We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
PCN legal letter received
LostActuary
Posts: 4 Newbie
Hi,
Basically I got a PCN for not paying the right amount in a car park. On the day of the event I entered the car park, left to go shopping and for a meal with my mother (who has cancer and is going through chemo and is in a wheel chair- she now has a blue badge so I don’t need to worry about parking when taking her out) and my wife. We spent money likely close to £100 in restaurant, etc. and I have bank transaction to prove. We returned to car park and my wife went to pay whilst I was helping my mum enter the car and compressing the wheelchair. My wife put in my number plate and paid the amount of money the ticket machine showed and we left promptly.
We then get an PCN for not paying which I refuse to pay as we faithfully did everything right. Roughly we paid £4 instead of £6 but again the machine displayed £4 so there is no way we could have paid £6 on this day. Being inexperienced, I messed up my POPLA appeal and after loads of letters I’ve now got a letter of claim from BW Legal and if I’ve read the NEWBIE post properly I need to respond. I’ve also been going through some health issues and been diagnosed with cardiomyopathy and this all getting very distressing.
My intended reply to the letter of claim:
Dear BW Legal,
I am ___, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle ___. I currently reside at ____.
I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim and will vigorously defend any such claim. Cease and desist - this is now unwarranted harassment and your client is causing significant distress to me and my family.
On the day of the alleged contravention I parked my car at ...., returned, entered my plate number in the ticket machine and paid the full amount the machine suggested I pay. Your client has not denied this payment and needs to evidence that the ticket machine was not faulty on this day.
I was with two witnesses this day, my wife and mum who can confirm my statement. One of the witness is my mum who cannot walk due to a fight with cancer and is a blue badge holder.
Assuming an unfaulty machine, using the figure you have demanded (£X), at this location, the rate payable is £X per 1 hour. Therefore by my calculations your charge is equivalent to an overstay/contravention of over X hours which is severely unreasonable.
Please also note that as the debt has been formally denied from day one, your debt collection costs of £X are not appropriate. You should also fully be aware that they cannot be recovered in the small claims court. I refer you to the CPR 27.14. In addition, the amount is also excessive. I refer you to ParkingEye v Somerfield where debt collection costs of £60 were found to be an unfair penalty.
Additionally, you are misrepresenting the legal process. A CCJ is not automatically entered following a successful hearing. The losing party has 14 days to make payment and if they do this has no effect on credit or employability. I trust you are aware of the SRA Code of Conduct and Indicative Behaviour 11.7.
This continued contact and demands for money from a person who is not liable in law, is a significant nuisance that is continuing to affect my peace of mind and that of my family, distracting me from my work and my daily life. Hours of my time have already been wasted on this matter, only to receive more threatening and misleading letters with ever increasing sums of money. The entire rogue ticketing operation and the constant bombardment of legalese and threatening letters indicates a course of unwarranted harassment in pursuit of money I do not owe to anyone.
I also suffer from heart disease and the stress and anxiety caused by all this is making my symptoms worse. A chronic condition likely to last more than 12 months means I have a protected characteristic as defined within the Equality Act 2010 (the EA), and you and your client are making it worse. Harassment of a person who meets the definition of disability under the EA is specifically illegal within the statute under section 26: (insert link)
This baseless but nasty financial attack on me is causing me serious distress (Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd. [2009] EWCA Civ 46 is the authority in such a case). Should your client proceed, I will have no hesitation in seeking my full costs on the indemnity basis, and will invite the Court to dismiss the claim and to award such Defence witness costs as are permissible, pursuant to CPR 27.14.
Take formal note, and tell your clients: This is a formal cease and desist letter, and a Section 10 notice under the DPA. You and your client must now stop processing my data and delete it from your records after cancelling the meritless 'charge' you are chasing, to my huge distress.
If your client proceeds to court, I will file a counter-claim in excess of the sum your client is unreasonably demanding, seeking Vidall Hall compensation for my distress that I am noting and recounting to family and friends on a week-by-week basis, as evidence to support my position. The unwelcome and detrimental effect on my chronic condition can be shown by evidence from my GP, to have flared up as a result of your unreasonable and unwarranted demands, and I will have no hesitation in seeking the full amount of damages the Judge sees fit to award.
I am aware of the following two cases in the past year:
- on Friday 16th March, in case D8HW7G7P in the Slough County Court, another notorious ex-clamper parking firm (UKPC) lost an unreasonable claim against a beleaguered motorist and were found liable for the Defendant's ordinary costs and his £500 counter-claim for distress for a DPA breach by processing his data contrary to the Data Protection Principles.
- in May 2017, in case D6GM2199 CEL v Mr B, Bury County Court, before DJ Osborne, a motorist was awarded £900 because another ex-clamper parking company of the same type as your client (in this case, Civil Enforcement Limited) committed data protection breaches against him. Mr B. was the vehicle keeper but was not the driver on the day. As the NTK was not POFA compliant (same as your client's NTK), the parking firm had no valid claim against the keeper. In addition, Wright Hassall (mirroring the conduct of BW Legal's robo-claim modus operandi) had acted unreasonably in artificially inflating the claim from £100 to £300 by adding spurious amounts.
