6 tickets issued in 8 days - is there a Data Protection issue?

jordylass

I've received a court date for 9th June and witness statement from Elite, mine needs to be in by 9th April.

Coupon-mad

BACKGROUND
FROM 2023 & 2024:

jordylass said in 2023:

I moved into a new property 13th November. The bay the exiting tenant used was not reallocated and I used it while moving stuff into the house. 
On 21st November there was a windscreen sticker, I wrote to  the landowner (my landlord) to ask to have it cancelled, as a new tenant I have applied for a permit but not been given one yet, and I was using an unallocated space while moving into the house. There reply was no chance, if you did not have a permit you need to appeal directly with Elite. I read through the newbies template and saw to wait until day 25.

Yesterday I received an email from Elite parking, with whom I'd had no previous contact, 

Your below email has been forwarded for my attention by your landlord. 

Please be advised that I have looked into this matter and can see that 6x PCN's have been issued to this vehicle.   

We have sent correspondence to the Registered Keeper address as provided by DVLA and it may appears that you have not have updated DVLA with your change of address.  Please be advised that this is a legal requirement.

In consideration of your circumstances, I am happy to cancel the PCN (Ref: XXXX), issued 21/11/23 however the other PCN's remain outstanding and will need to be paid or appealed.

I have attached a list of the PCN's for your reference as you will need the references.  In addition, appeal instructions have been provided.  Please be advised that an appeal needs to be submitted within 28 days from the date of issue.

It goes on to list the PCNs and the appeal process. When I log in to view the PCNs there were photographs of all incidents taken by a handheld camera (not ANPR) yet no tickets were affixed to the window. I have a distant memory of some rules about a ticket must be issued if physically possible, am I correct?

I was shocked my landlord would pass on my private information, email etc to the parking company. Would I have any recourse for this?

HA withholding the permit!

jordylass said:

I called my housing association today to ask if I had moved up the list for a parking space, (as the space I parked in when I got the ticket was the last tenants, and it is still not being used) to be told I cant get a parking space while I have outstanding tickets.

I've asked about this space on a number of occasions and this is the first time anything about my tickets has been mentioned. 
Just musing the validity of this? I suppose they can do what they want as it's their land, but my tickets are with a different company. 

---------------------------------

Coupon-mad said:

I think that's totally unacceptable and I'd ask where it says that in any part of any contract you signed.

Effectively they are allowing an agent from a known rogue industry (being curbed by Government intervention this year) to issue unfair PCNs that are OF COURSE legally disputable and defendable by you in court.  Yet they are using the fact you are lawfully disputing those charges (which are nothing to do with the HA) as blackmail to make you think you have to pay the third party 'scam' (Parliament's word) PPC in order to get a parking space.


---------------------------------

Johnersh said:

If the PPC have failed to provide a permit when you have asked for one, then it seems to me that they have failed in their obligation under (a) the contract with the freeholder and (b) to the defendant as the party parking as s/he is a resident and entitled to park and the PCN arises from their failure to adequately or appropriately operate a permit scheme. It is an impossible contract to perform if a resident is required to display a permit that they have failed to issue.

---------------------------------

jordylass said:

The 2023 Appeal included:

 "Elite Car Parking Management failed to fulfil this obligation due to the following significant shortcomings in signage:

• Excessively high and poorly designed signage: There are no entrance signs on the street, and none visible from the parking bays. After receiving the tickets I went to the street to find the signs which were positioned at a height that severely hindered readability from a driver's perspective. The small, illegible fonts used on the signage further exacerbated this issue, making it nearly impossible to comprehend the terms and conditions without extensive effort, such as photographing and zooming in on the signs. This effectively negated any potential grace period that might have been granted.
• Confusing and conflicting information: The presence of multiple parking companies' logos and information on the signs, including references to OpenParking.co.uk alongside Elite Car Parking Management, created a misleading and confusing environment. This raised concerns about the legitimacy of the parking restrictions and hindered my ability to make an informed decision within a reasonable timeframe.
• No mention of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR): The signage made no mention of ANPR being used for enforcement purposes. Drivers have a right to be informed about the methods used to monitor parking, and the absence of such information constitutes a lack of transparency and fair notice.
• 
  
