GXS SERVICES PCN...BW LEGAL letters & have now received a Claim Form

WithinRange

KeithP said:

WithinRange said:

Forgot to ask - does this need to be posted or can it be emailed?

The SAR should be emailed to GXS's Data Protection Officer. His/her email address is in their Privacy Policy and there is a link to that Privacy Policy at the bottom of every page on their website.

I would leave out this sentence from your SAR...

If you need any more data from me to confirm my identity, please let me know as soon as possible. 

All it does is give then an excuse to delay things.

Thanks very much @KeithP

WithinRange

KeithP said:

WithinRange said:

Forgot to ask - does this need to be posted or can it be emailed?

The SAR should be emailed to GXS's Data Protection Officer. His/her email address is in their Privacy Policy and there is a link to that Privacy Policy at the bottom of every page on their website.

I would leave out this sentence from your SAR...

If you need any more data from me to confirm my identity, please let me know as soon as possible. 

All it does is give then an excuse to delay things.

Thank you KeithP!

Coupon-mad

Also, my wife paid for the second ticket from her phone (the first one was from mine). Does that need noting also as they would have received payment from two different cashless sources?

Yes, and it goes in the defence as well.  You can't wait for the SAR to come back.

Do you think a typo was made re the numberplate, one or other of the times?

WithinRange

Coupon-mad said:

Also, my wife paid for the second ticket from her phone (the first one was from mine). Does that need noting also as they would have received payment from two different cashless sources?

Yes, and it goes in the defence as well.  You can't wait for the SAR to come back.

Do you think a typo was made re the numberplate, one or other of the times?

Thank you. 

It's possible there was a typo made for the second one. Hard to say for sure though.

WithinRange

Hi @Coupon-mad

The SAR has been responded to.

They included:

Photos of the vehicle.
A photo of the signs. 
Copies of correspondence with the keeper (initial notice & final reminder).

They did not include:

Any correspondence with Parking Fines Ltd (perhaps there was none).
Any records of payments for the vehicle (or a near match for that day).

I will write back but is it typical for them to ignore such things? 

Thank you

Coupon-mad

Yep typical for PPCs.  You should chase for the evidence and suggest it may have been a typo in the VRM - a keying error - or the other family car (give numberplate if that's a possibility).

But you have a claim so you cannot delay the defence.

WithinRange

Hi @Coupon-mad

I've had a first attempt at 2) & 3), below:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3. On the day in question the defendant was visiting the beach with family. A cashless parking payment of £x:xx was made at (xx:xx) via the drivers PayByPhone app. A second cashless parking top-up payment of £x:xx was made for the vehicle via another device at (xx:xx). This second cashless payment was for parking through to (xx:xx). The ticket was given at (xx:xx), a time clearly covered by the second payment. Because the driver paid twice the defendant believes the system failed to find the second payment. It is possible this was due to ‘keying error'. Either way GXS failed to undertake thorough manual checks including for a near-match VRM. The top-up payment appears to have fallen into a black hole and caused an unfair PCN.

Please let me know if this is on the right track?

Thank you

Coupon-mad

Looks very good to me.  Says it like it is.

WithinRange

Thank you @Coupon-mad!


I'm looking to finalise this removing anything within the template that could be deemed irrelevant. Would greatly appreciate your help.

In terms of the remaining points, given i paid for my parking (twice) and therefore 'agreed' to pay a parking charge am i to still go after the poor signage as a point of defence? or just focus on unfair debt recovery fees?

For example, point 12 do i need to keep it in? Or just edit the first sentence?

12. The driver did not agree to pay a parking charge, let alone unknown costs, which were not quantified in prominent text on signage. It comes too late when purported debt recovery fees are only quantified after the event.

And for point 20. this should be edited to restate the fact that the parking charge was paid (at the end of the sentence beginning "Consequently...").

20.  In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. The Claimant’s small signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, and are considered incapable of binding a driver.  Consequently, it remains the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen or agreed.  Binding Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving unclear terms and a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a parking charge, include:

And for the conclusion the sentence beginning "The defendant invites the court..." - i have removed 'at least' and would prefer to change further inviting the court to dismiss 'all costs'.

Conclusion

25. With the DLUHC's ban on additional costs, there is now ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims.  For HMCTS to only dismiss extortionate costs in the tiny percentage of cases that reach hearings, whilst allowing other such claims to continue to flood the courts unabated, is to fail hundreds of thousands of consumers every year, who suffer CCJs or pay inflated amounts due to intimidating tactics at pre-action stage. The Defendant believes that knowingly enhanced parking claims cause consumer harm on a grand scale and it is in the public interest that claims like this should not be allowed to continue.  The Defendant invites the court to dismiss the false 'costs' element, and to consider whether an appropriate sanction is to resume the policy of striking out parking claims altogether, where the POC include a vague but fixed sum in 'damages/costs'. 

26. The claim is entirely without merit and the Claimant is urged to discontinue now, to avoid incurring costs and wasting the court's time and that of the Defendant. 

Thank you again for your help.

Coupon-mad

None of it is to be edited!  Absolutely NEVER remove the point about unclear signs and terms. Yes, you could read the tariff board and made an agreement about that small fee but was £100 listed in the same large font? Nope...