Mr B filed a counterclaim and this was upheld. In his judgment, DJ Osborne ruled a data breach had occurred, the tort of damages was applicable and that £500 was not an unreasonable amount in the circumstances. He added an additional £405 in costs, part of which were awarded on the indemnity basis, under rule 27.14.2(g) for the unreasonable behaviour of CEL. The Judge also stated he was disappointed in the claimant bringing an unfounded case, and in the behaviour of Wright Hassall who were otherwise a respectable law firm.
I urge you to avoid the same, and confirm this charge is immediately cancelled and my data as registered keeper is removed from all records held by you and your clients. If this claim is therefore not expedited and negated, due to all of the above, I shall also progress a case to the British Parking Association to report your client. To attempt to take such threatening advantage of a distressed and layman in this way is a disgrace.
If no reply is provided within 7 days, I will consider this matter closed and will not enter into any further correspondence with you.
Yours faithfully,
XXX
Basically I got a PCN for not paying the right amount in a car park. On the day of the event I entered the car park, left to go shopping and for a meal with my mother (who has cancer and is going through chemo and is in a wheel chair- she now has a blue badge so I don’t need to worry about parking when taking her out) and my wife. We spent money likely close to £100 in restaurant, etc. and I have bank transaction to prove. We returned to car park and my wife went to pay whilst I was helping my mum enter the car and compressing the wheelchair. My wife put in my number plate and paid the amount of money the ticket machine showed and we left promptly.
We then get an PCN for not paying which I refuse to pay as we faithfully did everything right. Roughly we paid £4 instead of £6 but again the machine displayed £4 so there is no way we could have paid £6 on this day. Being inexperienced, I messed up my POPLA appeal and after loads of letters I’ve now got a letter of claim from BW Legal and if I’ve read the NEWBIE post properly I need to respond. I’ve also been going through some health issues and been diagnosed with cardiomyopathy and this all getting very distressing.
My intended reply to the letter of claim:
Dear BW Legal,
I am ___, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle ___. I currently reside at ____.
I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim and will vigorously defend any such claim. Cease and desist - this is now unwarranted harassment and your client is causing significant distress to me and my family.
On the day of the alleged contravention I parked my car at ...., returned, entered my plate number in the ticket machine and paid the full amount the machine suggested I pay. Your client has not denied this payment and needs to evidence that the ticket machine was not faulty on this day.
I was with two witnesses this day, my wife and mum who can confirm my statement. One of the witness is my mum who cannot walk due to a fight with cancer and is a blue badge holder.
Assuming an unfaulty machine, using the figure you have demanded (£X), at this location, the rate payable is £X per 1 hour. Therefore by my calculations your charge is equivalent to an overstay/contravention of over X hours which is severely unreasonable.
Please also note that as the debt has been formally denied from day one, your debt collection costs of £X are not appropriate. You should also fully be aware that they cannot be recovered in the small claims court. I refer you to the CPR 27.14. In addition, the amount is also excessive. I refer you to ParkingEye v Somerfield where debt collection costs of £60 were found to be an unfair penalty.
Additionally, you are misrepresenting the legal process. A CCJ is not automatically entered following a successful hearing. The losing party has 14 days to make payment and if they do this has no effect on credit or employability. I trust you are aware of the SRA Code of Conduct and Indicative Behaviour 11.7.
This continued contact and demands for money from a person who is not liable in law, is a significant nuisance that is continuing to affect my peace of mind and that of my family, distracting me from my work and my daily life. Hours of my time have already been wasted on this matter, only to receive more threatening and misleading letters with ever increasing sums of money. The entire rogue ticketing operation and the constant bombardment of legalese and threatening letters indicates a course of unwarranted harassment in pursuit of money I do not owe to anyone.
I also suffer from heart disease and the stress and anxiety caused by all this is making my symptoms worse. A chronic condition likely to last more than 12 months means I have a protected characteristic as defined within the Equality Act 2010 (the EA), and you and your client are making it worse. Harassment of a person who meets the definition of disability under the EA is specifically illegal within the statute under section 26: (insert link)
This baseless but nasty financial attack on me is causing me serious distress (Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd. [2009] EWCA Civ 46 is the authority in such a case). Should your client proceed, I will have no hesitation in seeking my full costs on the indemnity basis, and will invite the Court to dismiss the claim and to award such Defence witness costs as are permissible, pursuant to CPR 27.14.
Take formal note, and tell your clients: This is a formal cease and desist letter, and a Section 10 notice under the DPA. You and your client must now stop processing my data and delete it from your records after cancelling the meritless 'charge' you are chasing, to my huge distress.
If your client proceeds to court, I will file a counter-claim in excess of the sum your client is unreasonably demanding, seeking Vidall Hall compensation for my distress that I am noting and recounting to family and friends on a week-by-week basis, as evidence to support my position. The unwelcome and detrimental effect on my chronic condition can be shown by evidence from my GP, to have flared up as a result of your unreasonable and unwarranted demands, and I will have no hesitation in seeking the full amount of damages the Judge sees fit to award.