• .Improper Ticketing Method and Potential Deviation from BPA Code of Practice:

The use of a handheld ANPR device to issue the PCN without a windscreen ticket being placed on the vehicle raises concerns about the validity of the enforcement process. The BPA Code of Practice states that parking patrol officers should follow specific issuing procedures, which typically involve affixing a ticket directly to the vehicle. The lack of a windscreen ticket suggests a potential deviation from accepted practice and calls into question the legitimacy of the PCN.

--------------------------------

25th October DCB Legal claim

Defence facts were:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste, incoherent, and sparse statement of case. The Particulars of Claim (POC) appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD 3, and 16PD 7, as they fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action." The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s), and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond in full. However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle at the relevant times.

3. The Defendant parked at Portia Way, London E3 4JH, on the dates in question: 13th, 14th, 18th, 19th, and 20th of November 2023. The vehicle was parked for legitimate reasons and the Defendant disputes the validity of these charges for several reasons, including the inadequate notice of terms. The Defendant did not see any prominent signage indicating the requirement for a permit, and the signage at the site was unclear and insufficient to form a binding contract.

Just to remind us what the crux of your defence is about.

Reminder of all of the above.

NTKs were non-POFA worded (seen earlier in the thread).

Coupon-mad

Contract offered by EastEnd Homes

Not by their agents...

Fairlie v Fenton applies. Search the forum for WS wording about this legal point.

Johnersh

The contract is offered by elite (in tiny at the bottom).

In my view the best argument is their continued failure at move in or subsequently to offer a resident a permit, which makes the whole scheme impossible to perform since D fails to meet the definition of a visitor being as it's their home.

Coupon-mad

Good point and a welcome focus, as ever.

jordylass

Thanks for the points, really apprecaite feedback on my witness statement

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TJZAhWCNSBlHWVPcy9sybOW_lrXm5VY85y6daSpTHj0/edit?usp=sharing

Coupon-mad

At point 4 add in a link to the Court of Appeal case of Hancock v Promontoria and copy some wording you find on the forum quoting from paragraph 80-something about redacted contracts.

Para 5 is pointless in its entirety because you were driving (I think?).

Remove it and forget POFA. Replace it with a section about Fairlie v Fenton because the contract on the signs appears to be offered (in big text at the top) by or in behalf of the HA, so only they can sue over it. Elite have not 'made the contract their own' and instead, there is a disclosed principal. Again, copy some wording you find on the forum quoting from that authority.

What is most alarming is that you haven't used Jopson v Homeguard (surely that was in your defence?) nor made it clear that these PCNs occurred over the course of a few days when you were unloading belongings up to the flat. That's not parking.  That doesn't need a parking permit and is part of the normal day to day life at a block of flats.

You have to be able to move furniture and belongings in or out! It is wholly unreasonable for the C to call thus parking, and presumably they (quite possibly a jobsworth resident after a £15 bounty) only took photos over a couple of minutes each time.

That then leads you to saying that there was no fair and proper 'observation' period which would have made it obvious you were just unloading and moving in. Not parked.

jordylass

Thanks so much for the response, I've edited the online version and included these points, but not Fairlie v Fenton, I wanted to double check as the bottom of the sign says the contract is made with Elite Car Parking Management Limited.  

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TJZAhWCNSBlHWVPcy9sybOW_lrXm5VY85y6daSpTHj0/edit?usp=sharing

Coupon-mad

As it was in the case I won v NCP using Fairlie v Fenton. There's a thread about it.  An identified principal means the agent is stuffed.

jordylass

OK, I think it's ready to go

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TJZAhWCNSBlHWVPcy9sybOW_lrXm5VY85y6daSpTHj0/edit?usp=sharing