Initial Parking Ltd - Emails

jimjones235

Someone used my car back in december, and parked in a carpark managed by Initial Parking Ltd. They used the JustPark app to pay for their parking, unfortunately they left the registration set to another car. 

On the 23rd December I received a PCN with a £60 charge in the post, we realised what had happened so I submitted an appeal through their website (with a screen shot of the just park app showing times etc and a PDF of the invoice from JustPark), their web application hung as I did so tried again and it wouldn't let me. A quick bit of reading reveals that as they are  BPA members at worst they could levy an admin fee of £20 (for major keying error). So I figured it was submitted and left it at that waiting for them to contact me. To be clear, I know my driver made the error by entering the wrong reg number, and I wouldn't have minded paying the £20. But I heard nothing from them whatsoever, so I kind of presumed they had written it off.

Then last week I received a letter from "I-DebtCollection" stating that as I've not responded to any of the offers I now owe £120, and I'll be in lots of trouble if I don't pay it blah blah. So I sent them an email saying I've no idea who they are, and have had no contact with Initial since submitting my appeal and I don't acknowledge any debt. They claimed that initial had contacted me numerous times, which I had "ignored", this isn't true, so I pushed them (and raised a complaint with the BPA) and they finally admitted they had sent the follow-up by email - which I'd not received (genuinely I've checked everywhere - even to the point of checking my mail servers logs - I know a fair bit about email). I asked for delivery/read receipts which they are not able to supply (there's a surprise!). I may be wrong, but I didn't think you could use email for legal notices - or at least you'd not have a leg to stand on if they other party claims to have not receieved them and you don't have read receipts (too many things can go wrong) ??

Initial finally forwarded me a copy of the original email they sent on the 29th December - which they claim is proof I was notified (I claim this is nonsense!)

However, this is where it get's interesting, if I look at the headers of the email it shows all the rejections the email had recieved when it was originally sent, and most importantly that it failed SPF checks: for those that don't know an SPF record is an antispam measure and is setup against your domain name, it defines what IP addresses or Servers are allowed to generate emails for your domain, if you don't have one it become easy to generate an email from "john@xyz.com" from anywhere, if you do have one then it says all mail for "xyz.com" must come from a server on the specified list in the record. Initial Parking do have an SPF record, but it is limited to only their server, emails generated from their Appeals process are generated by a different server, "Unity5.Net" but sent from "appeals@initialparking.co.uk" - a bit of googling reveals that "Unity5" software developed a platform called "ZatPark" - which is a hosted appeals management system.  The upshot is, that their system setup is flawed, any response from their automated appeals system will be rejected, the majority of email servers apply a blanket rejection of emails failing SPF checks (note, not marked as spam, flatly rejected at the point of sending). So that means the majority of people will not be receiving any appeals response from initials appeals system.

I pointed out to them, that not only did I not receive the email, they have furnished me with proof that the email was never actually successfully sent, therefore they have not notified me of the appeal result within the 35 day time limit. I explained their issue (in my day job I do a lot of consultancy work looking into these kind of issues), but rather than thank me they denied this, and told me to liaise with the debt company. At this point, I simply told them I do not acknowledge the debt, and if they would like to take me to court (on the basis of a notification that never actually left their servers) then feel free. 

I've never admitted who the driver was, so I do wonder if I now state who the driver was whether the whole process would restart (and I can just pay the £20 and be done with it) ?

Anyway, just leaving this here in case anyone else is in the same boat.

 

Fruitcake

You could name the driver up to the day before a court claim is issued. I see no urgency to do this if you want to continue the fight. It's entirely up to the keeper, but they may want to discuss it with the driver first.

Personally I wouldn't be throwing a friend or family member under the tram just yet, but that's because I object to paying these parking companies, referred to as rogues, scammers, and bloodsuckers by UK MPs across all parties, anything at all, even if someone else is offering to pay.

Now you have the technical evidence to show the PPC's emails were never received, you could complain again to the BPA about Initial Parking's technical issue that may unfairly be affecting hundreds if not thousands of other motorists as well.

What happened when you complained to the landowner?
Have you complained to your MP.

jimjones235

"What happened when you complained to the landowner?"

Nothing... no response (Mousehole habour authority!). To be fair, there was an error on our part (using the JustPark app with the wrong reg), but they are not out of pocket, as the "parking" was paid for.

I'm not about to throw anyone under tram, but if I can tie them in knots for a while, then walk away with the "£20" admin charge later on then I'd consider it a public service.

Umkomaas

Mousehole Harbour Authority car park might be covered by byelaws. Please check it out, as that could throw a whole different slant on this. 

Castle

Umkomaas said:

Mousehole Harbour Authority car park might be covered by byelaws. Please check it out, as that could throw a whole different slant on this. 

It is and it even mentions Car parking at Section 30:-
P-CORE2CMFD02-20160412130019 (mouseholeharbour.co.uk)

Fruitcake

Where byelaws apply it is deemed "not relevant land" as defined by the PoFA. That means that the driver can, the owner may, but the keeper can never be held liable for a parking charge.

Umkomaas

There you go, no keeper liability. so the very last thing you should be considering is naming the driver!

I would write to Initial reminding them that as byelaws (including a section relating to parking) exist they must know that keeper liability cannot possibly be invoked under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4).

As the registered keeper, you are confirming with them that you were not the driver and cannot therefore be held liable. In which case you require them to cancel the parking charge against you and tell them to contact the driver. As there is no requirement in law placed on you to identify the driver, you will not be doing so. 

Tell them to instruct DRP to cease and desist any further contact with you. 

Tell them that should there be any further contact suggesting you owe them anything, you will report this to the DVLA and the BPA, after which, should they not intervene, you will be issuing court proceedings against Initial Parking for a breach of GDPR/DPA regulations, where a claim for a minimum of £250 will be made.