Stopping in a no stopping zone (private land)

leedsleedsleeds123

Hey @Coupon-mad, thanks for your efforts I never would have found that! Been away so not online hence the delayed response - it is much appreciated.

How does this look for a response?

----

​Dear Sirs,

Your Ref. ​xxxxxxxxx
Proposed Legal Proceedings
Claimant: ​xxxxxxxxxx

I refer to your letter of claim.

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

The area in question mimics a road with double yellow lines on a highway, in which case it would be fair to assume that as there are no chevrons or signage to the contrary one is permitted to stop to unload items or passengers, which is true of my situation. It is unlikely your claim will hold up in court.

Indeed there are a litany of failings that have been successfully defended against in court, including absence of any clear signage compliant with the Code of Practice which would enable any motorist to have a fair opportunity to read terms and accept at £100 risk before stopping. 

I note that the amount being claimed has increased by a hugely exaggerated amount which the Government called "extorting money from motorists".

1. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what you lot dress up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

2. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

Yes that'll do. I would just change:

"It is unlikely your claim will hold up in court."

to

A claim from your clients regarding this joke 'no-stopping zone' will never hold up in court.

P.S.
Nothing to worry about. I can tell you that those signs and lines are so appallingly bad that I used that place as an example to the Government of all that is wrong with this rogue industry.  It is easily the worst 'no stopping zone' I've ever seen in 15 years of doing this!  No Judge would fall for that as a contract.

Le_Kirk

Posters report that that email address has been used with success.

leedsleedsleeds123

Thanks for that!

leedsleedsleeds123

An email reply has come...

Sounds like they'll be pursuing this. I guess at this point I should perhaps do nothing? Can anyone advise otherwise?

------

We write in response to your correspondence received in our office dated XXXXXXX

We now respond to the same as follows.

 Our Client applied to the DVLA for the details of the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle. Your name and address were provided. Our Client therefore correctly issued correspondence to you at that address. Having not received payment, address verification was carried out prior to the Letter of Claim being sent.   

 The Notice to Keeper was issued to you on  XXXXXXX. A copy is attached. You were afforded the opportunity to; appeal the parking charge, transfer liability to the driver (if it was not you) or make payment. Neither a successful appeal, nor an adequate nomination were received, yet payment remains outstanding.

 The Reminder Notice was issued to you on XXXXXXX. A copy is attached. This notice reiterated that payment was outstanding and confirmed that legal action may be taken, and additional costs incurred if the parking charge was not paid.

 ‘When parking on private land, the contractual terms of the site are set out on the signs. You are entering a contract and agreeing to the terms by parking and staying on the site. Parking in breach of the terms as stipulated on the signage means that you are then breaking the terms of the contract.’

 The amount owed is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location to ensure compliance with the clearly displayed terms and conditions. 

 As payment was not made, either within 14 or 28 days, the creditor was entitled to instruct debt recovery agents / Solicitors to pursue payment and is entitled to recover the costs of doing so.  It would have been made clear in the terms and conditions set out in the signs that additional enforcement costs may be incurred in the event of non-payment.

 You now have 30 days from the date of this email/letter to make payment of £170.00. Failure to make payment will result in a Claim being issued against you without any further reference.

Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account: -

• Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account   
• Sort Code: XXX
• Account Number: XXX

You must quote the correct case reference (XXXXXXXXXX) when making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly allocate the payment. If further action is taken by us as a result of an incorrect reference being quoted, you will be liable for any further fees or costs incurred.

We would ask that you kindly furnish us with your most up to date telephone number and email address, this can be emailed to us at info@dcblegal.co.uk.

Fruitcake

It is up to you whether you want to engage with the comedians who wrote that reply, or ignore it.

Personally, I always prefer to engage simply because it means someone has to read whatever has been writ which costs them time and money, and reply which costs them time and money.

This comment is hilarious, 

"The amount owed is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location to ensure compliance with the clearly displayed terms and conditions."

... because the Supreme Court stated in the PE v Beavis case of 2015 that genuine pre-estimate of loss (GPEOL) does not apply.

What happened when you enacted Plan A, a complaint to the landowner and your MP? In the latter you should be asking when the new mandatory parking code of practice is going to be introduced to support the 2019 Parking Bill.

leedsleedsleeds123

Ok fair thanks for the advice!

Haven't complained to my MP actually - complaint to the landowner has resulted in bouncing around trying to find out who's actually responsible. It appears they're all in each other's pockets as they keep pointing the finger at someone else and saying they aren't responsible, it's the other company. 

Fruitcake

Complaints to MPs are essential as they are the only ones who can get things changed.

You need to ensure they understand you are not talking about the self-serving joint IPC/BPA code of practice that is not independent, and does not support motorists.
In my opinion it was deliberately and cynically introduced to fool motorists and MPs alike into thinking it is the mandatory CoP meant to support the 2019 Parking Bill. It is not, and you need to emphatically stress that point.

Only a mandatory and truly independent CoP and appeals body will curb the actions of this unregulated industry that affects 12 million people a year.

Coupon-mad

leedsleedsleeds123 said:

Ok fair thanks for the advice!

Haven't complained to my MP actually - complaint to the landowner has resulted in bouncing around trying to find out who's actually responsible. It appears they're all in each other's pockets as they keep pointing the finger at someone else and saying they aren't responsible, it's the other company. 

Got a claim form yet?

Half_way

leedsleedsleeds123 said:

Ok fair thanks for the advice!

Haven't complained to my MP actually - complaint to the landowner has resulted in bouncing around trying to find out who's actually responsible. It appears they're all in each other's pockets as they keep pointing the finger at someone else and saying they aren't responsible, it's the other company. 

Whatever entity hired the parking company/allows it to operate on the land will be the ones responsible