Another parking scam

startrek42

I am afraid another complaint of the tactics and injustice of a private car park company and their Solicitors using the inadequate law in their pursuit of an unjust PCN charge. 

A brief summary of the story so far…..

A PCN charge was received from Minster Baywatch over two months after the alleged breach of parking rules.

This was shock  as I had paid the parking by credit card but had no ticket of proof as it had been thrown away. However, I had proof of payment from the bank on the date in question, so I naively expected the PCN to be rescinded once I passed on the information. How wrong was I!

They refuted my claim and kept referring to their terms and conditions of parking, so I applied to POPLA for what I hoped would be logical arbitration. Another mistake!

Eventually I received a letter from Gladstone Solicitors increasing the charge to £155 but giving me a form to complete if I disputed the claim. By this time, I had more information from the bank which confirmed the time of my payment, which was two minutes before MB photographed my car leaving. Again, naively I expected this additional info to result in the withdrawing of the PCN. Wrong again? Two months later I received another letter from Gladstones, again asking for the £155 and giving me 30 days to pay.

Whilst I started to pen a further letter I felt that this would be a waste of time. Should I wait to go to court because I believe I have a strong case or is there another legal route I should use. Help/guidance would be greatly appreciated.

 

 

Grizebeck

No you deal with it in court

KeithP

Finish writing your response to the Letter of Claim as described in the first few paragraphs of the second post of the NEWBIES thread.

Coupon-mad

I think your response to Gladstones needs to ask specifically:

(a). whether (given the evidence of having paid for parking) their client is alleging a VRM 'Keying error', and if so, why are they failing to pay regard to the new incoming DLUHC Code of Practice which states that ALL Keying errors must see PCNs cancelled because it is an unfair burden to place on consumers when technology can avoid it;

(b). for a copy of all images of signage at the site at the material time, including both the mandatory entrance sign and those inside, and also a photo of what the machine says about entering the VRM;

(c).  for a document showing the machine payment logs from the material time, with either the VRM numbers OR the letters covered (but not both) so that it can be determined which payment relates to this car, assuming the Claimant is alleging and trying to penalise the Defendant for a mere typo.

Give Gladstones 30 days to reply and remind them of their obligation to provide evidence to narrow the issues and to avoid court.  Clearly the PCN should have been cancelled (or not even issued) at the outset because the payment was made and there is no cause of action.

startrek42

Thanks for the responses. One point I did not mention relates to MB in the early part of our correspondence sending me a payment record sheet for that day. It clearly shows no transaction taking place at the time the bank confirmed, to the second, the payment was made. In fact the nearest payment on the "payment record" sheet after the bank confirmed time, is approx. 30 mins later and is a completely different amount and has a completely different car reg. In addition if you input the wrong registration the payment machine will not ask for a payment. This leads me to believe that the payment sheet was either corrupted or doctored. 

Coupon-mad

Or from a different site entirely.  Keep that payment log safe.

Read on the forum what happened in Excel v Ambler when the PPC rocked up to court with a different payment log to the one they'd supplied under a SAR earlier!

startrek42

Thanks again for your support. I feel I need to include in my response to the solicitor a copy of the payment record supplied by MB. What do you think.

Coupon-mad

Certainly and tell him/her what you suspect, given this is just a word doc and altering it is far from a fanciful accusation, given that another ex-clamper AOS member parking firm were held by two Judges to have altered a payment log (Excel v Ambler).