of two other FPNs - one I paid due to lack of time to learn everything here (I appealed, appeal rejected, so I paid the lower fee), the other one I transferred liability which they actually think I TOL to myself (my brother has the same initial as me and had the same address, not really my fault if they haven't recorded it properly). They have a record of cancelling the debt recovery via Trace but the case is still open. It's not included in the debt claim from the solicitors.

The information they have for the ticket in dispute is:

• The original PCN - not received.
• Formal demand of £100 as the original was not received. Mentions overdue charge of £160 in the first instance of further action - received but ignored.
• Screenshots of the system they use logging this case. Includes a screen showing they have jpgs of the photos taken at the time of event. These photos were not attached to the SAR. You can't even see the VRN of the car in the screenshots.
• They have internal communications dealing with this SAR request.
• They have a record of replying to my MP above. They basically forwarded my whole email to them. I'm glad I mentioned 'the driver' and not accepting any liability. I wasn't aware of the actual communication between the MP and the PPC.
• The consider the SAR concluded.

I'm going to suggest to them to unconclude it as I want the original photos taken for every FPN they have for this car. Is there anything else I should request?

Coupon-mad

No, but certainly all photos of the car must come as part of a SAR.