Parking charge notice after 14 days of parking session

Infiniti37

@Coupon-mad, planning to send the below to the BWlegal. Not sure where to send though. I have a link on their letter of the portal for complaints and I have also found an email address: disputeresolution@bwlegal.co.uk

Any further suggestions will be highly appreciated. 

Dear Sir or Madam

 I write with reference to a “Letter before Claim” or “LBC” reference (XXX) dated XXX, but not received until the XXX, informing me of a 30-day window in which to take action.

I fully and robustly deny any debt alleged regarding the above references.

I note that your client is relying on pursuance of the alleged debt to the “Registered Keeper” of the vehicle. I wish to remind you of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (section 9, subsection 4) which states:

“(4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.”

and more importantly Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (section 9, subsection 5) which states:

“The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.”

I draw your attention to the original “Notice to Keeper” delivered to myself on the XXX. In this letter are the particulars “Sending date (printed)” as XX and Contravention Date as the XX.

As per the above, the letter has been printed on the 20th day following the alleged contravention and as such, is not compliant with the “relevant period” and as such I received the letter on the 25th day from the date of the contravention.

The PCN has clearly failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA and consequently PPS has forfeited any right to claim unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper of the vehicle XXX.

This was outlined clearly in my original appeal to your client “You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days as prescribed by section 9 (4) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

“

It is a possibility that your client does not understand the above clause and didn’t seek professional advice on this matter. Furthermore, instead of seeking professional they chose to harass me by sending threatening letters additionally causing unwarranted stress, fear and anxiety over alleged debts.

 

 

I wish to refer you to recent court cases in which Excel Parking Services Limited and Vehicle Control Services Limited, a sister company to Excel, LOST based on this very above stated fact.

(i). In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re claim number C0DP9C4E in June 2017, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA.  Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all).  HHJ Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA but did not. Mr Smith's appeal was allowed, and Excel's claim was dismissed.

(ii). In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re-claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.  HHJ Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. "My decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..." Mr Edward's appeal succeeded, and the Claim was dismissed.

I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so.  The PCN is not effective to transfer liability to myself (the keeper) because it does not comply with the conditions for a notice to keeper in Schedule 4 of the POFA (14 day rule as referred above)

I require you to cancel the PCN and erase my data.

If you persist in processing and/or sharing my data and in the event of PPS filing a court claim, take note that I will file a Part 20 counterclaim for not less than £500.  This will be claimed as damages for distress arising as a result of clear breaches of POFA schedule 4, the Data Protection Act 2018 and/or the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

I also intend to challenge the legitimacy and fairness of the inflated “Parking Charge” of £170 which has been wholly proven in the courts to be an abuse of process and an unfair and unjust addition without any grounds nor reasoning to its purpose.

I will rely upon the case of Simon Clay v Civil Enforcement Ltd and similar cases that have succeeded.

Yours faithfully

 

KeithP

After all your efforts to hide the dates, you have left the vehicle's registration mark showing in that proposed email.  

Coupon-mad

There is no remedy of damages for distress arising from the POFA because a PPC doesn't have to use the POFA.  Only the DPA, the PFHA and the CPUTRS and CRA would lend themselves to that sort of damages claim in a parking context.

Remove the penultimate paragraph which makes little sense & adds nothing to any conversation with BW Legal.

Replace it with the questions in the LBC response suggested in the NEWBIES thread.

Keep this:

"I draw your attention to the original “Notice to Keeper” delivered to myself on the XXX. In this letter are the particulars “Sending date (printed)” as XX and Contravention Date as the XX."

Remove all this, which is unnecessary:

 "...alleged regarding the above references.

I note that your client is relying on pursuance of the alleged debt to the “Registered Keeper” of the vehicle. I wish to remind you of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (section 9, subsection 4) which states:

“(4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.”

and more importantly Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (section 9, subsection 5) which states:

“The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.”

As per the above, the letter has been printed on the 20th day following the alleged contravention and as such, is not compliant with the “relevant period” and as such I received the letter on the 25th day from the date of the contravention.

The PCN has clearly failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFAand consequently PPS has forfeited any right to claim unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper of the vehicle S23 UNL.

This was outlined clearly in my original appeal to your client “You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days as prescribed by section 9 (4) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

It is a possibility that your client does not understand the above clause and didn’t seek professional advice on this matter. Furthermore, instead of seeking professional they chose to harass me by sending threatening letters additionally causing unwarranted stress, fear and anxiety over alleged debts."

Infiniti37

KeithP said:

After all your efforts to hide the dates, you have left the vehicle's registration mark showing in that proposed email.  

Thanks for flagging this, Keith

troublemaker22

@Coupon-mad is (as ever) correct. The formal citations are sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018 ('DPA') and Article 82 of the UK GDPR as defined in the DPA,  the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Infiniti37

Coupon-mad said:

There is no remedy of damages for distress arising from the POFA because a PPC doesn't have to use the POFA.  Only the DPA, the PFHA and the CPUTRS and CRA would lend themselves to that sort of damages claim in a parking context.

Remove the penultimate paragraph which makes little sense & adds nothing to any conversation with BW Legal.

Replace it with the questions in the LBC response suggested in the NEWBIES thread.

Keep this:

"I draw your attention to the original “Notice to Keeper” delivered to myself on the XXX. In this letter are the particulars “Sending date (printed)” as XX and Contravention Date as the XX."

Remove all this, which is unnecessary:

 "...alleged regarding the above references.

I note that your client is relying on pursuance of the alleged debt to the “Registered Keeper” of the vehicle. I wish to remind you of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (section 9, subsection 4) which states:

“(4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.”

and more importantly Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (section 9, subsection 5) which states:

“The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.”

As per the above, the letter has been printed on the 20th day following the alleged contravention and as such, is not compliant with the “relevant period” and as such I received the letter on the 25th day from the date of the contravention.

The PCN has clearly failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFAand consequently PPS has forfeited any right to claim unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper of the vehicle S23 UNL.

This was outlined clearly in my original appeal to your client “You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days as prescribed by section 9 (4) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

It is a possibility that your client does not understand the above clause and didn’t seek professional advice on this matter. Furthermore, instead of seeking professional they chose to harass me by sending threatening letters additionally causing unwarranted stress, fear and anxiety over alleged debts."

Thanks  @Coupon-mad - I will update the response accordingly. Much appreciated. 

Coupon-mad

Shorter is sweeter (says a lady who can't write concisely to save my life!).

Infiniti37

Coupon-mad said:

Shorter is sweeter (says a lady who can't write concisely to save my life!).

Lol...great tip. I will bring it to the point

Infiniti37

@Coupon-mad since then I have received the following from BW legal: 

"Good Afternoon,

Thank you for your recent correspondence, the contents of which have been noted on file.

BW Legal are not an appeal service.

Our Client received your appeal previously and your appeal was subsequently declined.

Your chance to appeal further has expired, and our Client is satisfied that the balance remains due and owing. 

Please contact us to pay this in full or set up an affordable payment plan.

Should you still dispute this matter, we recommend that you seek your own legal advice.  

If you have any further issues or new questions that you would like us to assist you with, we kindly request that you use the contact options below to submit a new query."

From here on not sure whether I should respond further or wait for the court letter? 

Thanks 

Coupon-mad

But they didn't answer the VAT questions.  Did you add them, as I advised you to?