Stanmer Park - One Parking Solutions Ltd. strikes again

nostrawaggus

Hello All.

I have been directed here from PePiPoo in relation to a friends issue she is having with Stanmer Park, Brighton - and a NTK she received in relation:

"NOT PARKED IN DESIGNATED CAR PARK". The contravention dates  8th Jan 2021.

To cut a long story short, and to keep things brief here...
she has not gone to appeal the original NTK when it was served as she was either not at the address (visiting and staying at family

during lock down) or dealing with other issues (family health related). For one reason or another it was missed, which she has been told of for.!

So the original NTK from them received follow up Final Demands (x2) and now has received the attention of DCBL (the legal reps of One Parking Solution).

She has received a Letter of Claim from DCBL in relation to the NTK which I responded to on her behalf requesting CPR 31.14.

DCBL have responded supplying paperwork they hold. I have also sent SAR to One Parking Solution.

Having seen some of the pictures they intend to use, the first thing that struck me was the deficiency of the signage, and the ambiguity of what can be defined

of as parking space vs non parking space in this area. It also seems a lot of people fall foul of the issues here, with the pictures supplied by them showing lots

of other vehicles possibly also having received NTKs.

I am in the process of looking up existing posts on MSE on this topic, but thought I would post her story in mean time, perhaps there is some input somebody

can provide. I have been told over PePiPoo that @Coupon-mad may be the person with the knowledge here.

Here is a link to the post I started on PePiPoo.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=143666

Any input would be thankfully received. I will be going through other Stanmer Park cases in mean time.

thank You!!

 

Coupon-mad

Hi, yes it was a cash- cow site and they rinsed people dry.  Argus articles galore about it.

The signs were pants. Sadly they still infest the top area (Stanmer Village) and astonishingly (given their notoriety and what they do and how they do it) still have the BHCC contract for all residential flats car parks.

Stanmer Park is not 'relevant land' (POFA) because it's Council owned but that only really helps the keeper if they weren't driving that day.

I will tag in @ParkingMad because we are the 'Brighton ladies' here, we beat OPS all the time and she has maps and the BHCC contract.

nostrawaggus

thanks for your response @Coupon-mad

My friend has been issued with a Letter of Claim by DCBLegal in relation to the event in January 2021.

She has received this as the registered keeper, and the driver has never been named to OPS or DCBL Legal.

I am currently going through the other threads relating to Stanmer Park, one which is very similar is the thread by

'bloodyparkers'....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6297455/county-claim-one-parking-solution-advice-needed-urgently/p1

nostrawaggus

hmm the POFA 'relevant land' angle is interesting @Coupon-mad, especially your comment in the following thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6251664/county-court-judgement-claim-form-received-one-parking-solution-stanmer-park/p2

your comment in that thread:

Coupon-mad said:

It's simply a fact that Council owned land is not 'relevant land' and OPS should never have issued a Notice to Keeper to your partner telling her that she was liable.  She was not liable as keeper, on BHCC land.  The BPA recently told OPS to stop issuing 'POFA' NTKs at Stanmer Park, because they never should have been using that law.  Since around Oct 2020, they started issuing 'non-POFA ones (driver liability only).

So I am assuming the NTK my friend received in January 2021 falls foul of this POFA issue?

Anyway - the problem I see atm is that my friend has been issued with the Letter Of Claim, which has been acknowledged.

She's been given the choice of paying £170 in next 30 days, failing this the threat has been made by DCBL, it will go further.

So considering we are at this stage, what do you suggest, please? Just to recap, apart from acknowledging the Letter of Claim (I have done) she has not engaged in any communication with them.

Umkomaas

So I am assuming the NTK my friend received in January 2021 falls foul of this POFA issue? 

Maybe, maybe not.  The dates comply, but we need to see the back of the NtK. 

Don't assume anything in this game!

nostrawaggus

apologies didn't realize there was a page 2 of the NTK.

nostrawaggus

the other point, is it private land (as the OPSL sign indicate) or a public bridleway as per the maps in a different thread?

Coupon-mad

Yes that's non-POFA but in my experience, Brighton/Worthing area Judges prefer a defendant to admit to driving if they were, and I'd agree because the fundamental defence is that the signs are pants. Some of them were broken and some were on stakes at ankle height.

