Received an email stating I had failed to pay parking ticket

ravnablue

er - I'm always late with everything so would be good to be ahead! I looked at a timetable of actions and thought this is what i had to do next.  You're saying that since I returned the Letter of Claim reply form, I have done everything I can until I receive further communication? 

KeithP

ravnablue said:

er - I'm always late with everything so would be good to be ahead! I looked at a timetable of actions and thought this is what i had to do next.  You're saying that since I returned the Letter of Claim reply form, I have done everything I can until I receive further communication? 

You have done more than you should at this point in time.

The first few paragraphs of the second post of the NEWBIES thread explains in great detail what you should be doing upon receipt of a Letter of Claim.

One of the first things it says there...

Coupon-mad

ravnablue said:

er - I'm always late with everything so would be good to be ahead! I looked at a timetable of actions and thought this is what i had to do next.  You're saying that since I returned the Letter of Claim reply form, I have done everything I can until I receive further communication? 

Yes and no.  I would not sit around waiting to be sued.

Nothing to stop you emailing BW Legal to achieve something useful.  Delay it ... send a snottogram this week, as seen in ALL recent threads found when you search the forum for:

BW Legal robust LBC response

Knock the case past July (say you are "seeking debt advice" in your snottogram) when we hope the DLUHC will have published their draft Impact Assessment and Public Consultation. Anticipated 'before Summer recess' in Parliament.

I'm hoping for useful words and clear analysis about the fake £70 'fee' slapped on top of private PCNs, which will (fingers crossed) help to blow a lot of ongoing exaggerated court and pre-court cases out of the water and hopefully expose a systematic attempt to "extort money from motorists" (Minister's words).

Then you need to come back here in a month to see if I'm right and to take part in the PUBLIC CONSULTATION to push the new law over the line.

And BW will be swivelling in limbo if you've delayed the claim being filed and the DLUHC torpedo the fake fees.

ravnablue

KeithP said:

ravnablue said:

er - I'm always late with everything so would be good to be ahead! I looked at a timetable of actions and thought this is what i had to do next.  You're saying that since I returned the Letter of Claim reply form, I have done everything I can until I receive further communication? 

You have done more than you should at this point in time.

The first few paragraphs of the second post of the NEWBIES thread explains in great detail what you should be doing upon receipt of a Letter of Claim.

One of the first things it says there...

I read on one thread to complete only the tick the box to state I dispute the debt.  That is all I did, no other comments or information provided other than my name etc on front.  I have read lots honest.  The problem is it all jumbles after a while.  i will be careful what I do next, thank you. 

ravnablue

That sounds a good plan.  Thank you.  They haven't rushed so far, so hopefully it can be further delayed.

I have to confess that in this year of trying to sort out my log book, I have managed to acquire another two tickets - both sent to wrong address.  Perhaps my registration number is on a - hey do this one list as I have received more tickets this last couple of years than I have in the entirety of my driving history - 47 years! One unfortunately resulted in a CCJ as they went straight to court before locating me.  I will do separate threads as I work through them? 

This is a marvellous forum and I really appreciate it, as I am sure many others do.

Coupon-mad

We can help on a new thread to set aside that CCJ.  We do it regularly; it is mandatory for a Judge to agree your application if a wrong address was used.

ravnablue

My draft snottogram:

Dear Sirs,

 

With regard to Fixed Charge Notice WLxxxxx/ ref Txxxxx Napier Parking Ltd.

 

This has been an ongoing matter since I first received an email from yourselves in November 2021, relating to the alleged parking offence of failing to clearly display a valid ticket or permit whilst parked at Willen Lake on 18th August 2021.  It should be noted that a photo clearly showing a parking ticket was correctly affixed to the windscreen as disclosed in the Subject Access Request.

 

You were advised upon receipt of the email that I had not received a Notice to Keeper as per the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and could therefore not respond to the parking notice.  It is therefore reprehensible that you should continue to send me threatening communications.  You are aware, as is your client, of guidelines you are expected to adhere to.  It is ironic that your client failed to make contact with me to send the FCN but you yourselves obviously located me easily in order to demand £160, clearly a disproportionate amount.  A credit search would have enabled your client to send the FCN to the correct address. 

 

As a woman in my 50’s who has spent most of her life working for the Government, I have to say that I am horrified at the behaviour of your company.  If I had attempted even a small part of your repellent, threatening actions then I would very quickly have lost my job.  I am upset and perturbed at the idea of being taken to court over such a matter, my reputation and financial standing is of the utter importance and I take umbrage at the fact of your threats against me.  You should be ashamed of yourselves.  I would draw your attention to: 

(i) Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd  [2009] EWCA Civ 46

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html 

where Sedley LJ held: 

[52] ''...For my part I would draw attention to the fact [...] that harassment is a crime as well as a tort. Contrary to what was more than once suggested, this does not modify in any way the constituents of the wrong. 

[53] Parliament's intention in passing the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was to criminalise the kind of serious and persistent unwarranted threat which is alleged here, giving a right of civil action as a fallback. In this situation it ought not to be left to hardy individuals to put their savings and homes at risk by suing. The primary responsibility should rest upon local public authorities which possess the means and the statutory powers to bring alleged harassers, however impersonal and powerful, before the local justices.''

