Ticketed in space owned by me

UncleThomasCobley

Just a thought... in light of the amount claimed (maybe it should be more?), is it not worth issuing two separate LoCs and subsequent claims? I fear that issuing a single claim to two separate defendants could complicate the issue.

Whilst the MA is jointly and severally liable for the actions of its agent, there are also two slight differences because the MA knew very early on that the land was owned by you and there was no contract in place. However, the PPC may try and argue that it was relying on information provided by their contractor.

As I said... just a thought.

LondonE5

I would actually prefer this approach, if it is a suitable one.

Would require a reworking of the letter, of course.

I also have a screengrab of my “appeal” via P4P’s website, explaining that I was the landowner, so they shouldn’t have proceeded with the DVLA request. Therefore arguably the PPC was also aware, though perhaps they could argue they didn’t have evidence (but they could have contacted me back for evidence of ownership?)?

Is there any right I have forgone as I had to fill out my name and address on their appeal page? I’m assuming not, as the DVLA request is still a breech due to the private land factor, and is separate from any details offered on a web form.

Coupon-mad

No, that's all fine re the appeal... BUT check with the DVLA - did P4Parking actually get your DVLA data?

Do not send a LBC until you know.

LondonE5

Coupon-mad said:

No, that's all fine re the appeal... BUT check with the DVLA - did P4Parking actually get your DVLA data?

Do not send a LBC until you know.

Are you asking this in case it was the management agent?

The notice to keeper letter detailing my car details and parking charge I received was from TNC Collections, but the stated creditor was P4Parking. It says they had under reasonable cause requested the keeper details from the DVLA.

As P4P would have issued the request to TNC (presumably) should I not still issue it to them?

I will contact the DVLA for an information request perhaps?

EDIT: ahhh - think I misunderstood! Presumably you mean because of the fact I submitted those details so you were wondering if that’s where the got the info rather than the DVLA request… but the TNC letter actually states the DVLA data request so it’s pretty clear a request was indeed submitted.

Coupon-mad

I agree with you. They did get DVLA data.

prowla

A potntial benefit of agreeing to display the permit is if someone else parks in your place; you'd effectively be having the parking scammers agree to policing your space for you.

Coupon-mad

prowla said:

A potntial benefit of agreeing to display the permit is if someone else parks in your place; you'd effectively be having the parking scammers agree to policing your space for you.

No. That accepts the scam.  No-one wants or needs a PPC in residential car parks. 

UncleThomasCobley

prowla said:

A potntial benefit of agreeing to display the permit is if someone else parks in your place; you'd effectively be having the parking scammers agree to policing your space for you.

There is absolutely no need to show any permit, especially in your own parking space. The technology exists for a whitelist that can be accessed by any intellectually malnourished employee of these ex-clampers before they try and issue any PCN.

LondonE5

UncleThomasCobley said:

prowla said:

A potntial benefit of agreeing to display the permit is if someone else parks in your place; you'd effectively be having the parking scammers agree to policing your space for you.

There is absolutely no need to show any permit, especially in your own parking space. The technology exists for a whitelist that can be accessed by any intellectually malnourished employee of these ex-clampers before they try and issue any PCN.

My thoughts exactly.

My letter to the managing agent and P4Parking was clear (thanks to this forum) that any further interference with my property / parking space would be trespass and that attaching “PCN”s to vehicle’s considered a criminal offence!

LondonE5

Coupon-mad said:

I'd put Google above Clay because Clay is just a county court decision.  Remove '(JD/20: Bundle of Authorities)' and instead make it clear that you will also rely on Clay because it was a claim against a parking firm for a similar cause of action (damages for DPA breach due to lack if landowner authority).

You should also remove this bit (not relevant):

or settled by this Claimant for substantial sums, following on from the Clay case, where the parking contract was shown to be with Creative Car Parks, a separate legal entity, and the provenance of the documents provided by CEL were called into question and thrown out by District Judge Jones.

And instead state in a new paragraph under the final word 'successful' re Clay v CEL, that your case has the aggravating feature that your company (unlike in Clay) is also the aggrieved owner of that land, not just the motorist. So the deliberate or negligent private nuisance of aggressively running an unsolicited business on this land is worse.  You are not just the wronged motorist but also the wronged landowner so the damages are twofold.

How about also pleading private nuisance as a second cause of action that a Judge might like:

Case law here:

https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Nuisance.php#:~:text=Private%20nuisance%20is%20essentially%20a,has%20been%20unreasonably%20interfered%20with.&text=The%20claimant%20must%20possess%20a,facility%20that%20is%20being%20deprived.


Explanation of the cause of action here:

https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/law/civil-law/private-nuisance/#:~:text=Define%20Private%20Nuisance%3A%20Key%20Elements&text=This%20interference%20must%20be%20substantial,by%20another%20person%20or%20entity.

My apologies @Coupon-mad - I’d missed your post above, but will edit accordingly. Thanks again.