Highview pcn Bradfield road

Albert_Arkwright

I am helping a neighbour (Miss H) who doesn't have a pc and has dyslexia (officially diagnosed) with a pcn.

25/11/21   She  received a "formal letter of claim in accordance with the pre-action protocol for debt claims" from their debt collection company DCB Legal.

/12/22     I emailed them to inform them that she didn't know what the basis of this claim was and was making a SAR request to Highview for the relevant information.
I emailed Highview with the sar request, informing them for data protection compliance all correspondence was to be posted to the address of Miss H.
Some time passed with Highview now nexus refusing to carry out the request for data protection. I advised Miss H to get her V5 for the vehicle to me to email a copy of.

27/1/22     Miss H  eventually found her V5 and i emailed a copy to nexus.

17/2/22     Miss H received a copy of the original Highview claim from nexus.


This is a privately owned, free, public use carpark with a 90 minutes time limit. A part is also designated permit holders only.
Here is an ariel showing the parking bay used and sign .

There is no other indication other than the sign on the wall as to where the public area ends and permit holders begins.



Firstly I believe I now make all further correspondence with dcblegal as it has been passed onto them from nexus correct?

I consider (as does Miss H - very strongly) that the reason she was parked in a bay that has been claimed to be permit only is due to a lack of clear indication, there is only the above sign, which I consider ambiguous in its reference to the point at which not to park beyond, nothing on the ground or in front of the parking bays. The bays just carry on at some indeterminate point becoming permit only. Would a judge consider the same?

Is there good grounds to take this to court and if Miss H was to lose her case what sort of cost would she be facing?

I would also like to ask Nexus for evidence that they have the authority from the the landowner to enforce claims for non permit holders in this particular bay. My reason is that does a parking enforcement company when taking up a contract with a landowner have to specify the boundaries of areas with different parking conditions or would it be legally acceptable that the the parking enforcement company says "let me control parking on your land, I will designate some of that area as permit only leave it to me, sign here and here's a load of dosh". Can a PEC have legal right to dictate their own conditions and areas to which they apply? 

Coupon-mad

They can't dictate their own areas.

There should be a landowner contract and map showing the enforcement boundaries but she won't see that until close to the court hearing (I realise there is no claim yet).

She should put a complaint in writing to the landowner and get her MP to lend weight to her complaint, by writing to all parties asking them to explain why the bays are not marked out as permit bays, nor is there any delineation on the tarmac to signal what 'this point' means.

I think 'beyond this point' is ambiguous and more likely to refer to the point beyond and BEHIND that sign and wall, not in front of it!

I consider (as does Miss H - very strongly) that the reason she was parked in a bay that has been claimed to be permit only is due to a lack of clear indication, there is only the above sign, which I consider ambiguous...The bays just carry on at some indeterminate point becoming permit only. Would a judge consider the same?

Almost certainly!  Ambiguity must be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer (Consumer Rights Act 2015).

Is there good grounds to take this to court.

Yes if she wants to just sit back and let that happen - but better to get her MP to lend weight to a massive landowner complaint.  MPs will be interested, or should be, due to the new statutory parking Code if Practice (she needs to read it and be familiar with it).

Threads all over the forum as this came out on 7th February and is far better than the self-serving codes of practice that exist.in this rogue sector.

and if Miss H was to lose her case what sort of cost would she be facing?

She won't lose and the £70 they've added is banned by the new Code of Practice.

So a case lost would be the PCN plus small fees (under £200 all told).  No risk, no CCJ, nowt bad.

Read mine and other recent posts about the new Code of Practice and urgently get on to her local MP.

Be confident and robust and keep on replying in her name.  Everything in her name, not you on her behalf.

Albert_Arkwright

Thank for getting back, I have read the new CoP. this claim is clearly in breach of its guidelines as to signage and additional charges  but can it be used yet as its still only draft as I understand it?
Read loads of threads but still no wiser, at court could it be used as guidelines for the judge to rule on?

I will ask the debt collection company to give me evidence of their clients written confirmation of landowners agreement showing boundaries of public and permit holders area. If they have it and this parking bay is within the designated permit holders area I will at least have it the landowners name to make complaint to.
To be honest I doubt the company who owns the land will take any notice of me complaining, the ppc pays them to operate, the shops pay their rents, so long as the ppc's actions don't negatively effect their financial income I can't see them being bothered.
I can pass the details on to the MP to apply pressure to get the signage improved, apart from supporting the CoP bill in parliament I can't see her being able to do anything else, doesn't hurt to bring to her attention I suppose, the present situation should be classed as criminally fraudulent.
Many people are intimidated and just pay the charge, afraid of challenging it not knowing they have very good grounds to contest which unfortunately won't change, more publicity perhaps to make more people aware and inspire confidence.
Many Thanks for your valuable assistance.

fisherjim

If those anpr photos are all they have that only shows the time in and out of a timed car park which you say is free for  90mins they do not show the car passing a boundary or parking in an off limit area typical scammers honey trap in my opinion.

Do you have photos of signage confirming the free 90mins T&C's

Coupon-mad

I have read the new CoP. this claim is clearly in breach of its guidelines as to signage and additional charges  but can it be used yet as its still only draft as I understand it?
Read loads of threads but still no wiser, at court could it be used as guidelines for the judge to rule on?

Yes.

Although a PPC can't be 'in breach' on signage as that Code wasn't in place at the time.

But the add-ons are declared as 'designed to extort money from motorists' so that's a clear steer to Judges in existing cases!  I covered this argument last night in the thread about JD Parking.

I will ask the debt collection company to give me evidence of their clients written confirmation of landowners agreement showing boundaries of public and permit holders area.

No point.  You won't get that.

Far better to use and adapt the 'Dear R Taylor' response I wrote on 24th Feb.  The one about the added pseudo debt recovery fees being banned.