I expect that this fixed parking notice be cancelled forthwith.

Yours faithfully,

 Thoughts? 

Coupon-mad

It's not a 'parking offence' (not a crime or fine) and you've missed the magic words I told you to use that SPECIFICALLY buys 30 more days.

You haven't asked them to explain why the case is being pursued when the photo shows the P&D ticket on the dashboard.  You've mentioned it but not actually said what you want them to do - revert to Napier?

I'd also say that Napier have reportedly lost the contract at Willen Lakes and was that due to the high stream of constant complaints? They won't answer but it's good to gave a dig, IMHO.

Also, as you work(ed) for the Government, wouldn't it have a lot more impact to cite the new incoming DLUHC Code of Practice and sound knowledgeable about it being resurrected in July (with a likely ban on false admin fees), and maybe not Ferguson v British Gas?

Don't say you are a woman in your fifties.

So am I but I think it looks odd in the response that will get no more than a cursory glance by some twelve year old 'legal' clerk at the bulk litigation team.  Irrelevant.

I also think the twelve year old clerk won't understand "take umbrage" and you should say something angrier than that!

Hell hath no fury and all that.  I'm with you!  This is why I do what I do here every day. But don't state it.

Say you are a civil service professional who has long service in Government and are more than happy to contact the DLUHC direct, to raise your case as an example!

ravnablue

I hear you Coupon-Mad.  Here is the revised draft.  I have retained the phrase take umbrage as I like to discomfit by using words that may not be understood (by those I wish to upset) but I have added in outraged which hopefully meets your brief of being angrier  I had wondered about adding in the news re losing contract but had thought would make too long.  Only to happy to add.....

Dear Sirs,

 

With regard to Fixed Charge Notice xxxxx/ ref xxxxx Napier Parking Ltd.

 

I write to advise I am seeking debt advice.  In saying this, I do not accept liability. 

 

This has been an ongoing matter since I first received an email from yourselves in November 2021, relating to the allegation of failing to clearly display a valid ticket or permit whilst parked at Willen Lake on 18th August 2021.  It should be noted that a photo clearly showing a parking ticket was correctly affixed to the windscreen as disclosed in the Subject Access Request.  As such, a pertinent question would be why are you pursuing this matter at all and I strongly suggest you refer the matter back to your client Napier Parking.  Courts do not like their time to be wasted.

 

You were advised upon receipt of the email that I had not received a Notice to Keeper as per the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and could therefore not respond to the parking notice.  It is therefore reprehensible that you should continue to send me threatening communications.  You are aware, as is your client, of guidelines you are expected to adhere to.  It is ironic that your client failed to make contact with me to send the FCN but you yourselves obviously located me easily in order to demand £160, clearly a disproportionate amount.  A credit search would have enabled your client to send the FCN to the correct address. 

 

As someone who has spent most of their life working for the Government, I have to say that I am horrified at the behaviour of your company.  If I had attempted even a small part of your repellent, threatening actions then I would very quickly have lost my job.  I am upset and perturbed at the idea of being taken to court over such a matter, my reputation and financial standing is of the utter importance and I take umbrage at the fact of your threats against me.  In fact, I am outraged. You should be ashamed of yourselves.  I would draw your attention to: 

(i) Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd  [2009] EWCA Civ 46

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html 

where Sedley LJ held: 

[52] ''...For my part I would draw attention to the fact [...] that harassment is a crime as well as a tort. Contrary to what was more than once suggested, this does not modify in any way the constituents of the wrong. 

[53] Parliament's intention in passing the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was to criminalise the kind of serious and persistent unwarranted threat which is alleged here, giving a right of civil action as a fallback. In this situation it ought not to be left to hardy individuals to put their savings and homes at risk by suing. The primary responsibility should rest upon local public authorities which possess the means and the statutory powers to bring alleged harassers, however impersonal and powerful, before the local justices.''

I assume that your client lost the parking contract at Willen Lakes due to the ‘string of complaints from the public’ of ‘unfairly receiving penalty fines’ and ‘parking company refuses to change confusing system at popular MK lake’, as reported in the MKCitizen.  Evidence, is this not, that a court would take into account in dismissing this FCN.

Furthermore, adding costs/damages/fees (however described) onto a parking charge is now banned. In a section called 'Escalation of costs' the incoming statutory Code of Practice says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued."  The Government stated that attempts to gild the lily by adding 'debt recovery costs' were 'extorting money'.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice.  Please note that I would be delighted to contact the DLUHC direct and raise my case as an example.   

 

I trust that this fixed parking notice will be cancelled forthwith.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

Coupon-mad

That's very good, much harder hitting.

The added £60 isn't quite "banned" but by the time they've put the case on hold for 30 days you'll know, because the Draft Impact Assessment and Public Consultation ALL ABOUT THAT POINT is due out by then.

retained the phrase take umbrage as I like to discomfit by using words that may not be understood (by those I wish to upset)

A woman after my own heart! Love it!

See you in August for the vital Consultation.  Motorists are needed to push the law over the line and drown out the parking firms' greedy bleating for 'more'.