Parking Awareness Service (PAS) PCN

Grimble wrote: »

Debt Logic, Vanquish are all part of Mathews scam, you could reply asking for all the paperwork they intend to rely on in court and an unredacted contract with the land owner if you want a laugh.

Thanks Grimble, i'd thought of doing this, however I wanted to see whether there was a consensus view as to whether I should proceed with the response I posted earlier.

It's a long one! Here's my proposed response to Debt Logic's LBA. Your opinions would be gratefully received, so that I can amend accordingly before I send it.

Debt Logic
27 Old Gloucester Street,
London
WC1N 3AX

August 2018

Your Ref:

To Debt Logic Pre-Litigation Manager,

Cease and desist from contacting me - this is now unwarranted harassment and your client is causing significant distress to me and my family.

Your letter and previous communications clearly display my complete lack of liability as outlined below [my bold]:

1. You letter before claim dated 2018 refers to me as the !!!8216;driver!!!8217; of the vehicle in question, despite this being untrue - !!!8217;We write to you, the driver of the vehicle to advise that if payment or adequate response is not received in 30 days no further correspondence will be sent. The next letter you receive will be court proceedings!!!8217;.
!!!8216;On , you were granted a limited contractual licence to enter the private land at which is managed and operated by our client. Of which the driver agreed when parking to adhere to the Terms & Conditions of the site!!!8217;.
!!!8216;On you breached the Terms & Conditions [Reason: Parked longer than the period allocated to their vehicle!!!8217;s registration]. The breach resulted in our client issuing a Parking Charge Notice.

2. Your client acknowledged in their letter dated 2018 that the Parking Charge Notice which they issued was !!!8216;NonPOFA!!!8217;. You are of course aware that outwith the POFA there is no keeper liability.
It must also be noted that your client in this very same letter stated !!!8216;The PCN sent to you was NonPOFA as the DVLA carried out an audit (to ensure legitimacy of the request) causing the issue of the PCN to be delayed!!!8217;. The DVLA have confirmed to me in writing, that no audit was being undertaken at this time which would have delayed the issue of the PCN and it is therefore readily apparent that your client is acting in a dishonest manner, bringing the DVLA into disrepute in a libellous manner.

This continued contact and demands for money from me, a person who is not liable in law, as I was not the driver and POFA was flagrantly not adhered to you by your client, 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. The entire rogue ticketing operation and the bombardment of legalese and threatening letters indicates a course of unwarranted harassment in pursuit of money I do not owe to anyone.

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.

I repeat - you know I am not liable in law, outwith the POFA, there is no 'keeper liability'.

Stop writing misleading letters. Stop writing any letters. Your client has no cause of action against me and must take it up with the driver, and should have done so in a timely manner, establishing on the day who that party was, if they felt there was a parking charge due.

Take formal note, and tell your clients: This is a formal cease and desist letter, and a Section 10 notice under the DPA. I have already issued a Section 10 notice to your client on 2018 via electronic communication, which has been ignored which is extremely troubling. 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. 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 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.

It must also be noted that your letter before claim of 2018 contained insufficient detail of the claim and failed to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon.

Your client must know that on 1st October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.

Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.

As the letter was written by you as the !!!8216;Pre-Litigation Manager!!!8217; you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter and your client, as a serial litigator of small claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you and your client must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that your firm have sent me a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.

I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. To explicitly state whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. To explicitly state whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. What the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to It and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
7. Provide me with a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1
8. A plan showing where any signs were displayed
9. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) !!!8211; Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.


Yours faithfully,