So unless she wasn't driving, we'd recommend an honest stance in the defence. The £70 they've added isn't allowed, despite the terrible decision by the Sussex area Circuit Judge about those added false costs, in the infamous case OPS v Wilshaw, where he was led up the garden path, IMHO.

That's water under the Bridge because the Govt finally saw through it - and I sincerely hope it was something I did that caused them to declare the fake added costs 'designed to extort money from motorists'.  They had it badly wrong in 2021 at the time of the August public consultation about the new Statutory Code of Practice and let's just say some of us threw the kitchen sink at it.

The new Code of Practice isn't retrospective but is compelling best practice, produced by the DLUHC on 7th February.  Its development included my personal involvement and attendance in the Government's Steering Group since 2020.  And bargepole was involved in depth in the build up and outcome too.

Fully discussed in bargepole's thread here, so newbies can understand the ground-breaking news and the changes:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333036/breaking-news-government-has-announced-the-statutory-code-of-practice-and-enforcement-framework/p1

As for LBC stage, that's covered in the NEWBIES thread second post but you can add robust words to the fuller response that the Defendant sends to DCBLegal.

As seen in Gladstones LBC threads this past month.  Read and copy the style of response seen in several LBC threads this past month or two - no links, you need to go looking to use the forum best - and I am NOT talking about just asking for 30 days to seek debt advice.

ParkingMad

Here is the contract between BHCC and OPS

https://files.whatdotheyknow.com/request/parking_charge_notices_issued_by_5/1%20-%208909078%20OPS%20Contract.pdf

Here is the appendix, with a list of the car parks covered on the last 3 pages 

https://files.whatdotheyknow.com/request/parking_charge_notices_issued_by_5/2%20-%208909078%20OPS%20Appendices.pdf

An article in the local
paper from January 2021, when several of the parking areas were closed due to renovation work. 

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/19003311.amp/

Details of the Traffic Regulation Order which was implemented by BHCC after OPS' contract was cancelled in April 2021.

https://democracy.brighton-hove.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?AIId=80281

I think @MikeJE also got a PCN on the same day 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6267021/stanmer-park-one-parking-solution-ltd/p1

nostrawaggus

thank you for all your groundwork @Parkingmad, @Coupon-mad...

I can see a lot of hours has gone into you helping others on this site with your valued input. It is much appreciated.

I'll update if/when this progresses. Have sent back LBC acknowledgement for now.

My friend is dealing with no less than 7 other PPC PCN issues which are all chasing her now that lock down is over at various debt collector / legal threat stages...

She's received two CCJs against her in PPC Claimants favour (both for NCP Ltd) - all executed without any kind of input/response from her and her being absent during court without any kind of defcene (I know it sounds bad but hey here we are), so i'm attempting to help her out of the mess she's in.

I've fly read some posts about this also, and have seen they should have perhaps grouped the Court claim, which they didn't and now she has 2 CCJs against her name. anyway - this is for another thread.

thanks again.

Coupon-mad

If she has eight PCNs from just the past few years, what is happening that she may need to put right to avoid this in future?  I said something similar to a friend of a friend, who kept coming to me stressing about perfectly avoidable private PCNs, because truth be told it is easy enough NOT to get any, if you set your mind to it, know what you can and can't do on private land, and always seek out and read signage carefully.

Driver beware!

These might be rhetorical questions and she doesn't need to answer, but is she disabled and needs more time and is overstaying at retail parks (in which case she needs to ask for more time at the CS desk of the shop, and get on the white list) or does she just need to make more of a point of reading signs?

The other week my daughter met colleagues in a pub for lunch and the party were using five cars.  My DD wasn't driving but is a driver. They had a nice lunch and then went to go back to their cars.  DD noticed a sign and read it even though she was a passenger, and sent all five drivers scurrying back into the pub to exempt their VRMs on the keypad no-one had bothered to point out to them.  Not a single driver had seen the signs because people don't expect this sort of thing (except if you are in the know).

Anyhoo, my DD deprived  the PPC of £500-worth of PCNs just by reading the terms - I was a proud Mum!