Letter Before Claim

Justo_2

Looking for advice.

Received a letter for stopping at Liverpool Airport when my child was about to wet himself in the car. Pulled over so he could pee, then received a fine. Since then i have received various letters. The latest being a letter before claim for £160 due to the PCN. I reside in Scotland. Can you advise if i should do anything? I see in some posts that residing in Scotland may change any action i should take. Any assistance would be most appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Respond and say you are outside the jurisdiction of the English court and there is no keeper liability in your country, nor in a case such as this, where the land is not 'relevant land' (e.g. byelaws land, including an Airport).  

So you require them to wind their necks in and erase your data under your GDPR rights, because you have answered the only question they were entitled to ask you as registered keeper in a non-POFA case, which was ''will you identify the driver, we invite you to do so?''.  The answer to that us ''no, now go away''.


BTW the law is changing in Scotland next year and you will end up lumbered with keeper liability for new cases so be careful and never stop on double reds, anywhere, nor overstay at a Supermarket.  But at least the Governments are also bringing in a proper appeals service.

JackShip

I have exactly the same issue  but live in England is it the same reply in my case ?

D_P_Dance

latest being a letter before claim for £160 

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection. Judges have dismissed an entire claim because of this. Read this and complain to your MP.

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

Coupon-mad

JackShip said:

I have exactly the same issue  but live in England is it the same reply in my case ?

No, you are not outside of jurisdiction of the English Courts but the point about Airport land not being relevant land is always true.  Read any Airport thread, this is basic stuff in a defence where the driver has not been previously identified in an appeal or photos.

Justo_2

Thanks folks, so i should engage with them but challenge their argument that i was on relevant land?

KeithP

Justo_2 said:

Thanks folks, so i should engage with them but challenge their argument that i was on relevant land?

Please read again @Coupon-mad's earlier post.

Here it is again...

Coupon-mad said:

Respond and say you are outside the jurisdiction of the English court and there is no keeper liability in your country, nor in a case such as this, where the land is not 'relevant land' (e.g. byelaws land, including an Airport).  

So you require them to wind their necks in and erase your data under your GDPR rights, because you have answered the only question they were entitled to ask you as registered keeper in a non-POFA case, which was ''will you identify the driver, we invite you to do so?''.  The answer to that us ''no, now go away''.

Also you need to be very careful with what you are writing.
This phrase will let you down...

...but challenge their argument that i was on relevant land?

You should instead be saying  that "the vehicle was not on relevant land".
You are the keeper of the vehicle. By using the word 'I' in that sentence you are telling the reader, who could quite easily be the parking company, that the keeper was driving the car.
With that information the protection offered by the 'not relevant land' argument and them not being able to identify the driver are thrown out of the window.

Please do take care.

Justo_2

Dear all,

Is there a standard letter i can use to respond?

Coupon-mad

I gave you the wording.

Justo_2

Coupon-mad said:

I gave you the wording.

Thanks, do you recommend emailing or lettering them?

Le_Kirk

Everything is done by e-mail these days providing, of course, that you have an e-mail address to which to send the letter.