I am aware of the following two cases in the past year:
- on Friday 16th March, in case D8HW7G7P in the Slough County Court, another notorious ex-clamper parking firm (UKPC) lost an unreasonable claim against a beleaguered motorist and were found liable for the Defendant's ordinary costs and his £500 counter-claim for distress for a DPA breach by processing his data contrary to the Data Protection Principles.
- in May 2017, in case D6GM2199 CEL v Mr B, Bury County Court, before DJ Osborne, a motorist was awarded £900 because another ex-clamper parking company of the same type as your client (in this case, Civil Enforcement Limited) committed data protection breaches against him. Mr B. was the vehicle keeper but was not the driver on the day. As the NTK was not POFA compliant (same as your client's NTK), the parking firm had no valid claim against the keeper. In addition, Wright Hassall (mirroring the conduct of BW Legal's robo-claim modus operandi) had acted unreasonably in artificially inflating the claim from £100 to £300 by adding spurious amounts.
Mr B filed a counterclaim and this was upheld. In his judgment, DJ Osborne ruled a data breach had occurred, the tort of damages was applicable and that £500 was not an unreasonable amount in the circumstances. He added an additional £405 in costs, part of which were awarded on the indemnity basis, under rule 27.14.2(g) for the unreasonable behaviour of CEL. The Judge also stated he was disappointed in the claimant bringing an unfounded case, and in the behaviour of Wright Hassall who were otherwise a respectable law firm.
I urge you to avoid the same, and confirm this charge is immediately cancelled and my data as registered keeper is removed from all records held by you and your clients. If this claim is therefore not expedited and negated, due to all of the above, I shall also progress a case to the British Parking Association to report your client. To attempt to take such threatening advantage of a distressed and layman in this way is a disgrace.
If no reply is provided within 7 days, I will consider this matter closed and will not enter into any further correspondence with you.
Yours faithfully,
XXX
0
Comments
-
Only have the above if they have your address wrong.I currently reside at ____.
You need more here, you didn't make the payment so don't say you did. Try this:On the day of the alleged contravention I parked my car an when we returned, my wife went to pay whilst I was helping my Mother alight safely into the car and then collapsing and storing her wheelchair. My wife put in my number plate and paid the amount of money the ticket machine showed and we left promptly. Your client has not denied this payment and needs to evidence that the ticket machine was not faulty on this day.
Here, add details of your Mother's disability and refer to a copy of her Blue Badge which you should attach. Try this:I suffer from heart disease and the stress and anxiety caused by all this is making my symptoms worse. A chronic condition likely to last more than 12 months means I have a protected characteristic as defined within the Equality Act 2010 (the EA), and you and your client are making it worse.
Whilst my own protected characteristics were not mentioned at appeal stage, those of my disabled passenger certainly were made clear to your client. From the appeals already made, your client indisputably already 'knew or should have known' about my Mother's protected characteristics and had a statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments on two counts:
(a) - in advance, for the disabled population 'at large' whether known or not (this is to avoid 'indirect discrimination' and your client has failed), and
(b) - as soon as they knew about my passenger's protected characteristics and our need for more parking time and did not make reasonable adjustments and cancel the unconscionable 'parking charge', your client also broke the law as regards 'direct discrimination'.
Harassment of a person who meets the definition of disability under the EA is specifically illegal within the statute under section 26:
(insert link).
DMUK's own Helen Dolphin is in contact with a number of parking firms so it is alarming that she does not appear to have told your clients that their behaviour is illegal, and that where a tariff is charged for a certain parking time, that same tariff MUST buy a longer period for people with Blue Badges. Your client should read Ms Dolphin's own legal victory on this point of law:
http://www.wake-smith.co.uk/news/council-car-park-case-settled-a-victory-for-blue-badge-holders/
The Equality Act applies equally to private service providers as well as to Local Councils. Your client is breaking the law, and if they sue me, I will counter-sue.
I assume you have already blabbed about who was driving?PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Just a few of points:
You state "I am aware of the following two cases in the past year" and then go on to mention two cases over a year old.
As this is a response to a Letter Before Claim, it seems a bit premature to call yourself the Defendant.
"The losing party has 14 days to make payment ..."
The losing party usually has twice as long as that.
"If no reply is provided within 7 days..."
The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims allows them thirty days to respond to requests from the alleged debtor.0 -
No the March one was from 2018, Henry Hippo's counter claim win on pepipoo.You state "I am aware of the following two cases in the past year" and then go on to mention two cases over a year old.
Agree with all your other points!
The OP could also hit them with Blamires (search the forum, I've written a letter like this in 2017, that cited Blamires and I think it went to BW Legal, for a disabled lady poster). Relevant compensation under the EA for harassment - Vidal Hall stylee, but an EA-specific case.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Many thanks for your comments.
And yes unfortunately I!!!8217;ve already disclosed I was the driver.0 -
This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.
Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct
Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.
The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.
http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41
and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.9K Spending & Discounts
- 244.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.2K Life & Family
- 258.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards